Forum:SH:Those strange, strange early canon sources

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. C4-DE Bot (talk) 06:36, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
Forums > Senate Hall archive > SH:Those strange, strange early canon sources

This is a discussion I promised I would open up a couple weeks ago, then got distracted with the clone name update, but here we finally are! This is just a general "how do we feel!" thread about that strange era of early canon sources that reprinted Legends books, but always with story group credits. Especially funny examples include Star Wars: Jedi vs. Sith and Star Wars: I Want to Be a Jedi 2017, which reprint both Legends and canon books under the same book, although often with a divide in "chapters." We also take Star Wars: A Galaxy at War, released twice under the Disney brand with story group credits, as canon. Some users have been uncomfortable with using these sources and others like them as canon, while others, like myself, support it. I figure we could talk through it here to see if there is any major disagreements. Editoronthewiki (talk) 21:12, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Discussion

  • With the exception of Star Wars Expert Guide, which we have on the books proof of the story group ignoring since it mentions Galen Marek, I think we should take these as canon. They have story group credits, they don't offer suddenly world changing info (like Galen), they're basic books released early in the Disney era to just get basic info out. Then we also have Galaxy at War, being released in 2018, without any sign of it being "Legends material." Editoronthewiki (talk) 21:12, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
    • We do have some status articles that link to Expert Guide, but I believe that's a mistake entirely lol Editoronthewiki (talk) 21:12, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
    • Also, I know some users may just want to go "well lets just ask the Story Group!", but let that be a more last resort, I don't want to see Wooks repeatedly pester people over a several years old book that five people have heard of Editoronthewiki (talk) 21:52, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
  • I think Star Wars in 100 Scenes 2015 falls in the same boat as the others; I agree with you that it's fine treating them as canon, because they don't provide any indication that they are Legends, and they generally don't provide any world changing info. ThrawnChiss7 Mitth symbol Assembly Cupola 22:49, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
    • I've changed my mind, per Anil and the Canon policy which states that "All re-releases, remakes, and adaptations" that are "not updated to include information from canon source material" shall be considered Legends. I think that a book published in a compendium with other books counts as a re-release, and thus should stay Legends. ThrawnChiss7 Mitth symbol Assembly Cupola 13:05, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
  • I've read through Star Wars: A Galaxy at War a few times and I can say that there is not a single thing in the book that would not be considered Canon without the book. Save for the mention of Grievous' shuttle accident but most of those details have been recanonized by later Canon sources anyway so I don't see why that would be an issue. This, plus the Story Group credits tells me that this book should be considered Canon and I don't see any real reason it shouldn't be. Mr Star Wars AminoRepublic (talk) 11:10, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
    • Grievous's shuttle was also mentioned in helmet collection and that didn't hold back that release from being canon :P. Galaxy at War getting rereleased again also backs that up lol Editoronthewiki (talk) 23:58, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
      • Wait Galaxy at War was released post-April 25, 2014, a month or so but still post, and then released again and again, lol. not sure its even something that fits this overall discussion. i'd say difference between a 2013 source released under the rebrand and something like Galaxy Editoronthewiki (talk) 00:50, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
  • I also agree with considering them Canon so long as nothing in them is explicitly contra-Canon. - JMAS Jolly Trooper Hey, it's me! 04:05, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
  • I honestly think Pablo Hidalgo not being aware of the Expert Guide's existence (even though he is credited as "Lucasfilm Story Group" there XD) is a pretty clear sign that the content of these pre-2014 books shouldn't be considered canon now because they are included in a post-2014 compilation book. And cherrypicking what can fit the current canon in such books as canon (Aurra being a former Jedi, for example) while treating mentions of synthetic red crystals from the same book (Star Wars: Jedi vs. Sith) as outdated Legends info shouldn't be our call to make, imo. About some of the arguments above:
    • They are not "contra-Canon" for the most part indeed, but you can find many similar bits in them (Galen Marek, Hugo Damask, Imperial stormtroopers being mostly clones, Darth Maul being born on Iridonia, etc.) that make it clear that these are not vetted by LSG for the new continuity.
    • Disney logo and LSG credits don't really indicate that all reprinted material is now a part of the new canon continuity either; the same type of branding is also present in, say, Marvel prints of Tales of the Jedi comics (credits) or SWTOR credits.
    • These books' credits/covers also suggest that they are merely 3-books-in-1-type compilations (1, 2), unlike "Updated/New Editions" of Visual Dictionaries, which "contain previously published content" that has been updated to fit the current canon. TanDivoInsignia-SenateMurders Anıl Şerifoğlu (talk) 04:10, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
      • I will note, even Ulimate Star Wars made reference to synthetic crystals Editoronthewiki (talk) 00:36, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
        • And the recent Lightsabers and Jedi Equipment made a mistaken reference to them, lol. in that case, we did what we would do with any other mistake. Note in the BTS Editoronthewiki (talk) 00:46, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
          • It's not really uncommon to have outdated information in some of the new reference material, especially in De Agostini stuff, but I just don't see why we should treat a Legends book's unrevised reprint as "now canon but with mistakes" just because it was re-released in a book compilation. TanDivoInsignia-SenateMurders Anıl Şerifoğlu (talk) 12:53, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
  • Very much per Anil that it's not our call to cherry pick what we think is and isn't Canon from iffy sources like this. Fan26 (Talk) 04:27, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
  • I am not against them being regarded Canon, but per Anil there is ample reason to believe they should not be. Though this is frowned against I do believe the best course of action would be asking a representative from the story group outright rather than making a decision without confirmation. - Thannus (DFaceG) (he/him) (talk) 18:45, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
  • I fourth Anil's excellent points. Asithol (talk) 08:05, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
  • Would be best to ask about it, but if we recieve no response, then ultimately shouldn't be up to us to cherrypick per above.—spookywillowwtalk 00:39, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
  • I have sent over a question to Pablo on bluesky to test the waters but he has not responded, again I don't think too many people are interested in old sources like this aside from us. I know it goes without saying, but, no matter what outcome is reached, please do not harass or annoy lucasfilm employees. Editoronthewiki (talk) 05:46, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
    • My blusky ask in case anything changes and a response is reached can be found here Editoronthewiki (talk) 05:48, 18 February 2024 (UTC)