Talk: Star Wars: Graphics

Back to page
Wiki-shrinkable

This is the talk page for the article "Star Wars: Graphics."

This space is used for discussion relating to changes to the article, not for discussing the topic in question. For general questions about the article's topic, please visit Wookieepedia Discussions. Please remember to stay civil and sign all of your comments with four tildes (~~~~). Click here to start a new topic.

Dubious canonicity

This book's canonicity seems dubious. According to a reader who bought it in UK today, it contains many elements that sound way too Legends-y to be true, like the E-Wing, Keyan Farlander, and the R-22 Spearhead (this last example is particularly egregious, given that, going by Rebels the R-22 Spearhead does not seem to exist anymore). Even weirder, the book gives "midi-chlorian counts" that tend to match the ones given by SuperShadow... --LelalMekha (talk) 17:41, April 28, 2016 (UTC)

  • On Twitter yesterday, when asked by Florian B. of Jedi-Bibliothek, Pablo actually said that he had no idea this book even existed—though it does look cool. So, yeah. There's that. (I can't find the tweet now). Nivlacanator(talk) 18:17, April 28, 2016 (UTC)
    • If you could find the Tweet, that would be useful. But elements taken from SuperShadow? That's more than I can swallow. We have to remove that canon header at all costs. --LelalMekha (talk) 08:23, May 4, 2016 (UTC)
      • Found it: https://twitter.com/pablohidalgo/status/725023028732674048. - Cwedin(talk) 22:16, May 12, 2016 (UTC)
        • So... does that mean we should change the timeline bar to "Legends"? Weedle McHairybug (talk) 00:08, May 13, 2016 (UTC)
          • Why isn't there a non-canon bar? It just seems weird putting post-2014 articles under the Legends banner. BrulesBrules signatureClick here to chat 00:12, May 13, 2016 (UTC)
            • It's neither canon nor Legends. The tag can just be removed altogether. - Brandon Rhea(talk) 00:21, May 13, 2016 (UTC)
              • You sure? I know Imperial Handbook was slapped with the Legends timeline despite it being released quite a few months after the Canon/Legends split occurred. What's to say this isn't the same thing? Weedle McHairybug (talk) 01:52, May 13, 2016 (UTC)
                • That question has already been answered: Pablo Hidalgo has no clue what this book is. This has no canonicity. - Brandon Rhea(talk) 03:25, May 13, 2016 (UTC)
                  • Not to completely rebut Brandon's statement, because I agree there are cases where it's important to distinguish when some items are Canon vs. Non-canon vs. No Canon, but I don't see why this book shouldn't be treated as Legends. It's obviously a bit of a strange situation with the 2016 publishing date, but as others have pointed out, there are quite a few Legends references in here. Another one I just noticed is Palpatine's birth year being listed as 82 BBY, which is inarguably a Legends thing, since Canon has changed his birth to 84 BBY. Additionally, it's important to point out that this book is a mixture of in-universe and real-world information. Yes, there are certain references to Canon-exclusive subjects, such as Star Wars Rebels and the new Star Wars Marvel comics, but these are OOU publishing timelines and the like, and I haven't come across any in-universe Canon references. Pablo being unaware of the book's existence doesn't need to relegate it to No Canon status. To me that just means that it's clearly not part of Canon, since the Story Group is unconcerned with it. But Legends' approach was always much more liberal, where essentially anything published under the LFL license was considered Legends canon, and I don't see why this should be treated any differently. Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 00:25, March 26, 2019 (UTC)

Availability

Why does the entry give a May 5, 2016 release date? I bought a copy from my local WH Smith last Wednesday!

Seniram 16:48, April 30, 2016 (UTC)