Talk: Canon/Archive1

This page is an archive of the discussion of an article. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's current talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.

Original works

What about the origional books written by Geaorge Lucas were they Written as novels or as screenplays? If different, how much authority do they play by comparison to the screenplays? Are there any inconsistancies between the books and the films? Why does Leia remember her mother in ep6 if she died during child birth but Luke does not? When in the ep3 Luke was born seconds BEFORE Leia. Will the over all Star Wars Wiki be considered C-Canon reference material?

• The novels, as far as I am aware, were 'shadow written'- that is, they were written by someone else, but attributed to Lucas. I believe it's thus just below the movies, canon-wise. --Fade 16:58, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• In order, not that you signed or anything: (1) No novels of the Star Wars films were ever written, only novelizations which were based off early versions of the screenplays. And George Lucas' name only appears as an author on the original novelization, which was indeed ghost written by Alan Dean Foster, although he always gets credited with "Story by George Lucas". (2) Published screenplays are considered below the films (which are the ultimate canon source), but above the novelizations. Because novelizations are written concurrently with the shooting of the film, they diverge from the screenplays, which undergo on-set changes as the film is being made. Therefore, published final screenplays (not the supposed early drafts floating around the Internet) are closer to the ultimate source than the inspiration novelizations. (3) Yes, there are inconsistencies between the novelizations and the films, for reasons stated above. As with all sources, when conflict arises between two sources, the higher canon one is correct. So while the novelization of The Empire Strikes Back describes Yoda as blue and tall, the films' imagery of him as green and short prevail. (4) There is no good answer yet on the meaning of Leia's stated memories of her "mother" in light of the new films. Popular explanations include a Force-related memory or that it a memory of her adopted mother who may have died early in Leia's life (a sickness that explains why they could not have a child of their own, and Leia's appointment to the Imperial Senate while Bail Organa stayed on Alderaan to lead). (5) The Star Wars Wiki will not be considered canon at all. It is merely a collection of material at various canon levels. --SparqMan 17:43, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• If the Novels right, how is the movie/script right. A disturbance in the force this is.--wattamb2000
  • Read the article, wattamb2000 - the novels are correct unless they contradict the movies. — Silly Dan 00:23, 25 Aug 2005 (UTC)

Yeah... I agree with Sparqy. No one can remember the day they were born unless they use the Force, right?

Danish on each ear 18:28, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Canon Not So Clean-Cut

• Leland Chee just revealed something very interesting in the Holocron thread: "More likely than not, if Source A is from the films and Source B is from the EU, we'll use Source A. Of course, there can always be exceptions which is why the case-by-case determination is always in effect no matter what the Sources." In other words, there are some cases (undoubtedly quite rare, but existant nonetheless) where the Continuity folks will take C-canon material over G-canon. jSarek 23:12, 25 Oct 2005 (UTC)
  • It's true. For example, I'm still convinced that G-Canon states Boba Fett died in the Sarlaac Pit. If you listen to George on the RotJ commentary, he says that he considered adding a scene in which Boba later escaped, but he changed his mind... and instead we have the added animation of the Sarlaac biting down and eating Boba. Another example is "Greedo the Elder", who does not exist in G-Canon. According to George, that young rodian in the Phantom Menace deleted scenes is the same Greedo we know and love. -BaronGrackle 14:52, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Oh, and I almost forgot about the "Ki-Adi-Mundi was on the Jedi Council before being a Jedi Master" thing. Did we decide the C-Canon trumped Anakin's G-Canon hissy-fit about that, or not? -BaronGrackle 14:58, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
• Ok, so for the record, are the Star Wars Visual Dictionaries considered G or C canon. I know they are licensed by LFL, and I assume that much of the information in there would have to be ok'd by the man himself. There have been several details that were included in them that were only late verified (such as the sections showing the extent of Vader's injuries before the prequels.) I am asking because while Lucas did make the statement above concerning Boba Fett's supposed death in the sarlaac, the Complete Star Wars Visual Dictionary shows his escape route quite clearly in the cross section of the sarlaac. I am assuming for now that it is only C canon, but could this make it G canon? Chervil 14:16, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Like any other work, elements that came directly from Lucas or the movies are G-canon; anything else is C-canon. We can't know exactly what might have come from Lucas and what might not have, but given his previous statements about Fett's escape, we can assume that element is still firmly in C-canon territory. jSarek 03:17, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Title

Is it necessary for this to be titled "Star Wars canon?" I think on a Star Wars Wikicity it's pretty obvious what kind of canon we're talking about. MarcK 02:45, 31 Oct 2005 (UTC)

• You have a point. -- Riffsyphon1024 03:55, 31 Oct 2005 (UTC)
  • So should we move it? Adamwankenobi^{Talk to me! My home.} 01:27, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Roleplays

Do you consider RPs to be canon? I kind of do. Any comments are welcome. --Jeedai123 22:57, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Most RPG material is canon. Things that are not canon include player characters and ships, example items from gameplay instuctions, and anything that is contradicted by a higher source. For things like starship classes or equipment, RPGs can be as valuable as the Essential Guides.

MMORPGs like Star Wars: Galaxies are a bit of a greyer area. Non-random NPCs are canon unless they contradict print sources, as are ships and items and animals and other officially-created assets. Anything caused by player actions is not part of the larger canon, nor are randomly generated NPCs. For example, things like the Border-Legion are NOT canon, no matter how many users are associated with them.

But in general, role-playing material created by a licensed publisher is part of canon. —Darth Culator (talk) 23:20, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

• So this means that we have a crapload of IMO stupid Force powers to include in the list, all of them courtesy of WotC. And canonical proof that the fall to the dark side is measured in terms of morality rather than emotions. Oh, and lets not forget a canonical, arbitrary source stating in plain, out-of-universe terms that the jedi view of the Force is the correct one, and that the Potentium is a delusion. Great. We have a fair workload ahead of us thanks to that damnable RPG.DarthMRN
  • It could be worse; the old West End Games version wouldn't allow a Jedi to use powers in an aggressive way (outside of lightsaber usage) for any reason, or else they'd get a "Dark Side point." Of course, this didn't address Luke Force-choking that Gamorrean guard, but maybe he just had it coming. Jwebb13^HoloNet40px 02:46, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
    • I vaguely recall someone on the old SWRPG mailing list explaining that by saying Luke used "Affect Mind" to make the guard think he was choking. 8) —Silly Dan _(talk) 03:02, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
      • Actually, Luke's RotJ stats *include* a Dark Side Point, presumably from this instance. As to the rest of it, the Force powers are game mechanical descriptions that differ from game to game, so I don't know how much they're rules rather than canon material. As for the Force, it was *always* about absolute morality until Stover tried to make an end run around the canon, resulting in the giant retcon that is the Dark Nest Trilogy and Legacy of the Force. jSarek 09:45, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
        • So the OT's "give in to your anger/or not" was completely unrelated to the fall? I think not. Actually, wouldn't that serve as G-canon proof that the RPG is wrong?DarthMRN
          • The old RPG would've also had a hissy fit about the repeated use of Force Pushes in the prequels, which is basically why I always ignored that segment of the rules. Jwebb13^HoloNet40px 21:32, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
            • Even though the Pushes were against droids? The Jedi don't seem to have much compassion for non-biological sentient existance. -BaronGrackle 21:41, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
              • Sadly, yes. According to the game's rules, ANY use of Force powers in combat, other than lightsaber skills, meant an automatic Dark Side point. Not only was this ridiculous and a handicap to all Jedi characters, it slowed down gameplay by making anyone playing a Jedi second-guess anything and everything their character wanted to do. Like I said, I always just cut this rule out completely, as no change I could've made would have saved that wretched mess. Jwebb13^HoloNet40px 23:16, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
          • What does "give in to your anger" mean? It doesn't mean *feel* anger - it's obvious Luke is already doing that. It means *acting* while that way, which leads to immoral, Dark Side acts. Palpatine wants him to actually act to strike him down, not stew in his anger but maintain control. Yoda's answer to Luke's question of "But how will I know the good side from the bad?" is "You will know. When you are calm, at peace. Passive. A Jedi uses the Force for knowledge and defense, never for attack." This is why being calm is important - it's the only way to see what's good and what's bad. jSarek 07:06, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
• Which is my point exactly. No matter what view of the Force you hold, the lack of emotional control is what leads to the immoral acts, whether through the dark side taking over your mind (Jedi view) or because your lack of control gives you power in the Force, and thus megalomania and self-glorification (Potentium). Either way, while morality is a very important part of the fall, it is triggered by strong emotions. Not the other way around.

This of course is a downward spiral, since greater power begats less tolerance for annoyance, lessening the threshold for strong emotions to surface. But again, this is all triggered by strong emotions in the first place.DarthMRN

• • Wow. You think you already know the correlations between Star Wars and religion, and then someone brings up a works-righteous vs. emotions-righteous discussion. :-) But I think jSarek makes an important point about the actual actions being significant. Letting your emotions run wild may be a major starting point for many people's fall to the dark side, but evil can also be cool, calculating, and unemotional. Think of Kreia, of all the others of which anger or fear was not the first step. It may not be the norm, but canon sources as well as rationality show that someone can fall through actions apart from emotion. -BaronGrackle 15:05, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
• So you are saying that evil actions alone can be enough for the dark side to grab hold of a Force Sensitive? Well, I largely base my views on this matter on what I've read compiled here on Wookieepedia, and I've never encountered anything to convince me that the evil actions on their own could be sufficient.

Although, thinking about it, it could very well fit into my explanation. Evil acts without the influence of the dark side would likely be the result of a high self-centerdness and disregard for others, which would in itself lessen the threshold for emotional control in relation to others, leading down the same downward spiral. The core theory remains, but the beginning of the fall itself is exended to evil triggering emotions as well as emotions triggering evil. Kewl, BaronGrackle. I never thought of that.DarthMRN

Films

When the article says that the "films" are G-canon, I'm assuming this only applies to the six theatrically released feature films, right? What level of canon are the other Star Wars films: the Ewok movies, the Holiday Special, the Ewoks and Droids cartoons, the Clone Wars cartoons . . . . This stuff G- or C-canon? — SavageBob 18:40, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

• Yes, as you suspected, the Ewok movies, the Holiday Special, and the cartoons are all Expanded Universe C-canon. (When you think about it, considering the Ewok movies were filmed with actual film while Episode III used digital cameras, "film" is a misleading name!) —Silly Dan _(talk) 22:34, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • It's odd in a way that the three television films are not G-canon though, as they are based on original stories written by Lucas. And especially with the Ewok films, where he wrote the story, executive produced, and had a small uncredited role in directing. Sounds similar to the situation with ESB and ROTJ doesn't it? ;) Adamwankenobi 04:35, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

That was the source of my confusion! I've tried to clarify things a bit. — SavageBob 14:49, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

• • • I think you're all confusing the official canon system with the internal Holocron system (meant for continuity checkers, primarily). If Lucas had a hand in something, then the part he came up with is G-canon, but if it's not in one of the six films, then it's part of the Expanded Universe. Even the TV-series he's involved in will be EU, no matter how much G-canon is added to them. That's how the rules are. VT-16 00:23, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
      • Thanks for clearing that up. Adamwankenobi 03:37, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Nick Gillard

Where would he fall in the canon list? --206.131.12.154 18:25, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

• Cin Drallig is G-canon, as obviated by his appearance in RotS. Nick himself doesn't fall under the auspices of canon classification, as he is from the real world and therefore not in the Star Wars Universe. Dangerdan97 11:13, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

What sort of cannon are Incredible Cross Sections?

The following two publications are listed as sources for this article: The Phantom Menace Incredible Cross Sections Attack of the Clones Incredible Cross Sections

However, I can't see any specific references to them them. I realise that they definately are not G-cannon. Are they supposed to be C-cannon or S-cannon?

David Shepheard 05:46, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

What is G and C cannon?

Does anyone actually know what the letters "G" and "C" in G-cannon and C-cannon stand for?

Is the "G" for "George" - meaning it comes from George Lucas?

Does the "C" just mean "cannon"?

The article should really explain this.

David Shepheard 05:46, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

• Yes, AFAIK G is for George. As for C, I am not sure, but I thought it is for 'common' MoffRebus 12:25, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

toyline, what canon is it?

This impacts another article. Can someone let me know what level of canon the action figures fit into? I say they are C canon. They don't contradict anything so I don't see why not. Specifically, I am referring to the Boba Fett titanium figure mentioned in the Boba Fett BTS section. I included the info sometime ago but said it was canon. I noticed it has been changed to say otherwise but I figured we should figure out how canon it is before I change it. I had originally said this could be considered the first canon appearance of adult Boba w/out his helmet on because the Tales story is N-Canon. Thanks.--DannyBoy7783 21:51, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

• If we can't definitively say which it is can we add it with the disclaimer of some kind. Perhaps something to the effect of it not being 100% official but agreed upon here by wookieepedians?--DannyBoy7783 21:54, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
  • I think that we shouldn't include toys as canon. Think about it: Toys aren't meant to be canon—they're meant to be either something for people to play with or collectables. Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax ^{(Imperial Holovision)} 20px 21:57, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Well, you could say the same for games, and they're canon. I think that there must be at some low level of canon, though some aspects clearly meant solely for play don't count (much like the way Revan and his companions did not really have the ability to slowly regenerate all of their injuries just by standing still for a few minutes, and Kyle Katarn couldn't really hold all of those guns in his pocket.) —Silly Dan _(talk) 22:05, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
      • I know you don't like the figures and stuff Jack. We've discussed this before...but Silly Dan makes a good point about the video games. I think if we ignore the "play factors" of collectibles and consider them on their story elements they are perfectly fine as some form of canon. I guess I view this fundamentally different than jack does. I see collectibles as a possible expansion of the story in some instances when the toys are relevant to what's going on. I think Jack sees them as nothing more than plastic representations of the canon. All things being equal, why not include them? It's not like they would over turn wookieepedia. A few pictures of figures have already been included in some articles already...--DannyBoy7783 22:20, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
        • If no one has anything else to say I'm going to add it into the canon until we hear otherwise and then I'm going to go edit the caption for the action figure at Boba Fett--DannyBoy7783 01:46, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
          • So long as it's clear the Star Wars Transformers are completely non-canon.... 8) —Silly Dan _(talk) 02:06, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
            • I think it depends. Most toys are probably S-Canon, but some (the aforementioned Transformers, for instance) can't be anything but N-canon. Sometimes, toys are brought into C-canon through other sources (the recent Monster droid appearance in The New Essential Guide to Droids, for instance), but I don't think any toys automatically start there. jSarek 02:26, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
              • Haha, as soon as I start threatening to add things people chime in :) I think that very rarely this will ever be an issue when writing an article but there may be occasions when the toys can enhance what is already there, such as the Fett titanium figure. Obviously Mr Potato Head was never a sith lord. I think we can agree on that. Nor was he a stormtrooper or an astromech droid. --DannyBoy7783 03:20, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

We either need more discussion or someone (perhaps an admin?) to weigh in and decide what is to be done here.--DannyBoy7783 02:12, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

• *ahem* :D--DannyBoy7783 03:21, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
  • You might want to just ask on the official site boards. We admins don't set canon (who'd want that job? 8) ) —Silly Dan _(talk) 03:26, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
    • I'm not sure if this will pertain specifically for this Boba Fett stuff I mentioned but it's good to note and could be included in the article. It's from a Q&A between rebelscum.com and hasbro.:

Rebelscum: I understand with the main characters, for example Death Star II Luke Skywalker from ROTJ, you have a lot of reference material to work from in making a new figure: the films, photos, etc. There's plenty of resources to use for main characters.

But what do you do when there's little or no reference material for a minor character? For example, Sgt. Doallyn from Jabba's Palace...how would you make this character? Does Lucasfilm have reference materials for such a minor character, or would you use your own creative designs? What do you do when their are limited resources?

Hasbro: Sometimes there is more than you would think for reference from costume shots and other stills. Practically everything from the prequel trilogies is well-documented, for example. It gets tricker for the OTC, especially EpIV. Many of the Cantina figures, for example, do not have complete body reference but that hasn't stopped us! In these more extreme examples of needing to "fill in the blanks", our design team will come up with a proposed solution for the rest of the figure that is submitted to Lucasfilm. After one (or more) rounds of comments, that character design then becomes canon for that figure or species. --DannyBoy7783 21:29, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

• Can we get some responses please?--DannyBoy7783 06:41, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
  • None of us know the precise answer, I don't think. You can try asking Leland Chee himself here and see what he has to say. jSarek 08:12, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Canon levels

Each ascending level overrides the lower ones. Does this statement only refer to cases where C-canon and S-canon are overidden by G-canon in the sense of contradiction? Or does this also mean that G-canon counts as the "real" Star Wars, and fans can discard every other level if they so choose? "Absolute canon" is ambiguous, as it can mean "pure canon." --Shon Kon Ray 06:05, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

• It's mostly a matter of overriding contradictions. On a fundamental level, the GCSN system isn't designed to be some sort of overarching hierarchical system. It's just how the Holocron keeps track of where each element comes from. Contradictions are dealt with on a case-by-case basis, normally with "higher" canon winning . . . but not always (See "Canon Not So Clean-Cut," above). Because it's fiction, it's up to every fan to choose what, if anything, they wish to discard; but the official line is, it's all canon. jSarek 07:30, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

"There are two worlds here," explained Lucas. "There’s my world, which is the movies, and there’s this other world that has been created, which I say is the parallel universe – the licensing world of the books, games and comic books. I don't read that stuff. I haven't read any of the novels. I don't know anything about that world. That's a different world than my world. When I said [other people] could make their own Star Wars stories, we decided that, like Star Trek, we would have two universes: My universe and then this other one. They try to make their universe as consistent with mine as possible, but obviously they get enthusiastic and want to go off in other directions."

But

"On the other hand, the quote ... makes it sound like the EU is separate from George's vision of the Star Wars universe. It is not. The EU must follow certain tenets set by George through the films and other guidelines that he provides outside of the films." — Leland Chee

Though

"When it comes to absolute canon, the real story of Star Wars, you must turn to the films themselves — and only the films. The further one branches away from the movies, the more interpretation and speculation come into play. The analogy is that every piece of published Star Wars fiction is a window into the 'real' Star Wars universe. Some windows are a bit foggier than others. Some are decidedly abstract. But each contains a nugget of truth to them." — Stephen J. Sansweet (director of fan relations) and Chris Cerasi (an editor for Lucas Books at the time)

The words of Lucas are the most authoritative and support the idea that the films are the real Star Wars. --Shon Kon Ray 04:33, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

• Lucas is notoriously fickle, and there have been many different interpretations of those words, as you have seen. If you choose not to believe the EU is part of the real SW story, that's your choice, but it's not the position that Lucasfilm has taken, regardless of what Lucas might have said while interviewed. jSarek 10:03, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Lucas said there are "two worlds" in both Cinescape and Starlog magazines in 2001 and 2005, respectively; that doesn't seem fickle.

Does LucasFilm Ltd. itself actually have a Canon Policy?

No. I'm not exactly sure what the existence of such a thing would actually mean. Beyond the merchandise and online, I don't see how or where it would be applied. It's not like there's a document that exists that says "these are the things that are canon" that everyone in the company can look at.

If Greedo can shoot first and an old Anakin ghost can be replaced with a young Anakin ghost, then there's always room for things to change. — Leland Chee

--Shon Kon Ray 21:08, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Misleading

George Lucas, described as the "undisputed creator of Star Wars" in Star Wars: The Ultimate Visual Guide, has stated at least on two separate occasions that he considers the Expanded Universe a parallel universe to his films. He even compared the issue of Star Wars canon to that of Star Trek canon, wherein essentially the films and television series by Gene Roddenberry are canonical and works by other authors are not. The Holocron continuity database is used for merchandising and other concerns, not as a canon policy. --Shon Kon Ray 20:34, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

• Congratulations, Shon Kon Ray. You just made Supershadow right. -- SFH 20:41, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

It is inconsequential whether Supershadow is right or wrong on this issue. Don't associate me with a liar. --Shon Kon Ray 20:45, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

• OK then, let's take a look at what Star Trek actually canon consists of—five TV series and ten films. But hold on a second, Roddenberry only created TOS, TNG, and the first six films. Doees that mean Paramount doesn't consider the other shows and films canon? Nope. Adamwankenobi 20:54, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
• No offense was intended. I just wanted to make sure that Suttle wasn't the source for the what you said. Speaking of which, what are your sources? -- SFH 20:55, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

In July 2001, Lucas gave his opinion on the matter of what is canon in Star Wars during an interview with Cinescape magazine:

"There are two worlds here," explained Lucas. "There’s my world, which is the movies, and there’s this other world that has been created, which I say is the parallel universe – the licensing world of the books, games and comic books. They don’t intrude on my world, which is a select period of time, [but] they do intrude in between the movies. I don’t get too involved in the parallel universe."

Further, in an August 2005 interview in Starlog magazine:

STARLOG: "The Star Wars Universe is so large and diverse. Do you ever find yourself confused by the subsidiary material that's in the novels, comics, and other offshoots?"

LUCAS: "I don't read that stuff. I haven't read any of the novels. I don't know anything about that world. That's a different world than my world. But I do try to keep it consistent. The way I do it now is they have a Star Wars Encyclopedia. So if I come up with a name or something else, I look it up and see if it has already been used. When I said [other people] could make their own Star Wars stories, we decided that, like Star Trek, we would have two universes: My universe and then this other one. They try to make their universe as consistent with mine as possible, but obviously they get enthusiastic and want to go off in other directions."

Note that I like the Expanded Universe, and I'm just reporting Lucas' views on canon. --Shon Kon Ray 21:01, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

• OK, thanks for the quotes. I'll believe that Lucas considers the EU to be parallel to his Star Wars (which is why he felt free to contradict them in the prequels, and why we have a canon hierarchy), but I wouldn't want to do something like remove or segregate all the EU info from this site in response. —Silly Dan _(talk) 21:03, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

An aside to Adamwankenobi: Gene Roddenberry, as creator of Star Trek, has deemed what is canon, that is, the five shows and ten films. --Shon Kon Ray 21:07, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

• We should also take into account the fact that Lucas has used many elements from the EU in the films (notably, Aayla Secura, the Outrider, ASP-series droids, and Quinlan Vos's name) and it could be argued that he's even borrowed some ideas from it (Dark Empire, of which Lucas is a self-confessed fan, seems to have a number of parallels with RotS) - Kwenn 21:10, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
• That already disproves the quotes above that he doesn't get involved with the EU. It has also been consistently said that Lucas was involved with the overall decision making process during the NJO. So Lucas is a liar, or something is going on. -- SFH 21:12, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
  • The truth probably lies somewhere in between the stereotypical movie purist assertion that Lucas has nothing whatsoever to do with the EU and the stereotypical newbie fan belief that he's personally and intimately involved with it at every level. —Silly Dan _(talk) 21:15, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Actually, it doesn't seem likely that Lucas would concern himself with the Expanded Universe, being involved in various projects with the films throughout the years. Lucas is not restricted by the Expanded Universe, and his inclusion of certain elements from it does not affect canonicity. --68.224.247.234 22:56, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
• Those quotes are old news, and don't say that Lucas doesn't consider the EU canon. Yes, he uses the term "parallel universe," but from actually reading the quote it looks like he's speaking informally. Notice that he says that his "universe" is just a select period of time, and that the so-called "parallel universe" DOES intrude between his select periods of time. Furthermore, Leland Chee has stated in the StarWars.com forums that while the Starlog quote makes it sound like Lucas doesn't consider the EU to be part of his vision, that's not the way things are.JimRaynor55 23:20, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

It is insignificant that the quotes are "old news." The idea of "two worlds" or "two universes" mentioned in interviews four years apart isn't so informal. The Expanded Universe intruding between his select periods of time does not suggest that it is canonical. Further, Leland Chee is not as authoritative a source as Lucas. --Shon Kon Ray 23:30, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

• If you look at his quotes, and knowing his personality, what he really seems to mean is that he doesn't consider the EU part of his story. And why should he? As an analogy, can you imagine if Matthew Stover claimed that Heir to the Empire was part of his stories? See what I mean? From Lucas' quotes, although he doesn't consider the EU part of his story, he looks at it as part of the overall Star Wars story, as evidenced in his comments in his 1996 introduction to Splinter of the Mind's Eye. Adamwankenobi 23:37, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

When I said [other people] could make their own Star Wars stories, we decided that, like Star Trek, we would have two universes: My universe and then this other one. They try to make their universe as consistent with mine as possible, but obviously they get enthusiastic and want to go off in other directions. He's speaking about canon, not "his" story. --Shon Kon Ray 23:42, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

• OK, in that case, let's take a look at which canon this site follows. There are two canons this way. Do we follow Lucas' film canon, or Lucas Licensing's "the films and everything not contradicting the films" canon? Well, this would be a pretty dry place without the EU, so we go with the second one. :) For instance, would you rather have "Master Vos was a Jedi Master", or the contents of the Quinlan Vos article? Adamwankenobi 23:45, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
• Look, Shon Kon, it's just inconsistent. We have tons of evidence that point that he considers the EU canon, from his involvement in the NJO to the inclusion of Coruscant, Quinlan Vos, and Aayla Secura in the films. We have evidence that points that those quotes are innacurate. How do you explain that? -- SFH 00:44, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Shon Kon Ray, the EU is canon, just like the movies. Are you trying to make this website only movie-related material? Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax ^{(Imperial Holovision)} 20px 00:46, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

I am not trying to make this website only movie-related material. The EU is canon only in the Holocron continuity database, which is used for merchandising. Lucas' words are contradictory to your assertion. --Shon Kon Ray 00:50, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

• For God's sake, knock it off. The EU is canon, and not just "only in the Holocron continuity database". It's C-A-N-O-N. You might as well just say "I follow SuperShadow". Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax ^{(Imperial Holovision)} 20px 00:51, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
• Admiral, I don't want to turn this into an edit war. So, please, calm down. And Shon Kon, you haven't answered my question: How do you support your assertions that Lucas considers the EU parralel, while countering the evidence above? -- SFH 00:55, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
  • I wasn't aware that an edit war could occur on talk pages. Nonetheless, I wasn't trying to make it one. Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax ^{(Imperial Holovision)} 20px 00:56, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

I am not trying to make this website only movie-related material. The EU is canon only in the Holocron continuity database, which is used for merchandising. Lucas' words contradict your assertion, SFH and Nebulax. Involvement in offshoots of a saga does not provide evidence for canon, which is acceptance of what exists in a fictional universe, especially when the creator explicitly reveals that he separates the "universes". --Shon Kon Ray 00:50, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

• Hello, Lucas took things from the EU and put them in movies. That means he doesn't "separate the universes". Shon Kon Ray, you don't realize that the EU is still considered canon by Lucas. Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax ^{(Imperial Holovision)} 20px 00:59, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

What's this obsession with SuperShadow? What other evidence than the Holocron continuity database is there that the EU is canon? Putting an Expanded Universe character in a movie does not mean that the backstory of the character becomes accepted. That's a different world than my world. Lucas does separate the two universes, hence the term "Expanded Universe." --Shon Kon Ray 01:04, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

• Shon Kon, I don't care what Lucas said, but you're wrong. Lucas accepts the EU as Star Wars canon, and nothing you say will change anything. If you want to prove it to all of us that Lucas doesn't accept the EU as canon, ask him yourself and give us the exact quote and the link to where he said it. Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax ^{(Imperial Holovision)} 20px 01:06, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Last time I checked, Shon Kon, "expanded" did not mean "separate". Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax ^{(Imperial Holovision)} 20px 01:09, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

You don't care what Lucas, the absolute authority on Star Wars, had to say?! The second quote provided above, in the beginning of the discussion, showed that Star Wars canon is just like Star Trek canon. There is nothing ambiguous about this. I didn't say "expanded" meant "separate." The title distinguishes it from Lucas' "world." --Shon Kon Ray 01:13, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

• Lucas's vision was six movies. This is what there was originally. This could be considered "Universe #1". Then, we have the EU—the visions of authors related to Lucas's vision. This is "Universe #2". Lucas considers them separate universes because Lucas didn't created the EU. But he supports the EU. This is most likely why he said what he said. Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax ^{(Imperial Holovision)} 20px 01:19, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
• Shon Kon Ray, I am simply curious what point you are trying to make. The quotes you posted above are very interesting, but they are far too vague to prove anything. Are you trying to propose sweeping changes to this wiki or are you simply engaging in a purely academic debate?–Sentry^Talk 01:20, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
• There presence may not canonize their back story, but it does seem to negate the statements such as "I don't know anything about that world". If he doesn't know about them, why are they popping up in his movies? -- SFH 01:21, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
  • So, does anyone agree with what I said? Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax ^{(Imperial Holovision)} 20px 01:22, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

I know Lucas supports the EU and at least knows some of the elements; Lucas was exaggerating. The idea of canon is, for the most part, to distinguish work done by an original author from those subsequent works by others. I thought that maybe the article could reflect Lucas' views, and I don't intend to have this wiki changed. It has become an "academic" debate. I agree with OK, in that case, let's take a look at which canon this site follows. There are two canons this way. Do we follow Lucas' film canon, or Lucas Licensing's "the films and everything not contradicting the films" canon? Well, this would be a pretty dry place without the EU, so we go with the second one. :) For instance, would you rather have "Master Vos was a Jedi Master", or the contents of the Quinlan Vos article? — Adamwankenobi

• Is it just me, or did Shon Kon just switch sides? Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax ^{(Imperial Holovision)} 20px 01:31, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

What you just stated did not in any way contradict what I've said from the beginning. Lucas views his creation, Star Wars, as separated into two two parallel universes — those of the six films and the Expanded Universe — like Star Trek. Roddenberry has separate worlds. Lucas supports the endeavor of carrying on a Star Wars legacy, the Expanded Universe, but he does not view it as part of his universe, despite Chee's statements. --Shon Kon Ray 01:32, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

• …that makes no sense. -- SFH 01:46, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

How does it not make sense? The last thing Nebulax said was that there were two universes, and I agreed. Lucas views his films as canonical, the real story of Star Wars, what actually occurred. The films are his vision. The further you get from the movies the less do they agree with his vision. Thus, the Expanded Universe is not canonical according to Lucas. One can still support the works of others, but not count them as canonical. --Shon Kon Ray 01:53, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

• • The very fact that Lucas supports it and uses it in his films implies that he considers it canon—though not as canon as his films. Thus, the canon levels of G, C, S, and N were created to reflect this. Adamwankenobi 02:10, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

The Holocron continuity database system is not an official canon policy of Lucasfilm Ltd. --Shon Kon Ray 02:19, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

• Lucasfilm Ltd. doesn't have a canon policy. Lucas Licensing does. Adamwankenobi 02:26, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Lucas Licensing is used for merchandising and such. The database is not even made public. --Shon Kon Ray 02:29, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

• • But Leland Chee makes it perfectly clear at the SW.com forums that the holocron is used by Lucas and other authors to keep track of things. Adamwankenobi 02:37, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Lucas stated, "That's a different world than my world. But I do try to keep it consistent." Let the issue be settled with this thought: the Expanded Universe is optional filler material in Lucas' eyes, otherwise, he wouldn't try to keep it consistent. --Shon Kon Ray 02:38, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

• And lets acknowledge the fact that the Starlog source is grossly innacurate since Lucas does have interaction with the EU, due to his role in the NJO, and the presence of EU creations in the prequels. -- SFH 03:10, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Oh for God's sake, the EU is canon. If it weren't, then why does Leland Chee, George Lucas's EMPLOYEE, continually say so in the Holocron thread at the OFFICIAL forums? Those quotes ARE old news, because I've seen them a hundred times over the years from movie purists. All of them latch on to the words "parallel universe," but NONE of them seem to remember (or more accurately, choose not to ignore) the part where he says his "universe" is a merely a select period of time which DOES mesh with the other periods of time covered by the EU. Lucas is human, and therefore not perfect. He throws around terms like "parallel universe" carelessly, and it's apparent from reading the actual context that that's not what he means. I wonder if he even KNOWS what Star Trek's canon policy is. JimRaynor55 03:49, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
    • lmao, anyway, EU is canon, thats it leave it at that, Lucas does indeed consider EU as canon, just because he didn't personally create it doesn't mean he wouldn't consider it part of his work, i mean he made Star Wars what it is, the quotes have been around for a long time and i don't really understand what your point is in brining them back up. Anymore talk is just speculation on Lucas's views..pointless Jedi Dude 13:45, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
      • This discussion was pointless from the beginning, because we know that Lucas is involved in the EU. The EU is canon, just like the movies. Now, Shon Kon Ray, no matter what you post, you're wrong. This discussion should have been over before it started. Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax ^{(Imperial Holovision)} 20px 14:26, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
        • And, Shon Kon Ray, I did not agree with you when I said what I said. Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax ^{(Imperial Holovision)} 20px 14:27, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
• I know you didn't agree with Shon Kon Ray, but the last thing you posted on the issue stated that there were two universes, which was what Shon Kon said. Further, that is your opinion that he is wrong, and Lucas' view does not simply hinge on "parallel universe." --68.224.247.234 18:30, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Just because I said "two universes" did not mean I was saying what Shon Kon said. And it's not an opinion, because Lucas has taken things from the EU before. Therefore, Shon Kon is, without a doubt, wrong on this matter. Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax ^{(Imperial Holovision)} 20px 19:35, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
  • everyone has their own opionion, now this discussion is getting off the topic and isn't relevent for the talk page anymore. Its gone on long enough. Jedi Dude 19:34, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Lucas' use of words

George Lucas' use of the word "parallell universe" is somewhat different from the ordinary definition. He mentions that "They don’t intrude on my world, which is a select period of time, [but] they do intrude in between the movies." Why would he specify that they intrude "in between the movies" if they are "another universe" and not connected with his universe at all? A parallell universe could do whatever it wanted, like the "Infinities" stories. That's the difference, there are parallell universes in SW, but they're marked "Infinities", i.e not connected to the events in the movies.

Since Lucas has worked on EU stories (both in terms of general ideas/directions and more specifically, like with the Ewok TV movies and the upcoming CW series and live-action series), he wouldn't dismiss part of his own work as "not part of continuity". Even in the time before the systemization of recent years in LFL, Lucas met with spinoff writers and publishers to ensure that the SW universe was faithful to the films and progressed in tune with them:

And here's the main man himself, from 1994:

I also recall Lucas' Q&A at Celebration III last year, where he addressed the issue of a potential KOTOR-era series, but only if the upcoming series are successful and warrant further television expansion. :) VT-16 13:08, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

• Glad to hear he said something about that: all of your quotes about Lucas paying attention to or approving of EU canon come from the pre-prequel era, while all of the quotes implying he pays no attention to it or considers it a separate thing were more recent.... 8) (As for the Roddenberry analogy: might be best to consider Paramount as the keepers of Star Trek canon rather than Roddenberry, since Roddenberry died early in DS9's pre-production period, and personally disapproved of some elements of the fifth and sixth movies. This gives precedent for corporate copyright holders rather than an original author decideing a canon policy, I suppose.) —Silly Dan _(talk) 13:40, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Roddenberry is a different fish from Lucas. Unlike Lucas, Roddenberry pretty much lost control over his franchise, starting with the rift following ST:TMP and ending with Rick Berman's gradual influence over ST:TNG. (It's even been suggested Roddenberry wanted to end ST after the fourth season of TNG, and wanted no spin-off series.) Lucas has essentially maintained control over every aspect of the SW franchise, throughout its 30 years, even though the more day-to-day, story-to-story aspect has mostly been left to his employees. I read about his envolvement with regards to the development of Sith Lords and their culture in Tales of the Jedi. Is this true or just hearsay? Interviews with the people behind the NJO series also stated he told them which characters could not be killed off in the course of the series, so they chose Chewie to die, because his name was not on the list. And in the CW era, he apparently told authors not to include any Wookiee Jedi character, because he didn't want questions like "Why was there no Wookiee Jedi protecting Kashyyyk in ROTS?" VT-16 18:15, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
• "the pre-prequel era"

Which doesn't prove anything, since there's little in those stories that deal with the Prequel period. I can understand removing stuff referencing that time, but there isn't that much. And his use of "parallell univers" still doesn't conform to the way others use it. When paid employees of Lucas say that they have canon scales and treats higher sources and older that haven't been contradicted, as part of official continuity, this debate should have ended permanently. Lucas direct involvement was back in the day, when there was little material besides the films and the novelizations, nowadays, SW is an industry, and he relegates responsibility to others to keep an eye on it. Why even have a continuity checker if it's little more than fan fiction and inconsequential? It's a waste of money. VT-16 16:12, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

• George Lucas' introduction to Splinter of the Mind's Eye does not show any support for the EU as canon. Again, Lucas said, "That's a different world than my world. But I do try to keep it consistent." Roddenberry decided the canon status of Star Trek works at the time of TNG, not Paramount. Lucas fully understood his Star Trek comparison. Lucas Licensing takes a different approach to canon, and it's "academic" dishonesty to state otherwise. Wookieepedia's canon policy is of the latter source. Trying to deconstruct the words of Lucas does not really help, and it is quite clear that Lucas holds that there are two universes like in Star Trek. I believe that Lucas is the highest authority, but that is another matter. I am not a movie purist and observe that I did not overlook "select periods of time." --Shon Kon Ray 19:31, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Shon Kon, we know what Lucas said, so stop quoting it already. No matter what you or Lucas say, we know Lucas does get involved with the EU, because we have things in the movie like Coruscant, Quinlan Vos, and Aayla Secura. This has gone on for far too long. It's over, no doubt about it. Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax ^{(Imperial Holovision)} 20px 19:37, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
• I quoted Lucas again because everyone keeps going over the same idea. Basically, Lucas and Lucas Licensing have supported different canon policies, and Wookieepedia has clung to the latter. I know he gets involved in the EU, and I tried to end the discussion yesterday. --Shon Kon Ray 19:45, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
  • How so? By trying to have Wookieepedia be "Lucas-supported canon" only? Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax ^{(Imperial Holovision)} 20px 19:47, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
    • I tried to end it yesterday:Let the issue be settled with this thought: the Expanded Universe is optional filler material in Lucas' eyes, otherwise, he wouldn't try to keep it consistent. I never tried to have Wookieepedia changed; look at the discussion above. I pointed to an issue that should probably be addressed in the article and it became almost purely an "academic" debate. --Shon Kon Ray 19:52, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
      • This so called "issue" makes absolutely no sense, and has been nothing but a pain for me and probably others, too. Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax ^{(Imperial Holovision)} 20px 19:53, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
        • Please don't whine to me about how you choose your time, Nebulax. --Shon Kon Ray 20:46, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
        • I think we're editing in circles. Shon Kon Ray says that he is not a movie purist, and he is not attempting to make the whole of Wookieepedia change its canon policy. Correct me if I'm wrong, but these quotes are only meant to suggest modifying this article to emphasize that the EU is less canonical than the films, and that Lucas has limited involvement with the EU (though he is somewhat involved.). Right? I think Shon Kon Ray's being unfairly criticized here. —Silly Dan _(talk) 20:01, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
          • Thank you for your kindness, Silly Dan. --Shon Kon Ray 20:46, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
          • Doesn't the article already emphasize those points? Adamwankenobi 20:05, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
            • I wouldn't be surprised if it did. Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax ^{(Imperial Holovision)} 20px 20:06, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
              • Yeah, it pretty much does already. Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax ^{(Imperial Holovision)} 20px 20:07, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
• You still don't understand the concept of EU, do you? Expanded Universe means everything outside of the movies, which are specific timeframes, according to George Lucas himself. That's what he considers "his" universe, and it is not the same as Star Trek's policies nor is it the same as what Lucas himself has been involved with and what he's involved in now (the two up-coming tv series). Everything that is not the six films, is EU, even when Lucas works on them, himself.

"Correct me if I'm wrong, but these quotes are only meant to suggest modifying this article to emphasize that the EU is less canonical than the films, and that Lucas has limited involvement with the EU (though he is somewhat involved.)."

I don't think that's Shon's point at all, everything seems to be automatically invalid, which it isn't, EU is basically part of official continuity, but on a lower canon scale. Not non-canon, like written sources in Star Trek. VT-16 20:37, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

• • On a lower canon scale? Are you saying on a lower scale only in the sense of contradiction? --Shon Kon Ray 21:20, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Yes, in a case of contradiction, the movies and published notes by Lucas trumps whatever the offending source claims, that's how it works. Everything is official and part of the continuity unless it contradicts the films or is no longer referenced and instead overwritten by newer sources depicting the same time frame. For instance, the Rand Ecliptic is a ship briefly mentioned by Biggs in a ANH cut-scene. It's since been included in several stories and every time, it's been drawn as something completely different. So far, the most recent version has it as an Acclamator offshoot. Hopefully it will remain like this, if not, it will be overwritten again, and the new design takes precedence, with the older info being mentioned in the Bts section. That's how it works with two EU sources against one another. VT-16 22:21, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
      • Shon Kon Ray, don't post in the middle of discussions. And I am not whining to you. I'm just saying how annoying you can be. And on the canon scale, it's movies and then everying other piece of canon. Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax ^{(Imperial Holovision)} 20px 22:46, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
        • Try to discuss this in a civilized manner, people. (And Jack: he can post in the middle of discussions, if he's using indentations to make it clear who he's replying to. That's why we have different levels of indentation to use on talk pages.) —Silly Dan _(talk) 23:22, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
          • Then why was I told when I joined not to post in the middle of discussions? Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax ^{(Imperial Holovision)} 20px 00:09, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
• Found another interesting Lucas-quote, this time from the August/September 1999 issue of SW Insider:

VT-16 07:31, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Random Picture

• What the heck is that doing here, and a threat? —Unsigned comment by 165.21.154.13 (talk • contribs)
  • Random vandalism, it's gone now. —Silly Dan _(talk) 13:12, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Statements by Lucas

Recently, I asked Leland Chee about how statements by George Lucas fit into continuity. You can see the answer here:[1]. Clearly, we need to revise our article appropriately. - Angel Blue ^(Holonet) 22:23, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

• I just want to apologize for reverting the article before discussing it here first. In my defense, I can only say that I was very tired and in an exceptionally bad mood, but none of that justifies my rash action. I detest edit wars and the last thing I ever wanted to do was risk initiating one. So again, I apologize. - Angel Blue ^(Holonet) 04:26, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Fair enough. I am going to roll it back, though, because I think what the original says is closer to what Mr. Chee has said, both in the past and in the recent answer to your question: "There are relatively few notes from George in the Holocron that are derived from public statements; most of the notes from him are from things that George gives to Licensing directly." If you think this is incorrect, by all means mention your concerns here and we can further discuss it. :-) jSarek 04:35, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

[2]

My interpretation of Chee's answer to my question is this:

1. We cannot take every single statement by Lucas as canon.
2. The time that the statement was made must be taken into account, because certain statements may not be accurate now.
3. The context of the statement, obviously, must be considered before one takes it as an official part of continuity. (For instance, as you pointed out that Mr. Chee said, most of Lucas' statements that are parts of official continuity are given to Licensing directly, and not public statements) Also, it should be made clear whether or not the statement was meant to constitute canon.

Because of #'s 2 and 3, I don't think that unpublished production notes and the like should necessarily count as canon, and just to be safe we should list that only statements clearly meant to constitute canon should be counted as G-canon. Thoughts? - Angel Blue ^(Holonet) 16:59, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

• I see the "unpublished production notes" as being the "things that George gives to licensing directly." There are lots of things that Lucas has decided that have never seen the light of day outside of Lucasfilm's offices, yet are as much a part of the canon as anything on the shelves of our bookstores. I think it's important to include that fact. Still, you're right that any discussion of Lucas's public statements should discuss the above caveats. jSarek 22:24, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
  • I would agree with that. - Angel Blue20px^(Holonet) 00:31, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Canon contradictions

Okay, I know that G-canon overrules C-canon, but how do we handle it when C-canon sources contradict themselves? The New Essential Guide to Vehicles and Vessels description of the TIE Interceptor, for example, mentions that it carries a laser cannon on each wingtip, while the schematic listed on the same page describes these as blaster cannons, while showing a pair of laser cannons mounted on the cockpit where a regular TIE's cannons would go. This is just an example, as I'm pretty sure that it only has the four wingtip lasers according to G-canon, but you can all see how this could get complicated, especially when discussing things that don't make G-canon appearances. Jwebb1340px 03:34, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

• I would look see what other sources (G and C) say.--Lord Oblivion^{Sith holocron}30px 03:55, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Ahh, here's the example I was looking for. The New Essential Guide to Vehicles and Vessels makes contradictory statements regarding the K-Wing's weaponry: the schematics show the chin turret to mount a quad laser cannon, but the description refers to it has having a quad turbolaser cannon. What's the guideline for when 1) the same source contradicts itself and 2) all the sources for a certain subject are from the same level of canonicity (is that even a word)? Jwebb1340px 21:08, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Actually, ROTJ shows lasers coming from below the cockpit of an Interceptor. .... 06:49, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
      • And what G-canon source says they only have four lasers?--Herbsewell 15:59, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Confirmation of canon

Is there any way to confirm the canon validity of a particular piece of work?

• Other than following the relatively straightforward information included in this article, pretty much the only thing to do is ask Leland Chee on the Star Wars message boards, typically in this thread. jSarek 23:04, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
  • What if you don't have a hyperspace account?--Herbsewell 23:09, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
    • That thread is in the regular part of the Official Site. All you have to do is register for free. jSarek 01:22, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
      • So I just post my question in the middle of that thread and I'm supposed to get an answer?--Herbsewell 21:43, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
        • If you're lucky. ;-) Actually, you should read through as much of that thread as you have time for first, in case your question has already been answered; he tends not to repeat himself much. jSarek 04:40, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
          • Would you have a general idea if a question has been asked if I asked you the question?--Herbsewell 13:40, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
            • Most likely. In fact, I'm going to hazard a guess given the conversation on Talk:Grievous, that you're wondering about how the events leading up to Revenge of the Sith are handled; coincidentally, this *was* recently asked in the thread here, where Tasty mentioned he answered it somewhere in this thread. It looks like his answers in that thread start here, with a timeline of events here and further clarifications here. jSarek 23:36, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
              • No it's something different.--Herbsewell 23:53, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
                • Sorry to have been presumptuous, then. By all means, ask away. jSarek 00:11, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
                  • I wanted to know if a Jedi could lift by means of the force a Venator-class Star destroyer. —Unsigned comment by Herbsewell (talk • contribs)
                    • No, I don't believe that has been asked. Was that depicted in some work? If not, than it's probably not the sort of question that he would be answering there. The thread is mostly for information about the Holocron continuity database itself, and continuity-related information. jSarek 00:42, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
                      • Well, actually lifting one wasn't shown, but Rivi-Anu was able to significantly slow down a Venator's fall. -LtNOWIS 00:47, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
                        • Yeah it was in Clone Wars Adventures Volume 6, To the Vanishing Point. She suspended it in the air. I don't think that Yoda, Anakin, Obi-wan, and Luke Skywalker put together on the best days of their lives could have suspended a Venator.--Herbsewell 00:54, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
                          • Well, Yoda did like to point out that "size matters not." Anyway, no, it hasn't been asked, though as a recent publication, it was definitely looked over by the Continuity folks; so either it was judged acceptable to be included, or they flubbed in a big way. jSarek 01:08, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
                            • Also Kai-Adi-Mundi says he's "scared too". Explaining that being scared humbles you to the power of the living force. Unless his view of the force is different than most, a Jedi, much less a Jedi master would never say that. Everyone knows that a Jedi never fears for there is only the force. Being afraid does not humble you and if it did you would understand it less. Being afraid only keeps you distant from the force and more resilient to become part of it.--Herbsewell 02:24, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Game C-canon

I added some paragraphs discussing Game C-canon. I hope it's not too off and i will happy to know about your corrections or additions. Please don't tell me however that I am 'making' the rules of Wookieepedia concerning canon-choosing, since I only describe an unspoken rule I have been observing it is upheld for over 2 years now :) MoffRebus 17:44, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Can Lego material be considered canon?

I recently recieved a copy of the Lego Magazine. Included in the magazine were profiles of the N-1 Starfighter, Eta-3 Actis, and MTT. Included in these profiles were such things as sublight acceleration and atmospheric flight speed. My question is: can these profiles be considered canon? I know previous lego media (the SW games, etc.) have not been considered canon, but primarily because they conflict with existing canon. Also, should I send this issue to Leeland Chee? 165.230.20.105 16:57, 19 July 2007 (UTC)G.A.Thrawn

Quotefest

This article has become a much heavier compilation of quotes recently. Should we keep them as is? It looks very unencyclopedic to me. jSarek 22:17, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

• The article is more informative this way, because I fear an edit war if all we do is refer to LFL policy without actually quoting anything. That's ripe for trolls to come and say "wahwahwah where's the proof??!!!?!!!2122" and I'm sick and tired of canon debates. VT-16 13:04, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Yeah, but that's what reference links are for. jSarek 22:42, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
    • Hmm. Would like at least a third opinion before anything drastic was done to the article. I guess some summing up without all the examples, wouldn't hurt. :/ VT-16 18:19, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
      • The more opinions, the merrier. (Basically, this post is just an excuse to ask for them in the edit summary.) jSarek 22:12, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
        • The fansites linked to all have these same quotes, I only think we should put a warning about personal opinions and feelings being sprinkled among the genuine official information contained within them. :P VT-16 08:51, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Recent monkey wrench

Seems there's more in S-canon than most of us may have previously thought, as Tasty reveals here. jSarek 02:04, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

• "Initially", he says, "initially." I personally labour under the delusion that all the S-canon has become C-canon unless it's clearly contradictory or just stupid. 8) —Silly Dan _(talk) 02:35, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
  • It's not so much that it's been made C-canon so much as the distinction really doesn't matter anymore. But, to accurately reflect what the Holocron says, we DO need to reflect these new facts (not to mention massively clean up the article in general, but I digress). jSarek 02:39, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

T-canon

Does that include the original Clone Wars cartoons? If it does wouldnt that clear up the Clone Wars/ Labyrinth of Evil discrepancy? Dr.Kermit 03:28, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

• No, T-canon does not include the original Clone Wars cartoon, just the new cartoon and the Star Wars live-action TV series currently in preproduction, as these shows have more of Lucas's direct input into them than previous shows. jSarek 04:01, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

If T-Canon=Television Canon, shouldn't it also include the Clone Wars micro-series, Ewoks, Droids, Caravan of Courage, Battle for Endor, and The Star Wars Holiday Special? If not, then the T-Canon title is misleading.

• The distinction is specifically for the two new series, which are receiving more scrutiny from Lucas et al, owing to their presence on TV. Obviously the intent is to give the new television series pre-eminence in continuity over C- and S-. If not T for TV, what letter/word designation would be most appropriate for this new level? Dangerdan97 22:07, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Exactly. Keep in mind that these titles aren't intended for the public, anyway; they're intended for internal Lucasfilm use. It doesn't matter how misleading it is to us, so long as the people at LFL understand what is meant by it. jSarek 01:14, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Deleted scenes

According to the article, deleted scenes are N-canon. However, according to a statement by Chee, deleted scenes on the DVDs are G-canon as long as they're not in conflict with the movies: http://blogs.starwars.com/holocron/33 Northerner 09:50, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Expanded universe

the stuff about the eu being non canon is an april fools day joke right??

• Better be... if not it is only because George Lucas messed up in the clone wars series. Ventress should not be in the clone wars cartoons because of the events in the clone wars graphic novel #7. If this is an April fools joke, someone better speak up!--Trask1138 15:17, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
• It must be, because the home page says that Boba Fett died when he fell in the sarlacc, Mara Jade doesn't exist and that Episode 3 only comes out on DVD today. --Trask1138 15:32, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
• Yes it may be April 1st, but I have long suspected Emperor George has dreamed of crushing the hard working artists, authors, programmers, and game designers, who dared do a better job than he did with his own franchise, and Prequels. It probably is an April Fools joke but it would not surprise me, in the least, that the "Fat-man in Flannel" dropped the hammer on the Expanded Universe out of pure jealousy. Emperor George will never wash Mara Jade's blood nor Jar Jar Binks' Gungan swamp slime off of his hands. -- Frank V Bonura - The Bane of Revisionism 15:32, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
• You know what... I think that he is just a senile old man. Someone should take his place as the "HEAD OF THE STAR WARS UNIVERSE". I sense there will be much disappointment in the future... we may not riot over gas prices or the economy in general, buit I think that if he does such a stupid thing people will be up in arms. "Unemployment to the fat-man in Flannel"! --Trask1138 16:02, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Actually my good Trask1138 we have much power in this capacity. As good capitalists, we vote with our wallets, so all we need do is say "no" with our money. Emperor George will learn fast if the Fan's show some backbone in this area. -- Frank V Bonura - The Bane of Revisionism 16:37, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
• Pretending this is a true statement, then why would he be spearheading the TV series? And why would he write off everything Timothy Zahn has created for the Expanded Universe? Sorry, but it's a fact that the prequels would be different, if not uncomparable, without the EU.--korydvandyke 21:38, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
  • I concur!! Well said, korydvandyke! — Jonjedigrandmaster 20px ^{(Jedi beacon)} 21:40, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Emperor George is spearheading the TV series because he is desperate to jump start the franchise and the only way left to him is to find new young fans who have no memory of the Old Trilogy and the events that were produced/authored in the 80's and 90's. Its up to the old guard (you and me) to educate new fans about STAR WARS history. I believe its exactly why we are here. -- Frank V Bonura - The Bane of Revisionism 02:17, 2 April 2009 (UTC)