Talk: Retroactive continuity

Stormtroopers as Clones

Stormtroopers during the Galactic Civil War were never indicated to be clones before the prequel films. That statement is not entirely accurate. Lucas said in two distinct interviews, one around the time of Episode II and another back in '78 or '79, that the Stormtroopers are clones, which is why the EU retconned Stormtroopers to basically 'Clones + Conscripts'. To be honest, it will be interesting to see how Lucas handles this with the live-action series.

I had to give this article a major work-over; in addition to adding some entires, I had to remove a lot of the stuff that was already here. Most of them weren't retcons, but merely expanded information that didn't conflict with anything already known. I also don't know if I got the details for the Death Star entry right, but I did what I think is correct. Kuralyov 16:58, 11 Jul 2005 (UTC)

I hope that future contributors keep in mind to seperate fan retcons from official retcons. --SparqMan 02:59, 12 Jul 2005 (UTC)

It was established in the EU that Raith Sienar gave Tarkin the designs for the Death Star, and that Bevel Lemelisk developed the Superlaser; after Episode II revealed that the Geonosians gave the plans to Tyranus/Sidious, it was retconned that the Geonosians developed the details based on outlines given to them by Sienar Lemelisk.

The name in bold is clearly a mistake. Anyone knows if the writer intended to write Bevel Lemelisk or Raith Sienar? 62.74.3.220 20:39, 12 Jul 2005 (UTC)

• Maybe he was their birthchild. :P -- Riffsyphon1024 20:44, 12 Jul 2005 (UTC)

The identical R-22 Spearhead was then 'invented' as a predecessor of the A-wing, in order to explain the appearance of such ships in the Droids era. Where was this information taken from. Lucas wouldn't spend a minute trying to tie the cartoons together with the movies.Lt santa anna 12:56, 13 Sep 2005 (UTC)

• I'm pretty sure it was either one of the Inside the Worlds or Incredible Cross Sections books, but I can't remember which one at the moment (and I don't own them all yet so I can't go check). The general idea was to rationalize the appearance of the A-Wing before its official deployment date. (Which, you're right, GL wouldn't give a damn about.) In addition to being in the Droids cartoon, the A-Wing is all over games like X-Wing and Rebel Assault before it's supposed to be generally available, so now we can say those were R-22's (or perhaps prototype RZ-1s), which were unofficially called "A-Wings." When they deployed the actual RZ-1 interceptor, they called it A-wing officially to fit the existing system of letter designations. —Darth Culator 14:13, 13 Sep 2005 (UTC)
  • It's the New Essential Guide to Characters that has it, p. 55. jSarek 19:34, 13 Sep 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure if this is a retcon, but in episode VI, Leia definitely says that she remembers her mother and in episode III her mom dies before Leia could have possibly remembered her mom. Short of some really lame excuses involving a force enhanced memory, i haven't heard anything that explains this. Is this Lucas just doing a poor job? Lt santa anna 13:02, 13 Sep 2005 (UTC)

• It's not retcon, it's called inconsistency. :) - Sikon 13:18, 13 Sep 2005 (UTC)
  • Not an inconsistency. Just a lie. Women do that. Anyway...... Should we create retcon category? Lonnyd 13:58, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
    • A third possibility is that she was refering to her adpoted mother on Alderaan. The books seem to suggest she was raised by her aunts, so it is possible she had an adpoted mother who died when she was young. (209.183.187.81 21:52, 5 March 2008 (UTC))

Group != Squadron

The following Retcon entry was removed:

In the movies, Red Squadron appears twice, in Episode IV and Episode VI. According to the Expanded Universe, the Squadron was dissolved sometime in between and replaced by Rogue Squadron. The reappearance is explained by that Wedge Antilles renamed briefly the Rogues as Red Squadron, to honor the memory of the heroes of the Battle of Yavin.

The reason for its removal is based on how it is phrased. If the statement is basing it on the movies, then the statement itself is incorrect. Episode VI refers to Red Group, which constitutes several squadrons' worth of fighters, not a single squadron. All throughout the battle sequence, the term squadron is never used.

In addition, the use of colors (Red, Gold, Blue, Gray, Green) is supposed to be a battle-com terminology, and not the formal name of a squadron. Each fighter-supporting ship in the fleet, each installation, each base, etc. that has multiple fighters will delineate different flights, or squadrons, by colors, to make communication & tracking more effective. Hence the terms "Red Flight, Blue Flight, Green Squadron, Gold Squadron". The actual, formal designation (or name) of the squadron would be something like 243rd Pursuit Squadron, or 99th Tactical Squadron (I'm saying this as an example, since the naming of squadrons in Alliance/Republic service is inconsistent). The use of the terms "Rogue Squadron" or "Twin Suns Squadron" is appropriate, considering these squadrons' roles as crack, uber-elite, irregular squadrons that rove about from location to location. What you will find, though, is that there are "Red Squadrons" just about everywhere, because it's not a formal designation, merely a communications term. -- Hawke / Rtufo 16:08, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Leia's mother?

It says "The only logical explanation Leia's statement is that she is thinking of her adoptive parents Breha and Bail Organa.".

Yet in the film luke says "what do you remember of your mother, your real mother" and leia says "she died when i was very young", so she cant have been talking about here adopted parents, unless Breha died when leia was young and bail remarrid (which is highly unlikely)so .. ? Alexsau1991 23:43, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Did she actually know at that time that she was adopted? So she may well have thought that Breha Organa WAS her "real" mother. Or another possibility is that the "memory" she has is simply a construct of her imagination rather than a real tangible memory. 65.37.15.60 23:20, October 19, 2009 (UTC)

The RotJ novelization makes it abundantly clear that Leia is aware she is not talking about her adopted mother:

"Leia ... do you remember your mother? Your real mother?" The question took her totally by surprise. She'd always felt so close to her adopted parents, it was as if they were her real parents. She almost never thought of her real mother -- that was like a dream."

- p118 1st edition hardcover It's important to note that prior to Revenge of the Sith, their mother had not died in childbirth, and she had taken Leia to the Organas:

"When your father left, he didn't know your mother was pregnant. Your mother and I knew he would find out eventually, but we wanted to keep you both as safe as possible, for as long as possible. So I took you to live with my brother Owen, on Tatooine ... and your mother took Leia to live as the daughter of Senator Organa, on Alderaan."

- p66 1st edition hardcover

216.189.169.71 22:43, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Karen Traviss

Is it worth noting that Karen Traviss does this *a lot* under an examples section? Xanofar 01:48, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

• I think we ought to include her quote "Because we bloody say so, that's why." 129.107.81.12 00:29, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

its endorsed by lucas arts, everything she posts is canon, i dont like the idea of jedi suddenly being able to cut through droidika deflector sheilds, but its endorsed by lucas arts on the clone wars so w/e

• It's "endorsed" by Lucas Licensing, not LEC. LEC handles the games, not the books.

Expand

Needs huge amount of updating. —Lucius malfoy7 ^{Talk • Reference} 21:39, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

• What about all of the retcons related to the EU's depiction of the Jedi Order before the PT? 67.162.175.159 08:46, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Stormtroopers

In the retcon section on Stormtrooper it states that their was no mention of them being clones prior to the prequel movies. However in the 1977/78 Star Wars Official Poster Magazine an article by Anthony Fredrickson titled "Soldiers of the Empire" refers to Imperial Stormtoopers as clones 24yrs before the release of Attack of the Clones.

Also, in Episode IV, when Luke rescues Leia, she queries "Aren't you a little short to be a Stormtrooper." This indicates that there was some expected size (at least a minimum size) for Stormtroopers. In fact, Stormtroopers are portrayed throughout Episodes IV-VI as remarkably uniform in stature, and predominantly left-handed. This supports Lucas's claim in Episode II commentary that it was always his intention that Stormtroopers were predominantly derived from clones.

Luke was a kid, so he was shorter. And I haven't noticed that they're all left-handed. And, stormtroopers were partially clones (501st, etc).—B-Boba Fett! ^{Make the check out to "Boba Fett"} 18:38, November 25, 2009 (UTC)

Given the sheer size of the Imperial military, prequel retcon or not, I'd think there would have to be at least some cloning involved in the creation of such a massive force.--Tpt828 20:10, December 1, 2009 (UTC)

First Contact?

According with their first backstory written in the Star Wars Sourcebook, the Mon Calamari and the Quarren had their first contact with offworlders when the Galactic Empire discovered their world. This generated continuity problems when Quarren appeared as background aliens in Episode I, and when the Mon Calamari Padawan Bant Eerin appeared in the Jedi Apprentice series. The idea that the Mon Calamari's conflict with the Empire was their first experience with offworlders was retconned away when they appeared as loyal members of the Galactic Republic in Star Wars: Clone Wars. Geonosis and the Outer Rim Worlds explained these previous references as Imperial propaganda.

I'm glad they changed this - sure, some species could've been kept as Imperial First Contacts, but it's ludicrous to think that a race with the technological know-how to build a starship that can hold its own against a Star Destroyer would've only been in space 25 years tops.--Tpt828 20:10, December 1, 2009 (UTC)

Star Wars Insider

The Ask Cad Bane section of Star Wars Insider 114 talks about the top ten continuity breaks in Star Wars, or something along those lines; that might be worth a mention in the article if anyone has it on hand. --Andrew Nagy 11:35, January 2, 2010 (UTC)

Trader's Luck

Is it worth nothing in the EU section that Trader's Luck was retconned? According to A.C. Crispin's book The Paradise Snare is was a "relic of the Clone Wars". It was, what appears, to be the only ship Han knew/Shrike owned since starting his con jobs. Seeing as the Clone Wars took place when Han was only about 10 (according to the movies time-line), that's kind of impossible for the ship to have been part of the Clone Wars, let alone a relic. Korsa3 13:36, January 19, 2011 (UTC)

Skywalker/Dreis

Does the Battle of Virujansi count as a retcon, since the "con" it "ret"s never made it into canon?--Tpt828 03:57, April 14, 2011 (UTC)

• Technically, the Holonet News Feed it appears in is canon, so it did make it in. Corellian Premier^{All along the watchtower} 12:03, April 14, 2011 (UTC)

Not a Retcon

I have a problem with one retcon that I don't feel was a retcon:

"Possibly the first, and certainly the most well-known, Star Wars retcon occurs in Return of the Jedi—Obi-Wan Kenobi's explanation to Luke about Anakin's true fate."

This is actually aluded to in an exchange by Luke's uncle Owen and aunt Beru. The conversation goes:

Beru: "He's just not a farmer owen. He has too much of his father in him." Owen: "That's what I'm afraid of."

To one who is seeing star wars for the first time it seems that owen is worried that look is going to get killed like his father but in fact owen is worried that he is going to walk down the same dark path as his father. Obviously he too has been keeping a secret from Luke his entire life. So this is not a retcon.

I'm going to fix this article I hope I'm not doing anything wrong. If I am please let me know.--Limejello 08:36, May 13, 2011 (UTC)

What is a retcon? According to this wiki, retcons change previously established facts in a work of serial fiction. What are the previously established facts regarding the identity of Darth Vader and Luke's father? The established facts from episode IV are that Darth Vader and Luke's father were both pupils of Obi-Wan until Darth Vader turned to evil and killed Luke's father. We got that directly from the narrative in the movie in the form of expositional dialog from Obi-Wan himself. Expositional dialog generally counts as being established fact, especially when one good guy is telling another good guy stuff. Sure, any character could conceivably lying at any point in time, but if you don't count expositional dialog from a good guy as being an established fact just because he might be lying, then fiction wouldn't have many established facts.

As for Owen, as far as he was concerned, Luke's father went on a "damn fool idealistic crusade" and met an early death. Owen hates "damn fool idealistic crusades." So that conversation is entirely in-character even without the fact that Luke's father became Darth Vader. - Starfield 22:19, February 15, 2012 (UTC)

Also not retcons:

• "In Episode VI, Boba Fett falls into the Sarlacc and is presumed dead. However, in EU, Boba Fett escaped the Sarlacc..."

  You can only retcon established fact, not presumption. If a viewer makes an erroneous assumption, later invalidating that assumption is not a change to the continuity, only to the viewer's mindset.

• "...discriminatory Imperial policies, explain why, despite the obvious bio-diversity of the Galaxy, every uniformed Imperial official seen in the Original Trilogy was Human."

  This doesn't change anything about a previously established fact; it merely explains the reason for it.

I've removed these entries. Asithol 02:37, December 9, 2011 (UTC)

Was Obi-Wan's lack of awareness of Leia really a retcon. I thought he was always aware that she was Vader's daughter, but he just didn't know that she was capable of becoming a Jedi.--Masterbmw 18:03, February 17, 2012 (UTC)

There was nothing in the movies that indicated that. Only that Ben thought Luke was their last hope, but Yoda knew there was another. - Starfield 19:17, February 17, 2012 (UTC)

What Happened?

I'm fairly certain that this page once mentioned one of the biggest retcon of all times: the establishment of the Sith Empire to have happened following the Second Great Schism rather than the first. Why is it no longer on here, just out of curiosity? Is there a good reason for it? I ask because I was about to edit it back in myself, but then thought I'd better ask about it first. Would anyone in authority object?

I know it's old news and we're all over the shock now, but it's still pretty significant and worth mentioning, in my humble opinion.

Also, why is there no mention of the ever-continuing retcons surrounding the Clone Wars era? I know that the typical answer is that we must wait for the series to come to an end, or for an official statement from the Holocron Community to begin putting all of the pieces back together here on Wookieepedia, but what harm is there in simply mentioning that events are being altered and mentioning a few as examples? 24.3.90.58 04:02, August 14, 2011 (UTC)

I can't speak to the first because I don't know much about the issue/production history for the subject.

But as to the second, I think the Star Wars canon hierarchy creates an interesting problem with regards to what constitutes a retcon and what doesn't. By the strictest interpretation of the hierarchy, TCW never retcons anything. It simply presents a truer view of events than the C-canon story which preceded it. Sticky. Very sticky. – DigiFluid 19:11, February 17, 2012 (UTC)

Original research at top

What are we saying by having an "original research" tag at the top of the article? That the whole concept of "retcon" constitutes original research? There is already a tag in the expanded universe section. - Starfield 01:21, March 20, 2012 (UTC)

The question still stands. Why is the "original research" tag better at the top of the article than at the beginning of the EU section? The "Star Wars movie" section is well sourced with citations. - Starfield 17:13, March 21, 2012 (UTC)

Obi-wan

"■In Episode V, Ben Kenobi's Force ghost was unaware Darth Vader had another child until Yoda told him.[4] In Episode III, he was present when Luke's and Leia's mother, Padmé, gave birth to twins and even helped arrange for Bail Organa to adopt Leia."

It is not justified (or at least not necessary for continuity) to infer from Obi-wan's comment that "That boy is our last hope" MUST mean that he did not know Leia was Luke's sister. It could be as simple as that he did not believe that Leia could fill the role he wanted for Luke, or perhaps he was just despairing. Regardless, this comment is by no means in need of a retcon, and the "source" given as to why this was a retcon is only the quote, and nowhere in this quote is there convicting evidence of Obi-wan being ignorant to Leia's status as Luke's sister, regardless of whether or not Leia was set to be Luke's sister during Episode V. This is not a retcon because Obi-wan being present at the twin's birth changes no facts and has no contradiction with the Obi-wan's comment. I have therefore deleted the above statement from the "Star Wars Movies" section.

Mantlefan89 (talk) 21:53, November 3, 2012 (UTC)

Since a user has twice re-inserted the assertion and has not discussed it, I have inserted the request for an actual source that states the Obi-wan did not know at the time, rather than the "source" which is a quote that in no way necessitates he was ignorant of Luke and Leia's relation.

Mantlefan89 (talk) 22:21, November 3, 2012 (UTC)

It is not just Ben's quote, it is also Yoda's response. "No, there is another." Yoda informs Ben that there is another. - Starfield (talk) 02:50, November 5, 2012 (UTC)

But what did Obi-wan say? Did he say "that boy is the last Skywalker?" No. Obi-wan saying Luke was their last hope has nothing inherently to do with him knowing or not knowing about Leia. Until an actual, published source confirms that Obi-wan didn't know, there is nothing just from those two quotes that remotely confirms that he didn't know. It's irresponsible to assume that because Obi-wan said Luke was their last hope, that he also did not know of Leia's relation. Until an actual source is provided, that is merely an individual author's assertion and saying that it was retconned by Episode III is inappropriate according to sourcing guidelines.

Mantlefan89 (talk) 14:25, November 5, 2012 (UTC)

I disagree. Yoda is dropping a bomb on Ben. "No, there is another." If Yoda knew Ben knew about Luke's twin, it is not plausible that he would say that. He would have said something else. "No, his twin there is" or something. You can remove the ^[source?] tag. There is no better source than Ben and Yoda's little exchange. Also, why are you calling him Obi-Wan? He hasn't gone by that name since before Luke was born (more or less). :) - Starfield (talk) 23:56, November 5, 2012 (UTC)

If there is indeed no better source than their exchange, it then should be that that paragraph be removed entirely. For Obi-wan's (what I call him is neither here nor there, we all know who I am referring to; but if it really matters, Luke calls him Obi-wan on dagobah in RotJ) presence at the birth to be a retcon, it must change a previously established FACT according to the page's definition. Does the exchange establish at all the level of Ben's knowledge about the twins' relation? Not at all. We can talk all day about what Obi-wan probably knew or did not know, but the simple fact of the matter is that there is nothing at all in that exchange that shows that Obi-wan did not know. It is irrelevant if the plan was or was not to have Obi-wan present at the birth; what matters is if his presence there contradicts any previous facts, which it clearly does not. I don't buy the assertion that Yoda would say something else, especially if the filmmakers wanted to keep WHO the other hope was vague.

Mantlefan89 (talk) 00:12, November 6, 2012 (UTC)

I know Yoda is highly gifted with the Force, but there is no evidence Yoda had any knowledge of any "filmmakers," much less what information these "filmmakers" may or may not have wanted to be kept vague. Yoda's comment has to be taken on its own merits within in the context of the film. - Starfield (talk) 02:58, November 6, 2012 (UTC)

And within the context of the film all we know is that Ben states that Luke is the last "hope," and the following comment refers to "another." Please state exactly how this explicitly shows 3 things: 1. That Yoda was telling Ben something he didn't KNOW (rather than didn't believe) 2. That the other hope indeed was Leia, and 3. How the words used explicitly show that Ben did not know until that point that Luke and Leia were related. If we can't satisfy all three of those, and if we don't have a source explicitly saying that Ben didn't know but RotS retconned that, then the paragraph needs to be removed since it is an original, subjective claim not backed up by actual evidence. Note Ben did not say "That boy is our last Skywalker" or "That boy is the last member of his family." Thus, when Yoda replies, the most we can say that Yoda believed that Ben did not was that there was another "hope," not another Skywalker. Obi-wan's presence at the birth is decidedly NOT a retcon, because it does not change an established fact, because it is FAR from established in ANY way that Ben's comment MUST mean that he did not know Luke and Leia were related. It is better to have no statement in an article than a dubious, uncited statement in an article (a citation must actually support a claim to count). I'm not saying that there should be a paragraph in the article saying that the situation was NOT a retcon, but what is there is to shaky too be there, and nothing is better than a shaky claim. If nobody digs up a source confirming that was a retcon, then that needs to be removed.Mantlefan89 (talk) 03:50, November 6, 2012 (UTC)

1. Yoda was correcting Kenobi. "No, there is another [hope]." He didn't know there was another hope. This was a huge cliffhanger for the audience to chew on between movies. "Who is the other hope? I bet it is Han." etc. This huge cliffhanger was finally resolved when Luke went back to Degobah in RotJ. Yoda tried to tell Luke (and the audience) about "another." 2. Kenobi verified that the "other" Yoda was speaking of was Luke's twin sister. There is no way the other hope was anything but Luke's twin sister, because Luke's twin sister resolved the cliffhanger. 3. The audience was given a bombshell at the end of TESB. Ben is in despair. That was their last hope! No, wait! Yoda has an ace up his sleeve! That's exactly what the movie makers were trying to get across. It seems pretty plain to me that the movie makers weren't trying to get across the idea that Kenobi didn't think Luke's twin sister constituted a "hope" for whatever reason and Yoda was passive-aggressively arguing that "there is too another hope, you thick-headed blue glowy. You just refuse to believe it." - Starfield (talk) 00:54, November 26, 2012 (UTC)

If you remember Obi-Wan TOLD Luke about his sister in RotJ. So even if it IS a retcon it was retconed in 1983. NOT in RotS. All that that conversation between Obi-Wan and Yoda tells me is that Obi-Wan disagrees with Yoda.ExarKunLives (talk) 07:53, November 22, 2012 (UTC)

Yoda told Kenobi's ghost about the other hope at the end of TESB, of course. I'm not convinced Kenobi knew her identity even in RotJ. He says she remains safely anonymous, which sounds like she is anonymous to him, too. - Starfield (talk) 00:54, November 26, 2012 (UTC)

What we are respectively strongly convinced is the case is of no consequence. There is no inherent contradiction and no verified source confirming it to be a retcon, so while claiming that is a retcon is great and a fine assertion for your personal page, it has no business being in the article itself as it is merely conjecture and an original, unverified, dubious claim.

04:41, November 26, 2012 (UTC)

Ben knew there was Luke and Leia in V. Ben was closer and closest to Luke since it was he who sort of "brought him up". Ben gave Luke a lightsaber. Ben was simply saying in V that Luke was the last hope since it was impossible to train Leia--she could not be contacted and had no lightsaber. Thus there's no retconSome one very clever. (talk) 16:27, June 12, 2013 (UTC)

Leia remembering Padme

Leia says she can remember Padme in Episode 6, should I say this is a debated retcon? As Leia is force sensitive so that would explain her memory wouldn't it?—Unsigned comment by Tankingmage (talk • contribs)

New Canon

Someone should add an explanation of the new canon and how it (according to Disney) eliminates complicated retcons. • DarthKnah  Talk 20:15, August 4, 2015 (UTC)

Canon retcons

I think there are enough retcons in new canon for it's own list here --Goodmind (talk) 06:49, November 10, 2019 (UTC)

Moving to retroactive continuity

The wiki’s naming policy states the following:

===Prefer spelled-out phrases to abbreviations===
Use the full name of the subject instead of its abbreviation (example: [[Commission for the Preservation of the New Order]] instead of [[COMPNOR]]).

The page entitled with the abbreviation "retcon" should likely be moved to a new page entitled with the name "retroactive continuity" because the policy makes clear that pages should "use the full name of the subject instead of its abbreviation".Drour1234 (talk) 20:50, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

• As I said on Discord, personally I feel that as an OOU article it makes more sense to keep this at the common name Fan26 (Talk) 21:12, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
  • The policy does not make an exception between IU and OOU names. In general, the wiki should keep consistency. All abbreviations are common names because in their nature, they simply exist so that the full name does not take long to say or write.Drour1234 (talk) 21:16, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
    • Per the naming policy, but also, it is my personal opinion that abbreviations should not be the standard for the title of an encyclopedia article. As an additional note, the naming policy put the emphasis whenever necessary to lean toward the most formal title. NanoLuuke^{Cloning Facility} 22:25, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
      • My opinion is that retcon is the more appropriate title, as this is the most commonly used one. Supreme Emperor ^Holocomm 23:28, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
        • Retcon is the most common term precisely because it is quicker to say. That is the purpose of the existence of abbreviations. Abbreviations are not alternate names. They are shortened forms of names that are created because the actual name is either too long to say or would not flow very well within a quick sentence. Retroactive continuity is the name that retcon is an abbreviation of. Retcon is not a name in its own right. No matter how many times retcon is used more than retroactive continuity, retcon will never become an alternate name to retroactive continuity. It always will be an abbreviation, not a name. The fact that the name of the page is retcon is a contradiction to the Wookiepeedia Naming Policy.Drour1234 (talk) 21:27, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
          • I don't really mind, but I gotta agree with Nano that full names are preferred in keeping with our encyclopedic standards (perhaps this is comparable to "fanon" and "fan fiction" too). Whatever the case, exceptions to general policies, like "retcon" rather than "retroactive continuity," can exist if the community comes to such a consensus, so I think it just depends on what folks think. OOM 224 (he/him) 21:50, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
            • Per OOM, I'd recommend bringing this to some sort of vote. JediMasterMacaroni^(Talk) 02:37, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
              • Regarding the term fanon, that term is the full name of the concept and is not an abbreviation. Therefore, that page does not have any relation to the fact that this page uses an abbreviation rather than a name. Abbreviations work well for redirects because people are obviously going to be searching for abbreviations rather than names if the name in question is hard to remember. Abbreviations exist and redirects exist for a reason. The formal name of a page should not be relegated to being a redirect. If the page is moved to retroactive continuity, people will be frequently redirected by searching for retcon. However, in being redirected to retroactive continuity, they would learn new information: retcon is an abbreviation of retroactive continuity. Plus, having the page be called retroactive continuity will make the page consistent with the rest of the wiki. Making this page an exception would make this page stand out among the rest of the wiki. An exception is not necessary for the reasons that I have stated above.Drour1234 (talk) 02:59, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
                • Again, I agree, but like J-Mac said, best to close the issue with a quick CT vote. NanoLuuke^{Cloning Facility} 12:14, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

TLJ novel retcon?

"It was also stated in the novelization for Episode VIII that Darth Sidious had sensed Snoke shortly before his death, coming to believe that Snoke would succeed him as the leader of what would become the First Order." Exactly where was this stated? I did a quick search and can't find anything like that in the novel. SuperFeatherYoshi (talk) 04:44, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure where I got this notion from, I do not even remember writing this. I have looked through both the Episode 7 and 8 novels just to be sure, and you are correct, it is not there. There is the part about Snoke saying he witnessed the rise and fall of the Empire in the Episode 7 novel, but not anything about Palpatine sensing Snoke. Giftheck (talk) 14:04, 22 March 2024 (UTC)