Canonicity
I don't see anything outwardly suggesting this character and his astromech sidekick, R2-MK, are non-canon, aside from their silliness. They released an action figure of both of these characters, along with a specialized Jedi starfighter to accompany the Jedi Mickey character (see Insider 141). We know from Leland Chee that action figures are considered fully canonical. So unless there is an official word on this character of which I'm unaware, I'm removing the non-canon template on both of these articles in the absence of anything saying they aren't canon. Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 20:50, May 23, 2013 (UTC)
- The Star Wars universe as we know it has officially ended. Fe Nite (talk) 20:56, May 23, 2013 (UTC)
- this is unfortunate, but unless something contradicts it, we're stuck with it. But considering the circumstances, would an ambig tag work? 184.153.75.134 23:55, May 24, 2013 (UTC)
- This doesn't work either for the same reason the non-canon tag doesn't work. We can't take it upon ourselves to self-declare something non-canon or ambiguously canon just because we think it's silly and shouldn't be included. Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 23:58, May 24, 2013 (UTC)
- Sigh, let's see what Chee has to say about it. All I can say on the matter is: If it turns out Jedi Mickey is canon (by Chee's definition, I mean), regardless of my personal beliefs on it, the guys at Star Wars had better give a darn good explanation as to how the heck Mickey survived Order 66/Operation Knightfall, since Mickey's most likely gonna end up dead by Clone troopers from that. Oh well, at least I won't expect him to be making an appearance in the Sequel Trilogy for now. Weedle McHairybug (talk) 00:55, May 25, 2013 (UTC)
- EDIT: Though I have to admit, they at least made Mickey look bad*** in those figures. Weedle McHairybug (talk) 03:37, May 25, 2013 (UTC)
- This doesn't work either for the same reason the non-canon tag doesn't work. We can't take it upon ourselves to self-declare something non-canon or ambiguously canon just because we think it's silly and shouldn't be included. Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 23:58, May 24, 2013 (UTC)
- I'd hardly say the Star Wars universe as we know it has officially ended when there's multiple official ongoing comics of the old continuity ongoing right now. ZeroSD (talk) 07:22, May 25, 2013 (UTC)
- this is unfortunate, but unless something contradicts it, we're stuck with it. But considering the circumstances, would an ambig tag work? 184.153.75.134 23:55, May 24, 2013 (UTC)
2.4 Rewrite
To say that Mickey Mouse is actually a part of the canon because of an action figure is to reach the point where legalism leads to its natural end in ridiculousness and lack of true heart. Just as Lego mini-figures are not canon despite the fact they have more accurate, in-universe information attached to many of the products they come as, so it can be assumed on the grounds of common sense that Mickey Mouse does not qualify as a part of this galaxy which is chronicled here. Leland Chee's words are stretched here to suit a malady and silly consideration that is admitted so by the editors responsible for implanting the non-canon. Are we to that Soul Caliber is canon in this galaxy. I think not, in spite of whatever joke articles there may be for people to misinterpret. 99.188.36.80 03:20, May 24, 2013 (UTC)
- Leland Chee has a Facebook page where he answers questions and occasionally clears up continuity matters. You're welcome to try and get him to say this is non-canon. Until that happens, we're dealing with information from a perfectly legitimate canonical source, the Star Tours toy line, which makes this character canon unless stated otherwise, despite its ridiculousness. And Soulcaliber is non-canon, so your comparison doesn't work. Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 03:29, May 24, 2013 (UTC)
- Just wanted to offer some background. I found this Wired article on Leland from 2008. The second video shows Jedi Mickey, though when the camera is pointed at it towards the end, Leland indicates that it, along with Darth Tater and the Soul Caliber game, doesn't belong in continuity. However, to really make a determination of status, someone would need to get an official statement from him specifically stating that Mickey is non-canon. -- Riffsyphon1024 03:57, May 24, 2013 (UTC)
- I would argue that that video does not show Jedi Mickey but rather Mickey Mouse in a Rebel pilot uniform, which isn't necessarily the same thing. At any rate, there are basically two versions of Jedi Mickey. One is the Jedi Mickey that appears in merchandising (plush dolls, Star Wars Weekends, etc.), which is non-canon, because those are not considered canonical sources. The other is the Jedi Mickey that appears in this toy line, which is a canonical source. But I agree that Chee should be contacted before we self-brand this non-canon. It's the only objective way to approach this. Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 04:13, May 24, 2013 (UTC)
- Pardon. I shouldn't have specified that Mickey as Jedi Mickey. -- Riffsyphon1024 04:57, May 24, 2013 (UTC)
- Unfortunately, honor and the integrity of Wookieepedia forbids a proper return to these comments, which would be lengthy, thorough, and harmful to the quality of this information source. Misunderstanding and confusion is sad for the fans. I am sorry for what has been done by it. But know this...If we are sensible, intelligent, and Star Wars loving Human beings (or if your a Hutt, then welcome brother, and goopta mo bossa) goopta mo bossa. It means, 'May your mind not evaporate'. Not an insult. A hope for Wookieepedia. Sense should tell us that this cannot be canon, just as Soul Caliber is not. We should not abandon logic for legalism. The fact being that Leland has neither directly confirmed or directly denied the canon status of this character, it should therefore be placed under the ambiguous banner at the least for the sake of logic and the controversy that has been spawned here. That controversy does make it ambiguous to us, does it not. That should be sufficient for the quality and accuracy requirements of Wookieepedia and its thoroughness. Otherwise, I would contest that this further be placed under the non-canon banner. However, I am restrained from doing so. I will not place the banner for ambiguity, but encourage these who are in oral and intellectual combat to resolve to do so in agreement that the controversy and lack of verification as well as the lack of objection by Leland Chee makes the character status ambiguous. Good day, and in the famous farewell of the Hutts, Goopta mo bossa. 99.188.36.80 01:02, May 25, 2013 (UTC)
- You're making the mistake of believing we maintain any kind of authority at all to come to a decision based on our own logic and reasoning to decide whether something is canon or not. We do not get to decide things. All we get to do is document subjects as objectively as we possibly can based on the pre-defined laws of canon as we understand them. Just because we don't like something and think it's silly is not a good enough reason for us to subjectively decide of our own volition that we're going to slap a non-canon or ambiguously canon tag on it. Your desire to declare this non-canon is based on exactly zero evidence except your personal distaste for the subject's inclusion in continuity. I'm sorry, sir, but that is not good enough. Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 01:19, May 25, 2013 (UTC)
- Yeah. I agree. To put it another way, if we're going to declare it non-canon, we do it by the book, to use Police phraseology. Weedle McHairybug (talk) 01:22, May 25, 2013 (UTC)
- Well, Leland Chee pretty much confirms that Jedi Mickey is non-canon on Twitter. It was obvious that he thought it made no sense either. Zakor1138 (talk) 03:39, May 25, 2013 (UTC)
- Well, it was a fun two days. :P Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 05:50, May 25, 2013 (UTC)
- I was just going to link to that myself. You can thank me later. ;) https://twitter.com/HolocronKeeper/status/337982473558446080 -- Riffsyphon1024 07:13, May 25, 2013 (UTC)
- I like how he added "did you really need to ask?" Why yes, we did. This is how canon works, remember? You decide, not us. --LelalMekha (talk) 09:26, May 25, 2013 (UTC)
- Do you all not see it? For the past few days there was debate on whether it was canon. Though, again, sense should have told us that this was non-canon, if such a debate exists without confirmation, that is why ambiguity banners are here. No, Wookieepedia has no authority on canon, nor should. Even fan emotions have played in such important matters as the Hutt species on Wookieepedia. Yet fan legalism can also exist. This should be a lesson, a revelation, a problem that one must diagnose and cure. How? By thought. Avoid such struggle next time. Ask for answers fast, exercise logic and analysis, and if such conflict occurs, for the time being set up ambiguity banners. If unconfirmed or not denied, the material is ambiguous in canon. Objective discernment of canon does not negate and exclude logic and reasoning. Rather that is to be the essence of objective documentation. There is an objective to such objectivity...To record canon. If there is conflict because of the lack of an authorized statement of canon, it is ambiguous. This problem should have been smaller than it has been. A temporary statement and quick request for information would have been proper for this site's standards. 99.188.36.80 01:25, May 26, 2013 (UTC)
- The pious position statements that you make are not going to win you arguments. You brought up a valid topic and if you left it up to the process by which these matters are determined—by source citation and validation—without issuing your personal philosophy concerning Wookieepedia policies, this discussion would have been short, to the point, and resolved without your drama lowering your credibility. —GethralkinHyperwave 03:28, June 28, 2013 (UTC)
- Do you all not see it? For the past few days there was debate on whether it was canon. Though, again, sense should have told us that this was non-canon, if such a debate exists without confirmation, that is why ambiguity banners are here. No, Wookieepedia has no authority on canon, nor should. Even fan emotions have played in such important matters as the Hutt species on Wookieepedia. Yet fan legalism can also exist. This should be a lesson, a revelation, a problem that one must diagnose and cure. How? By thought. Avoid such struggle next time. Ask for answers fast, exercise logic and analysis, and if such conflict occurs, for the time being set up ambiguity banners. If unconfirmed or not denied, the material is ambiguous in canon. Objective discernment of canon does not negate and exclude logic and reasoning. Rather that is to be the essence of objective documentation. There is an objective to such objectivity...To record canon. If there is conflict because of the lack of an authorized statement of canon, it is ambiguous. This problem should have been smaller than it has been. A temporary statement and quick request for information would have been proper for this site's standards. 99.188.36.80 01:25, May 26, 2013 (UTC)
- I like how he added "did you really need to ask?" Why yes, we did. This is how canon works, remember? You decide, not us. --LelalMekha (talk) 09:26, May 25, 2013 (UTC)
- I was just going to link to that myself. You can thank me later. ;) https://twitter.com/HolocronKeeper/status/337982473558446080 -- Riffsyphon1024 07:13, May 25, 2013 (UTC)
- Well, it was a fun two days. :P Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 05:50, May 25, 2013 (UTC)
- Well, Leland Chee pretty much confirms that Jedi Mickey is non-canon on Twitter. It was obvious that he thought it made no sense either. Zakor1138 (talk) 03:39, May 25, 2013 (UTC)
- Yeah. I agree. To put it another way, if we're going to declare it non-canon, we do it by the book, to use Police phraseology. Weedle McHairybug (talk) 01:22, May 25, 2013 (UTC)
- You're making the mistake of believing we maintain any kind of authority at all to come to a decision based on our own logic and reasoning to decide whether something is canon or not. We do not get to decide things. All we get to do is document subjects as objectively as we possibly can based on the pre-defined laws of canon as we understand them. Just because we don't like something and think it's silly is not a good enough reason for us to subjectively decide of our own volition that we're going to slap a non-canon or ambiguously canon tag on it. Your desire to declare this non-canon is based on exactly zero evidence except your personal distaste for the subject's inclusion in continuity. I'm sorry, sir, but that is not good enough. Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 01:19, May 25, 2013 (UTC)
- Unfortunately, honor and the integrity of Wookieepedia forbids a proper return to these comments, which would be lengthy, thorough, and harmful to the quality of this information source. Misunderstanding and confusion is sad for the fans. I am sorry for what has been done by it. But know this...If we are sensible, intelligent, and Star Wars loving Human beings (or if your a Hutt, then welcome brother, and goopta mo bossa) goopta mo bossa. It means, 'May your mind not evaporate'. Not an insult. A hope for Wookieepedia. Sense should tell us that this cannot be canon, just as Soul Caliber is not. We should not abandon logic for legalism. The fact being that Leland has neither directly confirmed or directly denied the canon status of this character, it should therefore be placed under the ambiguous banner at the least for the sake of logic and the controversy that has been spawned here. That controversy does make it ambiguous to us, does it not. That should be sufficient for the quality and accuracy requirements of Wookieepedia and its thoroughness. Otherwise, I would contest that this further be placed under the non-canon banner. However, I am restrained from doing so. I will not place the banner for ambiguity, but encourage these who are in oral and intellectual combat to resolve to do so in agreement that the controversy and lack of verification as well as the lack of objection by Leland Chee makes the character status ambiguous. Good day, and in the famous farewell of the Hutts, Goopta mo bossa. 99.188.36.80 01:02, May 25, 2013 (UTC)
- Pardon. I shouldn't have specified that Mickey as Jedi Mickey. -- Riffsyphon1024 04:57, May 24, 2013 (UTC)
- I would argue that that video does not show Jedi Mickey but rather Mickey Mouse in a Rebel pilot uniform, which isn't necessarily the same thing. At any rate, there are basically two versions of Jedi Mickey. One is the Jedi Mickey that appears in merchandising (plush dolls, Star Wars Weekends, etc.), which is non-canon, because those are not considered canonical sources. The other is the Jedi Mickey that appears in this toy line, which is a canonical source. But I agree that Chee should be contacted before we self-brand this non-canon. It's the only objective way to approach this. Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 04:13, May 24, 2013 (UTC)
- Just wanted to offer some background. I found this Wired article on Leland from 2008. The second video shows Jedi Mickey, though when the camera is pointed at it towards the end, Leland indicates that it, along with Darth Tater and the Soul Caliber game, doesn't belong in continuity. However, to really make a determination of status, someone would need to get an official statement from him specifically stating that Mickey is non-canon. -- Riffsyphon1024 03:57, May 24, 2013 (UTC)
Species
I still think we should list him as a member of the mouse species. Even though the packaging doesn't explicitly say this is his species, I think it's fair to make the conclusion simply based on his name and appearance, like we would for any other character with the duck test. We don't know that there aren't six-foot mice walking around the galaxy, for example. Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 00:34, May 25, 2013 (UTC)
- Lol, just delete this. Why the hell is this article here if it's about some sick, NON-CANON disney joke? It's almost disgusting ;_; --85.221.178.142 13:31, May 26, 2013 (UTC)Rexam
- Because Wookieepedia not only covers all canon Star Wars things, but also non-canon things as long as they're officially licensed—which is the case here. --LelalMekha (talk) 14:11, May 26, 2013 (UTC)
- He may be right. I'm not an expert on the rules, but merchandise is licensed and I just looked up Galactic Hero toys and their was a soft redirect link to a Star Wars Merchandise Wiki, but it appears this may not be the case for all the pop-up books and video games. Anyone got rules for where legos go on Wookieepedia? I'm just pointing out, that technically every Star Wars product is licensed. From toys to canon and non-canon subjects. Whether toy products count in this jurisdiction, I honestly don't know, but I'd suggest examining how we treat toys carefully.99.188.36.80 03:55, June 5, 2013 (UTC)
- Alright, we do refer to a lot of toys in Behind the Scenes. So I think we're good. We have a whole article on Kennar. 99.188.36.80 03:55, June 5, 2013 (UTC)
- He may be right. I'm not an expert on the rules, but merchandise is licensed and I just looked up Galactic Hero toys and their was a soft redirect link to a Star Wars Merchandise Wiki, but it appears this may not be the case for all the pop-up books and video games. Anyone got rules for where legos go on Wookieepedia? I'm just pointing out, that technically every Star Wars product is licensed. From toys to canon and non-canon subjects. Whether toy products count in this jurisdiction, I honestly don't know, but I'd suggest examining how we treat toys carefully.99.188.36.80 03:55, June 5, 2013 (UTC)
- Because Wookieepedia not only covers all canon Star Wars things, but also non-canon things as long as they're officially licensed—which is the case here. --LelalMekha (talk) 14:11, May 26, 2013 (UTC)
- Tope, if there is a source that physically describes mouses, then no. If not, then go ahead and list him as a mouse. Stake black msg 03:58, June 5, 2013 (UTC)
- I believe it's safe to say that, that if the Jedi's name is Mickey Mouse, then he is linked to the use of the word "mouse" as a descriptor. —GethralkinHyperwave 03:34, June 28, 2013 (UTC)
Appearances
There is no section for his appearances.Matty McRib (talk) 07:45, January 16, 2014 (UTC)
- That's probably because there are none. --LelalMekha (talk) 09:25, January 16, 2014 (UTC)
Still a Disney fan at Heart?
Hey guys, I want your honest opinion (but without profanity and anger). Not to sound childish but, is it okay to still enjoy classic Disney characters like Mickey, Minnie, Donald, Goofy, etc... despite Disney's questionable ownership of Lucasfilm?User:Ghost of LucasArts 12:35 PM; February 7, 2020
- A talk page is not the place to discuss this--Editoronthewiki (talk) 17:39, February 7, 2020 (UTC)