![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
The most recent edit (changing the table list to a bulleted list) cites the ABY/BBY (after/before Battle of Yavin) as non-canon. However, the Battle of Yavin occurs during A New Hope, which I've taken to believe as canon, so what's going on there? Is there a reference to it not being canon? Epic Wink -- ( talk) 14:35, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
And just a further note, some novels (which I'm pretty sure were canon as they were published after Disney acquired Star Wars) were removed without citation. Epic Wink -- ( talk) 14:39, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
As far as I'm aware, BBY and ABY terminology has never been used outside of Legends. Dark Knight 2149 23:18, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
I believe this quote should be in the article unless someone finds a quote of George Lucas saying his own opinion. It's the opinion of the creator of Star Wars, and it's the most recent, I could find.
George Lucas opinion about the canon
Watch the video interview around the minute 41 mark, Dave says:
"It's a funny thing having been here a while and actually telling Star Wars stories hmm... I'm in like a very odd unique position. Which is that... There is this notion that everything changed when everything became Legends, and I can see why people think that but you know having worked with George (Lucas), I can tell you that it always very clear, and he made it very clear, that the films and the TV shows were the only thing that he considered canon, that was it. So everything else was a world of fun ideas exciting characters, great possibilities but the EU(Expanded Universe) was created to explore all those things. And I know and I fully respect peoples opinions about it that some of the material said the next canon part of it hmmm... Ok, but like from the filmmaker world that I was brought into the TV series and the films were it. So it was not a big change for me when everyone was saying everything is Legends status. I'm like yeah that's what I always understood it's all Legends status what I've been able to do in Clone Wars is the same thing that George was doing in the prequels, which is like Ayla Secure. Ayla Secure gets pulled out of the comic books and now she's walking in the Jedi Temple. In Clone Wars there were several things from the Expanded Universe that hey we need a gang, we need another kind of mafia group not just the Hutts, hey Back Sun that exists..." - Dave Filoni on a video interview published by the Official Star Wars ( Youtube) Channel on August 12, 2016. [1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rosvel92 ( talk • contribs) 05:40, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
References
Kindred spirits needs to be added , it takes place during the clone wars and is released on july 21 2015 BadilYerak ( talk) 08:53, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
According to this tweet by Pablo Hidalgo, instead of Before and After the BBY and ABY, it should be Before Star Wars 4 (BSW4) and After Star Wars 4(ASW4) because in-universe it doesn't make any sense for the battle of Yavin to hold so much weigth, specially when Endor and the Empire Day, are much more significant in-universe dates, and Star Wars 4 as the measuring only works as an the out of universe time frame because it was the first film, but no in-universe. https://twitter.com/pablohidalgo/status/795361197490991104 Should we change all the articles? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rosvel92 ( talk • contribs) 04:28, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
Think it is. I see pending work Darth Maul has recently been posted with Doctor Aphra. Also believe there's a pending Thrawn novel...just saying. Can anyone confirm or update? One solution ( talk) 01:32, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
This doesn't answer the question regarding the 5-part Han Solo comic, but it was a great video to watch. Unless you posted the wrong link? One solution ( talk) 02:41, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
I am absolutely LIVID that the list of new canon works has been put in release order instead of chronological order. What was the thinking in doing this!? This was one of the most comprehensive lists out there for following the series chronologically, and someone just decided that that was irrelevant. Why has this happened? EDIT: I guess it's just that they've removed the "in-universe timeline" column. Release order was always there. This makes it so much worse! Why was that removed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by ETRossier ( talk • contribs) 17:12, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
I just wanted to say I am also disappointed in this change. There are lots of pages about fictional universes that include an in universe timeline. It's an added point of reference that is easy to understand for even the casual fan. The page that has been mentioned to go to instead is an overly meticulous timeline that is quite intimidating to get through. I always appreciated the ease of looking at this page and am disappointed the only reason I read it is gone. Morph1138 ( talk) 01:44, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
Why don't we use the Lothal Calendar (which is canon)? The Battle of Yavin for example took place in the Lothal Year 3277. 85.255.150.186 ( talk) 19:06, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
Considering this is a page about what is canonical, I think it is reasonable to have a "canonical listing", in whatever form is most suitable for that. I know it seems like a pretty in-universe thing to do, but this article is a pretty in-universe focused article anyway. And I think that how all the shows and books and stuff fit around the films is reasonably notable as well. - adamstom97 ( talk) 21:43, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
Only reason I came to this page for reference was because of the timeline. Since it doesn't appear to be coming back, I'll remove this site from my bookmarks. Seems a real shame that something people use as reference on a site built for reference has been taken away. This is one of the reasons I use Wikipedia less and less all the time. Morph1138 ( talk) 07:31, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
We should merge the article about The Holocron database into this article, it's better detailed here and we are like a two or three sentences away from doing so anyway, so no point on it being described the same in 2 different articles. Rosvel92 ( talk) 15:02, 21 February 2017 (UTC)Rosvel92
Oppose, because the term is best known for its in-universe use, from which the out-of-universe use derives, and the out-of-universe version is actually too obscure to be the main topic. Indeed, way too much is made of it here, being that referring the Pablo Hidalgo as "keeper of the holocron" was a joke, a reference to the in-universe use. The term should not be redirected to an obscure-to-all-but-obsessive-fanboys internal database that's outdated and insignificant. It's actually quite UNDUE.
oknazevad (
talk)
14:14, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
Changed my mind. I redirected Holocron because a) it really didn't have anything that wasn't already here, b) this article provides much better context and c) the Holocron article was hopelessly outdated, being it didn't even mention the reboot at all, which is the single most important event in establishing what is canon. In short, I agree it was totally unneeded.
That said, I still think it's a n absolutely terrible redirect target, because the now outdated database is incredibly obscure compared to the in-universe objects that have appeared on screen in Rebels; just that alone makes them more notable. oknazevad ( talk) 14:27, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
While Star Wars is centered on the films, by this point it's clearly more than the films, why can't we have an article titled Star Wars (franchise) (films would be mentioned but it would only be a table of all the films and a small paragraph) and split everything detailed about the film series in an article titled Star Wars (film series)? What's the need to cram everything on a single article when the franchise is way more than the film series. We should do it like The Simpsons (franchise) which does encompass everything including the series but it does so in a single paragraph, and then The Simpsons it's exclusively about the show in detail. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rosvel92 ( talk • contribs) 15:39, March 12, 2017 (UTC)
-The main franchise article would be the setting paragraph, plus a table of the films with a one paragraph un-detailed description of the whole series, and below everything on the other media section exactly as it is now, but I think we would merge the Star Wars canon article in there somewhere, and the List of Star Wars film article would be merged into the franchise article too, because it would be better to list the films besides the context, maybe we could even merge the cultural impact there to round the whole "Star Wars (franchise)" article. -The film series article would be everything concerning the film series exactly as it is edited right now and nothing else.
-Just look at how The Simpsons (franchise) article works in comparison to the one of the TV show, Star Wars needs an article for the media franchise as a whole and another for the films. Star Wars legends would still require it's own article though. Rosvel92 ( talk) 21:14, 13 March 2017 (UTC)Rosvel92
Why are episodes in the prequel trilogy in this article (as a number of other pages) being given their own titles but the originals stripped off of them? Since when were these films not released in their episodic titles? On the subject of episodic titles, why are people resisting the fact that A New Hope was known as "Star Wars" only until 1981? People going against this cited posters- far from a reliable source. They then claimed WP:COMMONNAME, which also goes against the argument of calling it "Star Wars." Another user pointed this out when proposing a revert to A New Hope. He pointed to a number of sources satisfying WP:COMMONAME and another vote occurred with about two thirds voting in favor of stripping the film names off their titles. As I interpret it- as in a number of countless cases on Wikipedia- that it's just because the majority of users prefer it that way.-- NadirAli نادر علی ( talk) 01:05, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
This article might prove useful if anyone wants to write about the Legends things that became canon. http://www.ign.com/articles/2017/05/04/13-star-wars-expanded-universe-concepts-that-have-become-canon — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rosvel92 ( talk • contribs) 16:23, May 5, 2017 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
The most recent edit (changing the table list to a bulleted list) cites the ABY/BBY (after/before Battle of Yavin) as non-canon. However, the Battle of Yavin occurs during A New Hope, which I've taken to believe as canon, so what's going on there? Is there a reference to it not being canon? Epic Wink -- ( talk) 14:35, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
And just a further note, some novels (which I'm pretty sure were canon as they were published after Disney acquired Star Wars) were removed without citation. Epic Wink -- ( talk) 14:39, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
As far as I'm aware, BBY and ABY terminology has never been used outside of Legends. Dark Knight 2149 23:18, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
I believe this quote should be in the article unless someone finds a quote of George Lucas saying his own opinion. It's the opinion of the creator of Star Wars, and it's the most recent, I could find.
George Lucas opinion about the canon
Watch the video interview around the minute 41 mark, Dave says:
"It's a funny thing having been here a while and actually telling Star Wars stories hmm... I'm in like a very odd unique position. Which is that... There is this notion that everything changed when everything became Legends, and I can see why people think that but you know having worked with George (Lucas), I can tell you that it always very clear, and he made it very clear, that the films and the TV shows were the only thing that he considered canon, that was it. So everything else was a world of fun ideas exciting characters, great possibilities but the EU(Expanded Universe) was created to explore all those things. And I know and I fully respect peoples opinions about it that some of the material said the next canon part of it hmmm... Ok, but like from the filmmaker world that I was brought into the TV series and the films were it. So it was not a big change for me when everyone was saying everything is Legends status. I'm like yeah that's what I always understood it's all Legends status what I've been able to do in Clone Wars is the same thing that George was doing in the prequels, which is like Ayla Secure. Ayla Secure gets pulled out of the comic books and now she's walking in the Jedi Temple. In Clone Wars there were several things from the Expanded Universe that hey we need a gang, we need another kind of mafia group not just the Hutts, hey Back Sun that exists..." - Dave Filoni on a video interview published by the Official Star Wars ( Youtube) Channel on August 12, 2016. [1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rosvel92 ( talk • contribs) 05:40, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
References
Kindred spirits needs to be added , it takes place during the clone wars and is released on july 21 2015 BadilYerak ( talk) 08:53, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
According to this tweet by Pablo Hidalgo, instead of Before and After the BBY and ABY, it should be Before Star Wars 4 (BSW4) and After Star Wars 4(ASW4) because in-universe it doesn't make any sense for the battle of Yavin to hold so much weigth, specially when Endor and the Empire Day, are much more significant in-universe dates, and Star Wars 4 as the measuring only works as an the out of universe time frame because it was the first film, but no in-universe. https://twitter.com/pablohidalgo/status/795361197490991104 Should we change all the articles? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rosvel92 ( talk • contribs) 04:28, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
Think it is. I see pending work Darth Maul has recently been posted with Doctor Aphra. Also believe there's a pending Thrawn novel...just saying. Can anyone confirm or update? One solution ( talk) 01:32, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
This doesn't answer the question regarding the 5-part Han Solo comic, but it was a great video to watch. Unless you posted the wrong link? One solution ( talk) 02:41, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
I am absolutely LIVID that the list of new canon works has been put in release order instead of chronological order. What was the thinking in doing this!? This was one of the most comprehensive lists out there for following the series chronologically, and someone just decided that that was irrelevant. Why has this happened? EDIT: I guess it's just that they've removed the "in-universe timeline" column. Release order was always there. This makes it so much worse! Why was that removed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by ETRossier ( talk • contribs) 17:12, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
I just wanted to say I am also disappointed in this change. There are lots of pages about fictional universes that include an in universe timeline. It's an added point of reference that is easy to understand for even the casual fan. The page that has been mentioned to go to instead is an overly meticulous timeline that is quite intimidating to get through. I always appreciated the ease of looking at this page and am disappointed the only reason I read it is gone. Morph1138 ( talk) 01:44, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
Why don't we use the Lothal Calendar (which is canon)? The Battle of Yavin for example took place in the Lothal Year 3277. 85.255.150.186 ( talk) 19:06, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
Considering this is a page about what is canonical, I think it is reasonable to have a "canonical listing", in whatever form is most suitable for that. I know it seems like a pretty in-universe thing to do, but this article is a pretty in-universe focused article anyway. And I think that how all the shows and books and stuff fit around the films is reasonably notable as well. - adamstom97 ( talk) 21:43, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
Only reason I came to this page for reference was because of the timeline. Since it doesn't appear to be coming back, I'll remove this site from my bookmarks. Seems a real shame that something people use as reference on a site built for reference has been taken away. This is one of the reasons I use Wikipedia less and less all the time. Morph1138 ( talk) 07:31, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
We should merge the article about The Holocron database into this article, it's better detailed here and we are like a two or three sentences away from doing so anyway, so no point on it being described the same in 2 different articles. Rosvel92 ( talk) 15:02, 21 February 2017 (UTC)Rosvel92
Oppose, because the term is best known for its in-universe use, from which the out-of-universe use derives, and the out-of-universe version is actually too obscure to be the main topic. Indeed, way too much is made of it here, being that referring the Pablo Hidalgo as "keeper of the holocron" was a joke, a reference to the in-universe use. The term should not be redirected to an obscure-to-all-but-obsessive-fanboys internal database that's outdated and insignificant. It's actually quite UNDUE.
oknazevad (
talk)
14:14, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
Changed my mind. I redirected Holocron because a) it really didn't have anything that wasn't already here, b) this article provides much better context and c) the Holocron article was hopelessly outdated, being it didn't even mention the reboot at all, which is the single most important event in establishing what is canon. In short, I agree it was totally unneeded.
That said, I still think it's a n absolutely terrible redirect target, because the now outdated database is incredibly obscure compared to the in-universe objects that have appeared on screen in Rebels; just that alone makes them more notable. oknazevad ( talk) 14:27, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
While Star Wars is centered on the films, by this point it's clearly more than the films, why can't we have an article titled Star Wars (franchise) (films would be mentioned but it would only be a table of all the films and a small paragraph) and split everything detailed about the film series in an article titled Star Wars (film series)? What's the need to cram everything on a single article when the franchise is way more than the film series. We should do it like The Simpsons (franchise) which does encompass everything including the series but it does so in a single paragraph, and then The Simpsons it's exclusively about the show in detail. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rosvel92 ( talk • contribs) 15:39, March 12, 2017 (UTC)
-The main franchise article would be the setting paragraph, plus a table of the films with a one paragraph un-detailed description of the whole series, and below everything on the other media section exactly as it is now, but I think we would merge the Star Wars canon article in there somewhere, and the List of Star Wars film article would be merged into the franchise article too, because it would be better to list the films besides the context, maybe we could even merge the cultural impact there to round the whole "Star Wars (franchise)" article. -The film series article would be everything concerning the film series exactly as it is edited right now and nothing else.
-Just look at how The Simpsons (franchise) article works in comparison to the one of the TV show, Star Wars needs an article for the media franchise as a whole and another for the films. Star Wars legends would still require it's own article though. Rosvel92 ( talk) 21:14, 13 March 2017 (UTC)Rosvel92
Why are episodes in the prequel trilogy in this article (as a number of other pages) being given their own titles but the originals stripped off of them? Since when were these films not released in their episodic titles? On the subject of episodic titles, why are people resisting the fact that A New Hope was known as "Star Wars" only until 1981? People going against this cited posters- far from a reliable source. They then claimed WP:COMMONNAME, which also goes against the argument of calling it "Star Wars." Another user pointed this out when proposing a revert to A New Hope. He pointed to a number of sources satisfying WP:COMMONAME and another vote occurred with about two thirds voting in favor of stripping the film names off their titles. As I interpret it- as in a number of countless cases on Wikipedia- that it's just because the majority of users prefer it that way.-- NadirAli نادر علی ( talk) 01:05, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
This article might prove useful if anyone wants to write about the Legends things that became canon. http://www.ign.com/articles/2017/05/04/13-star-wars-expanded-universe-concepts-that-have-become-canon — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rosvel92 ( talk • contribs) 16:23, May 5, 2017 (UTC)