Hi, if this is something covered in an FAQ then I apologise in advance for "wasting people's time". I just wanted to ask a general question about Wookieepedia's rules on canonicity, persuant to a discussion I've tried to raise on a specific topic without much response.
My basic question is this: If the films clearly but inconsistently depict something which is subsequently contradicted by a reference book, shouldn't the films nevertheless always take canonical priority, being G-Canon? And in cases of internal inconsistency between the films, shouldn't the most frequently-occuring version (in the films) be considered the canonical version, regardless of what 3rd version the reference book espouses?
If you want to know what I'm getting at, I direct you to the talk/discussion page for Unknown Tridactyl Species. It's regarding the arguably minor point of how many toes Yoda's people have that no-one seems interested in discussing, but I'd like to know about the rule, both in principle and specifically so that I'll have a correct appraisal of Wook's canonicity by-laws before I go about editing/reverting the article itself.
Any (polite) advice would be much appreciated, thank you. PacifistPrime.
- My understanding of it is that so long as something does not outright contradict the film or other sources it's considered to be canon. Given that the information in question is ambiguous in other sources, you can generally take the most current non-film source to be the canonical interpretation of what's depicted in the films. Unless an item bears the Infinities label, it's to be considered canon so long as it's not obviously a parody or contradictory to established sources. Vryce 04:24, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
- Typically, yes, stuff shown in the films overrules contradictory stuff in the Expanded Universe (though Leland Chee has indicated there are exceptions even to this in canon, though quite rare). However, as the article notes, the movie evidence itself is contradictory and confusing; in such cases, we often look to either the most recent portrayal, or to clarifications made in official books and other works. In this case, the latter is available in the form of specific mention made in The New Essential Guide to Alien Species, so we have adopted the presentation in that book as our official stance. Also, note that much of what *appears* contradictory is later retconned into a consistent vision; there may be things we don't know about Yoda's feet that make some or all of these contradictory depictions true. jSarek 10:49, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks guys, I really do appreciate you taking the time to answer my query. I must be frank though and state that even in light of what you say it still seems to me that in this case Yoda clearly has anisodactyl feet in 3 out of his 5 move appearance (or 4 out of 5 if you term it "four toes or less"), and you actually can't even see the "canonical" five toes onscreen in AOTC, the version which this reference book is canonising. I accept that retcons do happen and I'll even conceed that sometimes they're neccessary; but I just don't see how that's the case here. It seems to me that this is the clear evidence of the films (which, really, are only slightly contradictory since the ATOC info isn't onscreen and only comes from Chronicles) versus a reference book which I'm quite confident in suspecting isn't actually making a considered retcon but rather who's authour just took a gander at Chronicles and assumed that was correct for all the films. Now obviously I can't back that up as what actually happened, but I mean, really; c'mon: Yoda's anisodactyl feet are clearly visible in ESB when he rummages through Luke's gear and they practically fill the screen in a couple of those senate duct shots in ROTS (the "most recent portrayal"). For a secondary source to then declare that he officially has five toes... how is that not an "outright contradiction"? Surely such clear G-Canon evidence has to outweigh a seemingly poorly-researched (and probably unwitting) line in a reference text...? PacifistPrime
- Okay, another day without further posts. Look, I know this isn't a very interesting topic to anyone else, but I'd really like some kind of noises of approval for my argument before I go ahead and re-edit the article. I'd like to avoid the usual edit war if possible... ;-) Anyone, please? PacifistPrime
- Looks like to me jSarek answered your question. Go with the Species guide, since it is the latest cannon source. Further detailed discussion on the tridactyl species article should probably go to Talk:Unknown tridactyl species. -Fnlayson 05:07, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
- Not relating directly to this question, but Leland Chee (as "Tasty Taste") recently revealed a little insight into the thought processes of the people at Lucasfilm when faced with contradictory G-canon info here: "The out of universe explanation is that in the age of CG, trying to figure out exact dimensions based on film shots can drive you crazy because things get resized for the sole purpose of looking pretty in the composition of a shot . . . Lacking any harder calculations from the films, we often go with the artists' original dimensions." When tri-fighters were shown at variant sizes, they picked some behind-the-scenes information as their "final answer." Given different toe-counts for Yoda, they probably went with some behind-the-scenes comment from Lucas or animator discussion to choose their final answer. jSarek 15:21, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
- Looks like to me jSarek answered your question. Go with the Species guide, since it is the latest cannon source. Further detailed discussion on the tridactyl species article should probably go to Talk:Unknown tridactyl species. -Fnlayson 05:07, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
- Okay, another day without further posts. Look, I know this isn't a very interesting topic to anyone else, but I'd really like some kind of noises of approval for my argument before I go ahead and re-edit the article. I'd like to avoid the usual edit war if possible... ;-) Anyone, please? PacifistPrime
- Thanks guys, I really do appreciate you taking the time to answer my query. I must be frank though and state that even in light of what you say it still seems to me that in this case Yoda clearly has anisodactyl feet in 3 out of his 5 move appearance (or 4 out of 5 if you term it "four toes or less"), and you actually can't even see the "canonical" five toes onscreen in AOTC, the version which this reference book is canonising. I accept that retcons do happen and I'll even conceed that sometimes they're neccessary; but I just don't see how that's the case here. It seems to me that this is the clear evidence of the films (which, really, are only slightly contradictory since the ATOC info isn't onscreen and only comes from Chronicles) versus a reference book which I'm quite confident in suspecting isn't actually making a considered retcon but rather who's authour just took a gander at Chronicles and assumed that was correct for all the films. Now obviously I can't back that up as what actually happened, but I mean, really; c'mon: Yoda's anisodactyl feet are clearly visible in ESB when he rummages through Luke's gear and they practically fill the screen in a couple of those senate duct shots in ROTS (the "most recent portrayal"). For a secondary source to then declare that he officially has five toes... how is that not an "outright contradiction"? Surely such clear G-Canon evidence has to outweigh a seemingly poorly-researched (and probably unwitting) line in a reference text...? PacifistPrime
Thanks for all that guys, your time and insights are appreciated. I have to say though, I think the tweaked sizing of tri-fighters is only barely analogous to the number of Yoda's toes. Again, I really can't reconcile the use of a source which blatantly contradicts the clear evidence of the films. If it were something vague that you can't really see, then fine. If it were something that was 50/50 inconsistent and the source chose one of the two, fine. If it were even referencing the most recently depicted version, fine.
But it's not. You say that we should go with it because it's the most recent Canon source, but that makes little sense when it is using AOTC as its basis and the more recent ROTS has several VERY clear shots of anisodactyl, not five-toed, feet. For example; the DK Visual Dictionary to the Original trilogy states that Vader gradually rose through the ranks of the Imperial Navy and was regarded as mad human wreckage until he eventually won the Emperor's favour. Now that's a "canon source" as much as New Essential Species, but we disregard it because, although it was published "more recently" than the original trilogy films, it a] contradicts ROTJ, and b] was contradicted by the whole prequel trilogy.
Honestly guys, with all due respect I find your assumption that the NESpecies author actually got some kind of authoritative, up-to-date post-ROTS info directly from an animator or Lucas himself to be highly dubious and completely unsupportable; I simply do not believe that there is any indication that this was a carefully-considered retcon as opposed to a mistake caused by inadequate research (i.e. just looking at Chronicles:Prequels); it makes no sense for him to make any kind of careful decision for him to contradict the more recent, clearest film source. I just FUNDAMENTALLY don't see how a reference text which is citing something you can't see in any of the films should be considered of superior canonicity to both Yoda's earliest, middle and most recent appearances in the actual films themselves. PacifistPrime
- Our stance on contradictions are to not make any definite claims on what is the overriding source, because we have no authority to. Especially in a case like this where G-canon contradicts itself. The common course of action, I believe, is to bother Leland about it until a retcon is made, and until then leave the topic undecided. That is to say, leave it out of the article until resolved, and have a mention of it in BTS. DarthMRN 23:24, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
- So, by "leave it out of the article until resolved", do you mean that the article should no longer state that the controversy was "resolved" by New Essential Alien Species, when it so clearly wasn't? In other words, do I have permission to alter the article to say that although NEAS claims 5 toes, this is contradictory and thus the matter remains canonically unresolved? Because even that would be prefereable to the absurd statment that he definitively has 5 toes, in definance of all filmic evidence. Oh, also; how do I go about bugging Leland on this, please? Thanks, PacifistPrime
- Well, I'm not an Admin, nor a veteran, nor is my name Kwenn or Nebulax, but I'd say yes. Remove the definite answer from the article itself, and put it in BTS as an unresolved canon conflict. Bugging Leland can be done here [1] and here [2]. Just remeber not to nag or ask more than once, or JTS (the big kahuna) will fry your arse. Even if he neglects to answer, you will remind him of the issue, possibly pushing it towards a final resolution. DarthMRN 00:27, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks DarthMRN, I'll do that. Cheers, PacifistPrime
- I would like to point out that the NEGAS *was* the retcon. Without further movies to clarify the issue, there can never be a G-level clarification, so we got the next best thing in the form of a C-level clarification. They appear to have internally settled the issue. jSarek 02:37, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
- Well, I'm not an Admin, nor a veteran, nor is my name Kwenn or Nebulax, but I'd say yes. Remove the definite answer from the article itself, and put it in BTS as an unresolved canon conflict. Bugging Leland can be done here [1] and here [2]. Just remeber not to nag or ask more than once, or JTS (the big kahuna) will fry your arse. Even if he neglects to answer, you will remind him of the issue, possibly pushing it towards a final resolution. DarthMRN 00:27, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
- So, by "leave it out of the article until resolved", do you mean that the article should no longer state that the controversy was "resolved" by New Essential Alien Species, when it so clearly wasn't? In other words, do I have permission to alter the article to say that although NEAS claims 5 toes, this is contradictory and thus the matter remains canonically unresolved? Because even that would be prefereable to the absurd statment that he definitively has 5 toes, in definance of all filmic evidence. Oh, also; how do I go about bugging Leland on this, please? Thanks, PacifistPrime