So the 2014 The Official Star Wars Fact File canonicity is unknown. I don't really know the precedent for how we treat this, and it seems to be all over the place. I think that, similar to the Build the Millennium Falcon Canon Policy we should do something like that here. From what I can tell, The Official Star Wars Fact File Part 59 contains the first canon exclusive information, while issues 1-58 draw from Legends sources; and issues 59 onward to not do so as much. I think that a simple solution would be to mark 1-58 Legends only and 59-120 as canon only, but I'm not set on that idea. If any other people have ideas regarding how to treat this, I would love to hear them. I don't think we should assume some articles in issues post 59 are Legends just because they introduce some Legends content; by default, media post-2014 is canon, and we should have a strong reason to assume it's Legends when the mag has referenced canon-only content at that point. Starting from the beginning, canon has drawn extensively from Legends sources, so saying "it can't be canon because it refers to Legends sources" just doesn't seem logical to me. ThrawnChiss7 
Assembly Cupola 14:53, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
Discussion
- Several editors are currently in the process of piecing together the entire 2014 Fact File collection to properly analyze its contents, but there's definietly content well past issue 59 that covers Legends content with stuff like the article in issue 76 that exclusively covers the events of The Bounty Hunters: Scoundrel's Wages in detail. While canon does pull from Legends heavily, I think there's a difference between small references to Legends stories and articles that exclusively cover them with only images from the Legends sources. We're still a ways off working out exactly how they're going to be covered, but whatever the solution is is unfortunately unlikely to be as simple as what we've been able to do with Build the Falcon or Build R2. Ayrehead02 (talk) 16:29, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
- Ok, I was unaware of such articles, that makes to treat those things as Legends. Right now though, how do we treat it in the interim before we have a full policy? For example 36 BBY treats The Official Star Wars Fact File Part 18 AHS1–4, Ahsoka Tano as canon, while The Official Star Wars Fact File Part 78 3 ABY 22, Evacuation is treated as Legends only for status articles (Cabbel/Legends, Cabbel), despite that article having no exclusive Legends material. ThrawnChiss7
Assembly Cupola 16:51, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
- Right now we generally don't cover it at all other than on the pages for the magazines themselves, leaving it in a not ideal limbo. It's admittedly not been done consistently since there's no official policy on how we treat it and in some cases canon exclusive content from things like Rebels is probably safe to cover on canon articles, but overall the best idea is to not cover it so that we don't have to go back and remove it retroactively if whatever policy we chose doesn't align with how people have previously covered it. Ayrehead02 (talk) 16:55, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
- Ok, I was unaware of such articles, that makes to treat those things as Legends. Right now though, how do we treat it in the interim before we have a full policy? For example 36 BBY treats The Official Star Wars Fact File Part 18 AHS1–4, Ahsoka Tano as canon, while The Official Star Wars Fact File Part 78 3 ABY 22, Evacuation is treated as Legends only for status articles (Cabbel/Legends, Cabbel), despite that article having no exclusive Legends material. ThrawnChiss7