Forums > Senate Hall archive > SH:FFG canonicity question
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. EcksBot (talk) 22:35, October 24, 2018 (UTC)
Hi.
I, or rather, someone I know has a question about the Fantasy Flight Games material and canonicity.
Basically, why is it that some parts of it are considered canon on here, when Pablo Hidalgo indicated that the material's neither canon nor legends?
Weedle McHairybug (talk) 10:17, July 31, 2018 (UTC)
- Correct. It's "not canon" - the splatbooks draw from both Legends and Canon. So that affects us in three ways:
- Articles which exist in both - call it the "X-wing example"
- Articles which exist just in Legends - call it the "Ketch" example
- Articles which exist only in Canon - call it the "Antoc Merrick" example
- FFG isn't able to create new canon, per se. Per our Canon policy, we treat the system as Legends by default - unless it applies specifically to a Canon entity (ie, the Merrick example). Corellian Premier
The Force will be with you always 15:12, July 31, 2018 (UTC)
- What about parts of Nexus of Power for example? Some sections of it contain Lothal and canon-only information, such as the events of Star Wars Rebels. Since at that point it's not "exclusively" Legends as stated in the canon policy, how would we treat such material?--Vitus InfinitusTalk 16:47, July 31, 2018 (UTC)
- The parts that are Canon, we treat as Canon; the parts that are Legends, we treat as Legends. You might notice that not every FFG source uses the Canon/Legends banner in the Eras template, because some have elements of both. We've been doing it this way for quite some time now. I'm pretty surprised this question still needs to be answered. Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 16:58, July 31, 2018 (UTC)
- Ah alright, I figured that's what we were doing but I wasn't sure if it was ever set in stone. Now, I do have another question. Ghosts of Dathomir's Jerserra seems to have been trained by a canon version of the Inquisitor (Seems to me because of the Inquisitorius' notorious Double-bladed spinning lightsaber as well as how they're described), and from what I have been able to read there isn't much exclusive Legends info if any. (There's some new vehicles, and a ton of new info on Toydaria, as well as new info on Dathomir and other things) so does the book's story then follow the canon continuity? It seems like a long shot to me but I haven't found much in terms of Legends things and information. I haven't read Knights of Fate but based solely on the cover and the appearances section which includes some canon only things, is it labeled in the correct continuity? I'm just looking for clarity, I know this is a case-by-case basis and difficult to ascertain--Vitus InfinitusTalk 12:56, August 1, 2018 (UTC)
- The parts that are Canon, we treat as Canon; the parts that are Legends, we treat as Legends. You might notice that not every FFG source uses the Canon/Legends banner in the Eras template, because some have elements of both. We've been doing it this way for quite some time now. I'm pretty surprised this question still needs to be answered. Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 16:58, July 31, 2018 (UTC)
- What about parts of Nexus of Power for example? Some sections of it contain Lothal and canon-only information, such as the events of Star Wars Rebels. Since at that point it's not "exclusively" Legends as stated in the canon policy, how would we treat such material?--Vitus InfinitusTalk 16:47, July 31, 2018 (UTC)
- After the announcement of the new Fantasy Flight Games sourcebook, Rise of the Separatists, I asked Matt Martin on where the Story Group classifies it, either in canon or canon-adjacent. His response to my tweet was very interesting. In this tweet he states that Rise of the Separatists is as close to canon as one can get from a roleplaying game, and that he would say that for any FFG title released in recent years. (I'm assuming recent means from 2016 to present). This would indicate that large changes or discussions may be needed to how we look at FFG products.--Vitus InfinitusTalk 00:31, August 11, 2018 (UTC)
- There has been several updates, I will be sending Matt's tweets but I recommend reading the entirety of the thread: follow up tweet, second follow up tweet.--Vitus InfinitusTalk 01:47, August 11, 2018 (UTC)
- I think as close to canon as any RPG can get is probably equivalent to canon as far as we're concerned, I mean no RPG can ever be 100% canon due to their very nature. At the very least I'd say this means we should treat the contents as defacto canon unless they are specifically about Legends content like the Old Republic era. Ayrehead02 (talk) 08:30, August 11, 2018 (UTC)
- That's basically the current system, per Matt's tweets "There isn't a black and white answer for this question" or "I wouldn’t consider any of them completely canon". Canon exclusive information goes to canon like Dawn of Rebellion or the TFA Beginner's Game, otherwise it goes to Legends. --DarthRuiz30 (talk) 08:38, August 11, 2018 (UTC)
- Yes, but I'm suggesting that based on Matt's tweets it shouldn't go to Legends unless its Legends exclusive information. Therefore any new information like the characters in Ghosts of Dathomir should be canon. Ayrehead02 (talk) 09:04, August 11, 2018 (UTC)
- Not sure if its the right path for it, assuming is canon without being sure that its 100% canon. If they say "There isn't a black and white answer for this question" or "I wouldn’t consider any of them completely canon" why not create a template for the new FFG exclusive characters, something like {{EastereggCanon}} or the {{Noncanon}} explaining that its a FFG exclusive character and that its uncertain its canonicity. If its canon-exclsuive would go to canon, if its legends-exclusive would go to legends, but if there's no clue to what canonicity the new character belongs then just add the template saying its uncertain its canonicity.--DarthRuiz30 (talk) 09:15, August 11, 2018 (UTC)
- I feel like Matt Martin saying that it's as close to canon as it can be suggests that they should be canon, even if we use some template to denote this like we do for Star Wars tales 1-20. Honestly, for recent books there has been very little Legends exclusive content at all, and mostly stuff that I'd argue could be considered reintroduction of minor concepts into canon. Contradictory stuff like the Old Republic seems to have been all but abandoned. Ayrehead02 (talk) 09:19, August 11, 2018 (UTC)
- I would be on board for a Tales typle template, the wook shouldn't confirm 100% that something is canon when the closest thing we have is "it's as close to canon as it can be" , but they don't consider it "completely canon"--DarthRuiz30 (talk) 09:25, August 11, 2018 (UTC)
- I mean we're currently confirming stuff as 100% or 100% Legends from these books anyway so I think a template is the best solution which ever way we go. Ayrehead02 (talk) 09:29, August 11, 2018 (UTC)
- I'd agree with Ayrehead, and I also think using template is a good idea until at least this FFG thing gets (hopefully) further specified. Matt also said that his opinion was that information on sourcebooks and information of that nature should be fine for Wookieepedia, and based on his previous comments about any FFG title released in recent years being as close to canon as they can get, I think it's fair to assume that such titles with no exclusive Legends info can be marked as canon, which in my opinion, also includes new information (Heck we have two confirmed canon FFG books already, DoR and TFA Beginner's Game). A template would certainly come in handy for now.--Vitus InfinitusTalk 13:12, August 11, 2018 (UTC)
- I mean we're currently confirming stuff as 100% or 100% Legends from these books anyway so I think a template is the best solution which ever way we go. Ayrehead02 (talk) 09:29, August 11, 2018 (UTC)
- I would be on board for a Tales typle template, the wook shouldn't confirm 100% that something is canon when the closest thing we have is "it's as close to canon as it can be" , but they don't consider it "completely canon"--DarthRuiz30 (talk) 09:25, August 11, 2018 (UTC)
- I feel like Matt Martin saying that it's as close to canon as it can be suggests that they should be canon, even if we use some template to denote this like we do for Star Wars tales 1-20. Honestly, for recent books there has been very little Legends exclusive content at all, and mostly stuff that I'd argue could be considered reintroduction of minor concepts into canon. Contradictory stuff like the Old Republic seems to have been all but abandoned. Ayrehead02 (talk) 09:19, August 11, 2018 (UTC)
- Not sure if its the right path for it, assuming is canon without being sure that its 100% canon. If they say "There isn't a black and white answer for this question" or "I wouldn’t consider any of them completely canon" why not create a template for the new FFG exclusive characters, something like {{EastereggCanon}} or the {{Noncanon}} explaining that its a FFG exclusive character and that its uncertain its canonicity. If its canon-exclsuive would go to canon, if its legends-exclusive would go to legends, but if there's no clue to what canonicity the new character belongs then just add the template saying its uncertain its canonicity.--DarthRuiz30 (talk) 09:15, August 11, 2018 (UTC)
- Yes, but I'm suggesting that based on Matt's tweets it shouldn't go to Legends unless its Legends exclusive information. Therefore any new information like the characters in Ghosts of Dathomir should be canon. Ayrehead02 (talk) 09:04, August 11, 2018 (UTC)
- That's basically the current system, per Matt's tweets "There isn't a black and white answer for this question" or "I wouldn’t consider any of them completely canon". Canon exclusive information goes to canon like Dawn of Rebellion or the TFA Beginner's Game, otherwise it goes to Legends. --DarthRuiz30 (talk) 08:38, August 11, 2018 (UTC)
- I think as close to canon as any RPG can get is probably equivalent to canon as far as we're concerned, I mean no RPG can ever be 100% canon due to their very nature. At the very least I'd say this means we should treat the contents as defacto canon unless they are specifically about Legends content like the Old Republic era. Ayrehead02 (talk) 08:30, August 11, 2018 (UTC)
- There has been several updates, I will be sending Matt's tweets but I recommend reading the entirety of the thread: follow up tweet, second follow up tweet.--Vitus InfinitusTalk 01:47, August 11, 2018 (UTC)
- We should start reviewing FFG roleplaying books from 2016 and above, clean them up, and bring them to canon continuity if it features significant canon-only content or new content that adheres more to canon continuity and is not exclusively Legends. FFG roleplaying books from 2016 are the ones that are usually mixed, with several pertaining to canon while others still contain mostly Legends-only content. 2017 and 2018 will be easier. Now, I looked at No Disintegrations, and for me it's clear that it pertains to canon. While it does have some Legends ships and locations, there are many canon-only contents such as characters and locations and several vehicles (ex. Fang fighter, Chelli Lona Aphra, Kanan Jarrus, Kaller Ketsu Onyo, Kaller system, C-ROC Gozanti-class cruiser, Lothal, Imperial Planetary Occupation Facility, and more). Since this book is not exclusively Legends, and based on Matt Martin's tweet, I believe we should fix this and all related articles sourced to this to canon. In this book, if there is a Legends subject established in other material (not necessarily only FFG), this book would constitute a canon version of only the content covered in this book. If it is a new subject, it should be a canon article. If it is a canon article, this book and its information is added to the article. If there's a Legends character introduced only in another FFG book that adheres to Legends like Suns of Fortune, we have both a canon and Legends article as we would for any Legends-only subject covered in the book. I'm open to suggestions/amendments--Vitus InfinitusTalk 13:54, August 25, 2018 (UTC)
- The tweets are not enough to label all canon, the tweets contradict themselves. As for "it's probably about as close to canon as you could get" then another says "I wouldn’t consider any of them completely canon". Even back in 2014 during the canon reboot he said that they may not be considered canon. One thing is that some stuff could work with the current canon and another thing saying this stuff is canon. I stand for what I said, any new character introduced by FFG can be labeled canon, but I suggest creating the {{Tales1-20}}-like template, warning the user that it may not be 100% canon, but it works within the current canon. If its a Legends only subject it should stay Legends until the character is introduced in canon and we make sure that FFG does not contradict the canon version of that character. And for canon only characters like Kanan and Aphra my guess is that they're okay to add the information inside the article and if people belive that FFG is a bit ambiguous then we can add a {{Talesstart}}-like template--DarthRuiz30 (talk) 07:09, August 27, 2018 (UTC)
- I think they mean that "it's probably as close to canon as you could get" or "I wouldn't consider any of them completely canon" it's not necessarily talking about canon or Legends it seems, but more on because it's roleplaying. When asked about actual information in the book he believes that the information should be okay to add to the Wook. As for Legends and canon, yeah there are many things that are clearly Legends, especially stuff from 2014 and 2015, which is why a review needs to be made. Now a template is pretty beneficial but I think we encounter two main issues now that I've been thinking. We don't use templates for any of the WEG information, which follows the exact same logic except that it's geared for Legends rather than FFG with canon, so would we need to include a template there? Also, seeing as how a lot of information can be added to many existing articles, and not solely pages with exclusive FFG information, we're going to be seeing a large influx of articles with this template on, such as articles from Inquisitorius Headquarters, to Phoenix Cell, to Ahsoka Tano, to clone trooper and countless more. Matt Martin's recent tweet here (so anyone reading can stay up to date)--Vitus InfinitusTalk 12:15, August 27, 2018 (UTC)
- Sorry to interject here, but I have an issue regarding the proposed template usage. Let's say for example, that FFG creates a new character. Let's call him "Bob Brightpooper." He did not previously exist in Legends, so we slap a template saying that he is "sort-of canon until referenced by another canon source." And then Bob does get referenced by a canon source; it's clearly the same character, with the same backstory, species, hair color, social security number, etc. However, the new canon source completely disregards FFG's previous storyline. For example, in FFG, Bob lived on to see the rise of the First Order, but in the canon source he died during the Battle of Yavin. How do we treat such discrepancy? Does that mean that FFG's version is relegated to Legends or do we create a separate FFG tab? QuiGonJinn
(Talk) 13:33, August 27, 2018 (UTC)
- Something similar to that happened with the Sphyrna-class corvette. Dawn of Rebellion (confirmed canon because FFG announced it was based on Rebels and Rogue One), said that it was a Hammerhead-class and that it was manufactured by Rendili StarDrive and many other details. This was overwritten by Star Wars Encyclopedia of Starfighters and Other Vehicles which called it a Sphyrna-class and that it was made by Corellian Engineering Corporation. The information from Dawn was removed and added to the "Behind the scenes" section of the article and made note of the situation (Which is what's been done in many cases I've seen with canon articles, in which the newer source overrides the previous source, which is how the Story Group also treats it). This question is relatable to this SH thread about information from the non-canon LEGO Star Wars: The Freemaker Adventures being canonized by Star Wars: Droidography.--Vitus InfinitusTalk 15:12, August 27, 2018 (UTC)
- One thing is that some stuff could work with the current canon and another thing saying this stuff is canon. Matt answers the same question different ways over and over. As for using the template in canon only articles like Phoenix cell and others, we're not going to use the template, it's not going to have one at the top. If people feel it should have one, we can use one like the {{Talesstart}} which goes inside the text. It's clear that they don't want to give a clear answer about it, and we shouldn't force an answer from them, eventually we're going to get one. This is why I think we should use something like this, the bottom one is just in case and would be used in already established canon characters. The one its important is the top one (its not final so any suggestions are welcome) basically it says what SG told us that Fantasy Flight Games content to has some level of canonicity ("I wouldn’t consider any of them completely canon" or "it's probably as close to canon as you could get") unless is contradicted elsewhere ("I would put FFG in the canon tab unless contradicted elsewhere"). That way FFG information can be tagged as canon, but warn the reader that they may not be 100% canonical, to take it with grain of salt.--DarthRuiz30 (talk) 05:15, August 28, 2018 (UTC)
- One suggestion I have for the proposed template is to change the phrase "Fantasy Flight Games book" to "Fantasy Flight Games product." This way, we also incorporate FFG's trading card games, which may also contain new information. QuiGonJinn (Talk) 06:15, August 28, 2018 (UTC)
- Absolutely, thanks for the suggestion. Now its changed--DarthRuiz30 (talk) 06:28, August 28, 2018 (UTC)
- I'd certainly support those templates, although you've currently got a double full stop on the second to last sentence. Ayrehead02 (talk) 09:31, August 29, 2018 (UTC)
- Absolutely, thanks for the suggestion. Now its changed--DarthRuiz30 (talk) 06:28, August 28, 2018 (UTC)
- One suggestion I have for the proposed template is to change the phrase "Fantasy Flight Games book" to "Fantasy Flight Games product." This way, we also incorporate FFG's trading card games, which may also contain new information. QuiGonJinn
- One thing is that some stuff could work with the current canon and another thing saying this stuff is canon. Matt answers the same question different ways over and over. As for using the template in canon only articles like Phoenix cell and others, we're not going to use the template, it's not going to have one at the top. If people feel it should have one, we can use one like the {{Talesstart}} which goes inside the text. It's clear that they don't want to give a clear answer about it, and we shouldn't force an answer from them, eventually we're going to get one. This is why I think we should use something like this, the bottom one is just in case and would be used in already established canon characters. The one its important is the top one (its not final so any suggestions are welcome) basically it says what SG told us that Fantasy Flight Games content to has some level of canonicity ("I wouldn’t consider any of them completely canon" or "it's probably as close to canon as you could get") unless is contradicted elsewhere ("I would put FFG in the canon tab unless contradicted elsewhere"). That way FFG information can be tagged as canon, but warn the reader that they may not be 100% canonical, to take it with grain of salt.--DarthRuiz30 (talk) 05:15, August 28, 2018 (UTC)
- Something similar to that happened with the Sphyrna-class corvette. Dawn of Rebellion (confirmed canon because FFG announced it was based on Rebels and Rogue One), said that it was a Hammerhead-class and that it was manufactured by Rendili StarDrive and many other details. This was overwritten by Star Wars Encyclopedia of Starfighters and Other Vehicles which called it a Sphyrna-class and that it was made by Corellian Engineering Corporation. The information from Dawn was removed and added to the "Behind the scenes" section of the article and made note of the situation (Which is what's been done in many cases I've seen with canon articles, in which the newer source overrides the previous source, which is how the Story Group also treats it). This question is relatable to this SH thread about information from the non-canon LEGO Star Wars: The Freemaker Adventures being canonized by Star Wars: Droidography.--Vitus InfinitusTalk 15:12, August 27, 2018 (UTC)
- Sorry to interject here, but I have an issue regarding the proposed template usage. Let's say for example, that FFG creates a new character. Let's call him "Bob Brightpooper." He did not previously exist in Legends, so we slap a template saying that he is "sort-of canon until referenced by another canon source." And then Bob does get referenced by a canon source; it's clearly the same character, with the same backstory, species, hair color, social security number, etc. However, the new canon source completely disregards FFG's previous storyline. For example, in FFG, Bob lived on to see the rise of the First Order, but in the canon source he died during the Battle of Yavin. How do we treat such discrepancy? Does that mean that FFG's version is relegated to Legends or do we create a separate FFG tab? QuiGonJinn
- I think they mean that "it's probably as close to canon as you could get" or "I wouldn't consider any of them completely canon" it's not necessarily talking about canon or Legends it seems, but more on because it's roleplaying. When asked about actual information in the book he believes that the information should be okay to add to the Wook. As for Legends and canon, yeah there are many things that are clearly Legends, especially stuff from 2014 and 2015, which is why a review needs to be made. Now a template is pretty beneficial but I think we encounter two main issues now that I've been thinking. We don't use templates for any of the WEG information, which follows the exact same logic except that it's geared for Legends rather than FFG with canon, so would we need to include a template there? Also, seeing as how a lot of information can be added to many existing articles, and not solely pages with exclusive FFG information, we're going to be seeing a large influx of articles with this template on, such as articles from Inquisitorius Headquarters, to Phoenix Cell, to Ahsoka Tano, to clone trooper and countless more. Matt Martin's recent tweet here (so anyone reading can stay up to date)--Vitus InfinitusTalk 12:15, August 27, 2018 (UTC)
- The tweets are not enough to label all canon, the tweets contradict themselves. As for "it's probably about as close to canon as you could get" then another says "I wouldn’t consider any of them completely canon". Even back in 2014 during the canon reboot he said that they may not be considered canon. One thing is that some stuff could work with the current canon and another thing saying this stuff is canon. I stand for what I said, any new character introduced by FFG can be labeled canon, but I suggest creating the {{Tales1-20}}-like template, warning the user that it may not be 100% canon, but it works within the current canon. If its a Legends only subject it should stay Legends until the character is introduced in canon and we make sure that FFG does not contradict the canon version of that character. And for canon only characters like Kanan and Aphra my guess is that they're okay to add the information inside the article and if people belive that FFG is a bit ambiguous then we can add a {{Talesstart}}-like template--DarthRuiz30 (talk) 07:09, August 27, 2018 (UTC)
- I'm not really sure about making them canon by default. At most, if we shouldn't make them Legends by default, we should at the very least make their canonicity debatable especially if they haven't previously appeared in either Legends or Canon. We need a firm stance regarding where they go, in other words. So I pretty much disagree with AyreHead02's suggestion. Weedle McHairybug (talk) 15:43, September 20, 2018 (UTC)
