Talk:Star Wars in other media/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Images

I'd like to add an image of the WEG Star Wars Roleplaying game to the "Development" section of the article, but my scanner is on the fritz. If somebody has the book handy, I'd appreciate it if they could add the image. Thanks. Justin Bacon 04:45, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Addendum: Once the "Future History" section is properly expanded, I'd also suggest a cover image from the New Jedi Order novels for that section.

Vector Prime? Why, I'll add it now! The Wookieepedian 04:57, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Proposed revision of the article

Based on a discussion on the discussion page for the main Star Wars article, I have prepared a draft revision of this article which attempts to merge the EU material from the Star Wars article with the material already located here. Rather than simply take the plnge, I've put that draft on User page for comment. Feel free to comment here, or join the discussion where it started. Thanks. Justin Bacon 15:46, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

• Looks fine to me, and I would support moving it from your user page into the article. In general, the stuff brought in from the Star Wars article is, in my opinion, tighter and more encyclopedic in style and range (sticks to facts rather than observations), so it might be good to keep removing redundant or non-verifiable info from the first sections. (Something we can all help with if you go ahead and change the article). Dystopos 17:38, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
  • I too support your new version of the page, and wish to see it incorporated into the current version. Though, I do believe the material you've taken from the main star wars page needs to be expanded for this article. The Wookieepedian 20:59, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
    • Okay. With three votes for and none against, the resolution passes. <g> I'll update this article and then head over to the main Star Wars article to reduce the Expanded Universe section down there to a short summary. Thanks, guys. Justin Bacon 04:31, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
      • I'm not sure how much expansion of the summaries taken from the Star Wars page is needed here since most elements of the EU have their own articles. What could most use expansion is the real-world context for the different elements. How the notion of the whole "expanded universe" evolved and "expanded" over time as agreements were made with different licensees and Lucas' attitude toward the prequels and other "canon" productions evolved. Dystopos 16:00, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Name change

Who is in support of changing the name of the article to Star Wars Expanded Universe? The Wookieepedian 05:16, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm not. I don't think it sounds as good, and the number of redirects that would have to be fixed are mindboggling. --Maru (talk) 05:49, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Well, I made the suggestion based on a comment from Justin Bacon. I would like a name change to the page, but I agree on the redirects. --The Wookieepedian 06:00, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

There's only about a half dozen actual re-direct pages pointed to this one. (And the most significant one is the article name the move is being proposed to.) This page would, obviously, become a redirect to the new one. So it doesn't look like a particularly insurmountable task to do the move. But I'm impartial either way. --Justin Bacon 06:31, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Justin, what I meant was that about 400 pages link here, to Expanded Universe (Star Wars). If we move it (leaving a redirect in its place), that is 400 new redirects (since while before they were direct links like they should be, now they are linked to a redirect. And redirects to here would then become double redirects), that we are obligated to fix. --Maru (talk) 19:41, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Nice Work

I just wanted to congratulate The Wookieepedian for his role in the vast improvement of this article. The "levels of canon" section is a particularly useful guide from an authoritative secondary source. I'll try to spend some time editing out redundancies and tweaking the structure, but I'm amazed at how much better this has gotten since just last week. Dystopos 21:49, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

You must be looking at the wrong contributor. Justin Bacon is the one who deserves ALL the credit. He is the one to be congratulated for merging much of the EU content from the main Star Wars article into this one, and improving the general flow of the article. I've only made a few tweaks to it myself. But, combined, I agree, this article has VASTLY improved over the last week. The Wookieepedian 21:56, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Congratulations to Justin, too. I was just really happy to see such a clearly-made case for how to distinguish different levels of "canon" which is exactly what this article should be about. Dystopos 00:15, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

I agree. If you've seen those guys on the TF.N and OS messageboards, they seem to have no clue about levels of officiality, as they have about 20 new topics per day asking some crazy topics like: "is clone wars canon?" The Wookieepedian 00:40, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

I myself don't know a lick about EU stuff. I really like the first movie and a lot of things about the 2nd and 3rd. The prequels didn't do much for me. Never had much interest in the cartoons. Never cracked a book or comic. I think I played the demo version of a 1st-person shooter game. I did like the vector-based arcade games a lot.-- anyway. That's my perspective. A big fan of the production of the first film. Dystopos 04:33, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Myself, I've read several of the books, and played several of the games. But my primary area of knowledge as far as the EU goes are the few live-action EU productions that have been made (The Holiday Special, The two Ewok films, video game cutscenes, etc.). The Wookieepedian 07:42, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Spoiler tag?

there are some spoilers in the text(e.g. order66 deaths in ROTS), should there be a spoiler warning?

Yeah. I'll add one. The Wookieepedian 23:18, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

RfC/poll – Darth Vader/Anakin Skywalker: one article or two?

What do you think? E Pluribus Anthony 19:35, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

List of Star Wars characters twice?

List of Star Wars characters is listed twice in the list of lists, so I removed it, but I was reverted. Any particular reason why it should be there twice? TimBentley 20:30, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Black Oracle

I don't mean to advertise, but will somebody go to my site: http://www.freewebs.com/blackoracle2/. No body ever goes there :(

I checked it out. Pretty cool, but please don't link to it on one of these pages, as it is considered spam. However, you could sign up for an account here and put a link to it on your userpage. :) The Wookieepedian 20:20, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

I am now registered as user: holocron. I now have actually spent money to get my own (non-freewebs) website. It is not complete yet but check back in a couple weeks at theblackoracle.com

POV and canonicity

Related to the below... I wonder if it is accurate to include the Clone Wars cartoon series as part of the Expanded Universe. Lucas has repeatedly stated that the series were not just fully canonnoical (if that is the correct term) but integral to the tale. I know this is contentious ground and that a few of the film related comics are also considered fully canon (not just by fans but endorsed by Lucas himself). I personally feel that the Expanded Universe tag tends to be applied (by Lucasfilm and fans) to the books, comics and games (all of which (aside from early versions such as Splinter and the Han Solo books) are linked in their own continuity and that this tag doesn't apply to the Clone Wars which is, well, part of the 'main' continuity... I wait to be corrected and flamed by the historically vocal and divided Star Wars fanbase--AlanD 23:57, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

If the cannonicity of the expanded universe is disputed then is every single article in wikipedia about star wars which indiscrimately is based both off the movies and EU inherently a POV article? (Actually even if you agree that EU is "cannon", its possible that anything in the EU might have been contradicted by another EU story that is way less popular) -Anonymous

No. They might disagree about which versions should be presented as the "one truth", but they do not diuspute that the various versions exist. maru 07:12, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

What? I don't understand this answer. If they do not agree which version should be presented as the one truth, but that they agree that various versions exist, they should therefor clearly mention that in every article, (ie. based purely on the movies, the empire is bla bla, but in most fan fiction and expanded universe material, the empire is blabla). Most articles do not do any sort of this distinguishing, which de facto presents everything as the "one truth". -Anonymous

Sigh. When you have multiple versions, that's what the whole canon thing is for! To decide which version is correct! --Maru 18:06, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

It's simple. Lucas says that, in the end, his version is the only real version, and all else is make-believe (well, you know... make believe in the context of a make-believe setting). It's just a matter of how much make-believe you want to accept. At the top is the "reality" (and yes, I know we're talking fiction... go with the metaphor) of the movies and only the movies. Then you get into higher and higher levels of "make-believe" that have less and less connection to "reality". That's what the levels of canon indicate: just how much make-believe you're in for.

Yes, the whole point of Canon is to figure out which version is the correct one. In the few cases where important events seriously conflicted, Lucasfilm has been very good about producing a book, comic or other EU material which presents a reconcilation: a third version of the story which incorporates elements of both, so that the substantial facts of both are correct (or could be seen as correct by those involved), but minor details are changed to accomodate the other, and this new version becomes widely accepted as canonical. Lucasfilm has people who are on staff and paid to do nothing but keep up with continuity and the EU all day, and to find contradictions and help authors reconcile them or decide which version is to be discounted, so they are quite sharp about such things. Wingsandsword 05:01, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

"In the few cases where important events seriously conflicted, Lucasfilm has been very good about producing a book, comic or other EU material which presents a reconcilation". This seems like fanboy mythology. Where is there documentation that lucasfilm speficially produces a comic or book to reconcile conflicting EU versions of a particular point in the star wars story? -Anonymous

One example: ROTJ killed Boba Fett. Fett then reappeared in Dark Empire. To recouncile his death in the pit of carkoon with DE, lucasfilm had an anthology ("Tales from Jabba's Palace" and "Tales of the Bounty Hunters") produced ret-conning his death. --Maru 02:29, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

No, it really is fanboy mythology. Basically, what the fanboys are saying is "We know that Lucas doesn't ignores all the EU stuff, and that since he's the deciding authority only what he considers official actually counts, but we don't care... we want what we want and we're not going to let a little thing like the owner of the property deciding against us stand in our way."

EU, specifically

Do we really have to believe all the stuff proposed in the New Jedi Order series and the other stuff? I personally am what you would call a purist, meaning I believe that the movies are for the most part, the only factual elements in the Star Wars universe. I don't mind all the prequel series, but the stuff that takes place after the Endor Battle is what I don't like. Palpatine returning, Chewbacca getting killed, I really prefer to end with the scene on Endor. Is there anything bad with that? --Scorpionman 01:47, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I disagree

I must admit, in terms of the expanded universe, i don't really mind the stuff before the movies, like the tales of the jedi. i'm not saying i am a huge fan, i just don't despise it. In terms of the aftermarth, i hate to say it, but the yuuzahn vong are pretty lame and chewbacca is one of my favourite characters and shouldn't die. -Anonymous

• George Lucas said Chewie should die and liked the Vong otherwise he wouldn't have had them. 216.174.135.175 17:45, 18 May 2006 (UTC)jamhaw

um, then don't read them

To be honest this is an entry about the expanded universe and if you don't want a part of it then that is fine and dandy but the fact remains that it is a huge entity unto itself and worthy of an entry here.--AlanD 00:02, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Classic Star Wars Lukes fate

I saw it the library order thing what is it I have not seen it on the list what is it 198.169.113.63 20:17, 22 August 2006 (UTC)jamhaw Anyone can put anything on this website DO NOT TRUST IT!

Knights of the Old Republic

"Knights of the Old Republic by BioWare, Knights of the Old Republic II: The Sith Lords by Obsidian Entertainment are recent additions to the EU, but take place long before any other Star Wars material." I changed this paragraph to what it says know, because it was incorrect. Evidence in the games clearly state the approximate time in which they take place. Custodes 12:15, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

No, internal textual evidence isn't the issue. The issue is that the KOTORs take place after at least some of the Tales of the Old Republic series. --maru (talk) contribs 16:43, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

The following sentence is misleading: "This style of RPG is somewhat new and made big waves for its innovative style". This style was first introduced in Baldur's Gate back in 1998 while KOTR came out in 2003. That's a difference of 4-5 years and in between that time several games based on the Baldur's Gate engine were released. Following those a new engine was developed for Neverwinter Nights (Aurora) and then a modified version of this engine was developed for KOTR (Odyssey). Hardly new at that point. Not sure how to link to other articles, but I refrenced the above against other articles in Wikipedia.

I also don't think it qualifies as an action RPG, a category more commonly associated with Diablo clones. The game is not actually "real-time". Even if the auto-pause game settings are never used the player is still giving orders to the character which will go off when that character's initiative is reached. 69.179.163.29 23:52, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Note: We know the game is based on the d20 system developed for D&D 3.x and modified for Star Wars d20. I'm not sure how well the game mechnics are explained in the game manuals (not very for KOTR2) but the Improved Initiative feat still exists in both which indicates the game mechanic is still being used. 69.179.163.29 23:55, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

I removed the comment about the play mechanic being 'innovative'. Any RPG gamer knows that's simply not true. It was seen in Baldur's Gate 1 & 2, Neverwinter Nights, Icewind Dale, and Planescape: Torment. All of these games were released before KotOR came out. There very well may be additional games I've not mentioned that used a similar system that were released prior to KotOR, but I cannot recall them at the moment. 169.233.16.227 20:58, 6 January 2007 (UTC) Ooops, forgot to log in first. This comment is mine GutterMonkey 20:59, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

How many trilogies?

I'm not a Star Wars guru, so I came to this page and Star Wars (film series) looking to find more information about the so-called "trilogies". From the article I'm reading here [1], there is a mention of 3, 6, 9, or 12 episodes, and it sounds like this is referring to potentially 4 trilogies. I'm familiar with the original trilogy and the prequel trilogy, and I see there is such a thing as the Thrawn trilogy, but I'm having a hard time finding a breakdown of what the official or unofficial list of trilogies are, and what kind of media they would be available in. In particular, I want to know, is there a fourth trilogy I don't know about, and if there is, is it simply wishful thinking, a set of books, a series of movies, or something else? Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.31.106.35 (talk) 01:09, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

In Star Wars, "Trilogy" is usually applied to the Star Wars films, the Original Trilogy (IV,V and VI) and the Prequel Trilogy (I,II and II). As for the "other" trilogies in Star Wars of which you speak, these include not only the Thrawn Trilogy but the Han Solo trilogy, the Lando trilogy, Jedi Academy trilogy, Dark Empire trilogy, Corellian trilogy Force-Heretic trilogy, Dark Nest trilogy as well as the trilogy that makes up Labyrinth of Evil, ROTS novelisation and Dark Lord: The Rise of Darth Vader. (I think I got 'em all, for better or worse). There is no "fourth trilogy", nor is there even a "third trilogy" for a simple reason: Return of the Jedi. According to interviews around 1980 and subsequent ones with Gary Kurtz, there were potentially going to be nine Star Wars films. Leia was not initailly intended to be Luke's sister, nor was the Emperor supposed to die in this film. Luke's sister was first going to appear in episode VII and the Emperor to die in episode XI. Return of the Jedi overwrote all these, thereby stopping all subsequent Star Wars sequels until the 1990's when Heir to the Empire was firts published. There is no "unofficial" or "official" trilogy. There is only the Prequel and Original trilogies. Anyone telling you there's a Star Wars Episode VII is a nerf herder spouting the eroneous speculations of the infamous Super Shadow Force be it with ya, mate. Katana Geldar 00:54, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Quinlan Vos in ROTS?

I was under the impression that Vos was going to be in ROTS but he was taken out. Pablo Hidego told fans as early as 2003 that an EU character was going to be in the film (leading to wide speculation) and sometime later it was revealed that the character Pabs was refering to was Quinlan Vos, but he was cut from the film. Has he been put back in? Was he there all along and I missed him? Katana Geldar 00:36, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

According to wikipedia's own page on Vos, he was only mentioned by Obi Wan. They ended up cutting the scene that he would have been in out. [[2]] --mauler90 (talk) 08:03, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Levels of canon

I just want to say that this is the nerdiest thing I have ever read (and I don't mean that as any kind of insult!) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.36.19.212 (talk) 13:46, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

redirected from 'Dejarik'?

Hey, does it seem weird to anyone else that Dejarik redirects to this page, yet isn't mentioned at all (nor is 'vrax,' apparently an alternate name) in the actual content? Even a brief mention and link to the wookieepedia page would probably be better than nothing... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Matt.lohkamp (talk • contribs) 02:51, October 24, 2009

SW Galaxies and Canon

Hello all. Just a quick question about the source material found in the Galaxies source books: Prima's Official Strategy Guide: Star Wars Galaxies, an Empire Divided, 2003. Prima Games, a division of Random House, Inc. Is this C canon or S canon. The reason I ask is because much of the information written in here about the various locations and planets are all also found in other EU sources, though compiled to fit the Galaxies game universe. Additonally, certin characters introduced in the Prima Guide was then introduced into a Galaxies book series spin off, such as Queen Kylantha of Naboo. Additional cities and planet animals were also fleshed out in the material surrounding the game. I understand the game itself, all the stats ect. are all the lowest of cannon, but what of this other material, all written in suport of the game and based on other EU sources, but with additional elements in them as well? --Drachenfyre 21:27, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

I think it falls under the RPG sourcebooks- C-canon with the exception of game elements. --maru (talk) contribs 18:18, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

What happened was the game included a large number of glaring holes in regards to canon which is how it got "demoted" to S-canon. What S-canon means is that it exists in canon anywhere that it does not disagree with higher forms of canon. However, if someone is writing a book they can choose a character they like, such as Queen Kylantha of Naboo and right about them and the stuff they write about the queen takes precedence over the stuff found in SWG. Likewise, if they decided they hate the Queen and kill her off and it becomes lore or even contradicting SWG and say no it was Queen Someone else of Naboo who was in charge and Kylantha never existed. They can do that and if they do Kylantha never existed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.56.123.123 (talk) 04:09, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Parallel Universe quote

An anonymous user has clumsily attempted to re-include a quote from George Lucas about the EU being a "parallel universe". (Some poking indicates he was the one to add the quote originally to the article.) It's not a bad quote to have, but someone needs to go back to the original source and find out what the actual quote is. The version added by this editor reads: "George Lucas considers Expanded Universe to be parallel universe." There are... ummm... many problems with that "sentence". Justin Bacon 08:30, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

I see Wookieepedian has added a revised version of the quote. Do you actually have the article, Wookieepedian? Did Lucas actually use the word "somewhat"? I'd be more comfortable with an actual, verbatim quote at this point. Justin Bacon 16:07, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Actual quote: "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." (Clumsy anonymous user :))

• That's a good quote and, even though Lucas isn't the final authority for WP, the idea of distinguishing between his productions and direct licenses and the rest of the expanded universe makes a lot of sense for WP. Dystopos 16:55, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
• Okay, I'm just going to put the whole quote in the article. I think it provides a very pertinent and direct view into George Lucas' thinking on the Expanded Universe. Thanks for the quote Clumsy Anonymous User. ;) (You should register with that as your handle. <g>) Justin Bacon 18:35, 17 October 2005 (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. 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." (Cinescape July 2001)

This quote is in the Star Wars canon article and IMHO it helps reinforce the later StarLog article that the movie and EU are two separate realities--216.31.124.156 (talk) 15:01, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Categories

I've been adding categories at the bottom hoping the EU might get more interest prompting Disney to keep the stuff from the 16 years between IV and I; and hopefully do remakes of I-III. I've only read a few of the books; so if someone more familiar with the material could add any categories EU stories might fall under. Would I be correct that artificial wombs are not specifically mentioned in the EU before their appearance in episode II? CensoredScribe (talk) 22:46, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Updated information on canonicity of the Expanded Universe

• http://ca.ign.com/articles/2014/04/25/lucasfilm-clarifies-star-wars-expanded-universe
• http://www.torontosun.com/2014/04/25/new-star-wars-films-will-ignore-expanded-universe
• http://www.cnet.com/news/new-star-wars-films-will-ignore-expanded-universe/
• http://insidemovies.ew.com/2014/04/25/star-wars-movies-expanded-universe-lucasfilm/
• http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/heat-vision/lucasfilm-unveils-new-plans-star-698973

-- 24.212.139.102 (talk) 02:23, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Right, so guys, is it only the post-ROTJ EU material that is being relegated to the Legends canon. Are all the pre-ROTJ EU still C-canon? I mean, that's the impression I got from this so ... ? --Imagine Wizard (talk · contribs · count) Iway amway Imagineway Izardway. 19:21, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Requested Move

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: consensus to move the page to Star Wars expanded universe, per the discussion below. Dekimasuよ! 23:55, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

---

Star Wars Expanded Universe → Star Wars Legends – New name. As I understand, no new material will be published under the Legends title or in the EU, so it makes sense to change it to its new title. KonveyorBelt 00:50, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose - I don't see "expanded universe" as really a proper noun; rather, it refers (in multiple franchises) to content created beyond the "mainstream" or main plot, e.g. Star Trek Expanded Universe. Perhaps the more appropriate rename is "Star Wars expanded universe" or "Star Wars spin-off fiction". In my mind, all the upcoming "official" novels, comics, etc. still fit in the uber-category of "expanded universe" beyond the core films. --EEMIV (talk) 03:18, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
• Move to Star Wars expanded universe. We don't capitalize "universe", "franchise", etc. in other titles, because they're not proper names or part of the proper names. "Star War expanded universe" has been used by a huge pile of reliable sources for 20+ yaers. "Star Wars Legends" is just some new marketing label, fails WP:COMMONNAME and fails WP:OFFICIALNAME's interaction with the the rest of the WP:CRITERIA.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  18:31, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
• Move to Star Wars expanded universe. As it is no longer used as a proper noun in an official capacity, I support SMcCandlish's idea. ONR (talk) 01:43, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Disney/Detours

Who wrote Star_Wars_Expanded_Universe#Official_levels_of_canon? or more accurately, who said D refers to Disney canon, and who said D refers to Detours? Citations needed, because the same shorthand should not refer to two different things. --72.85.59.74 (talk) 22:22, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Novelizations

So am I to understand that while the seven films are obviously canon, the original novelizations of the first six are not? Please comment at Talk:Star Wars canon#Novelizations.— TAnthony^Talk 22:22, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Name change to Star Wars Legends?

As the official name of this is now Star Wars Legends and the content published under this banner is no longer canon, I believe a name change to said official name would be the best way to go. ReddyRedCP (talk) 01:30, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

@ReddyRedCP: See discussion above under "Requested move" (green section). — Gorthian (talk) 01:10, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

I was going to suggest the same thing, you really should change the name of the article to Star Wars Legends -rosvel92 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rosvel92 (talk • contribs) 09:38, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

"Expanded Universe" over "expanded universe"

@User:TAnthony I believe that the article should have the "Expanded Universe" capitalised, because official sources use the capital letters over lower case ([3]). This indicates that "EU" is an official name (albeit one that isn't used as often, due to the Legends label) and it should be treated as such. DarkKnight2149 00:28, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

It seems to me that, with the change to Star Wars Legends, the extended universe concept as a proper noun has officially gone away. However, there is definitely an argument to be made for the fact that the franchise has been termed the SWEU for 20 years. So I'd like to see more people to join in on the discussion.— TAnthony^Talk 15:36, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

I personally think this article should be retitled as Star Wars Legends and put a note that it's also known as (or formerly known as) the expanded universe. --JDC808 ♫ 00:53, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

I also think that Star Wars: Legends is a more appropriate title but, if I'm not mistaken, I think that the consensus was against it during past discussions. I'm not sure why specifically, but I might go through and read the past discussions if I ever get a chance (just to get a better understanding of why this is the case). DarkKnight2149 03:17, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

I think we really should change the name of the article to Star Wars Legends, specially now that we already have an article named Star Wars Cannon not naming this articles Star Wars Legends could be confusing for people who want to get into the topic, but don't know anything about it. Also lots of Star Wars legends links on other articles redirect us here. -rosvel92 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rosvel92 (talk • contribs) 09:43, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

I agree that's what the article should be called. However, there have already been discussions about whether or not to rename the article, and for one reason or another, the consensus has always been to keep it as "Star Wars expanded universe". DarkKnight2149 21:54, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

• Let's rename the article Star Wars Legends (Expanded Universe) or Star Wars Legends (expanded universe) that way everybody can be happy, it has the current name, but also the former name. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rosvel92 (talk • contribs) 02:24, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Let's rename the article Star Wars Legends (Expanded Universe)

Let's rename the article Star Wars Legends (Expanded Universe) that way everybody can be happy, it has the current name, but also the former name. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rosvel92 (talk • contribs) 02:22, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Adding (Expanded Universe) in parenthetical is not a good idea, such parentheticals are supposed to be for disambiguation, and there's only one Star Wars Legends. There's also the issue of which it's currently better known by (see WP:COMMONNAME), and I imagine there are good reasons for both. At any rate, I specifically object against moving the article to "Star Wars Legends (Expanded Universe)" ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 14:26, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

I agree, this proposed name goes against basic article naming conventions, and would only make the Star Wars expanded universe v. Star Wars Legends argument more confusing.— TAnthony^Talk 01:54, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

The characters featured in the table don't make sense here

Characters/actors like Rey/Daisy Ridley and the young Han Solo, don't make sense in the table in this article. Because those characters and stories are canon, and don't have anything to do with the Legends publications. We should replace this table, to be about the Legends Ewoks Films and The Holiday Special, maybe also even include, the protagonists from the Legends books, and lets move this table into the Star Wars Canon, article, because if Legends has a table of Characters, then the canon should too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rosvel92 (talk • contribs) 22:50, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Generally, I think there shouldn't be such a table at all. That sort of information is what List of Star Wars Legends characters is for tbh. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 00:20, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

RfC: Is it relevant to group all non-canon EU material in a Legends subcategory?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

With regard to WP:WAF, should all EU material prior to Lucasfilm's April 2014 declaration that the Legends were non-canon (i.e. novels and the Clone Wars microseries) be grouped in a separate section on all Star Wars-related articles such as characters or events? Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 02:52, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Not all non-canon material is Legends. That label applies to all material taking place within the Expanded Universe. There are stories from before the creation of Disney Canon that were not placed within the EU. DarkKnight2149 23:23, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Darknight is right, so we would need a greater consensus before anything takes place. TJH2018talk 05:28, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Just a note, I was called here by FRS. This isn't really my area, and I don't think it's really a policy thing. I think most people who sign up for policy RFCs expect interpretation or amendment issues for core policies, which this isn't, so I've changed the categorization accordingly. Tamwin (talk) 05:33, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

I would agree with that change. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 02:54, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

The way that I have always approached this, and implemented at other articles, is that when Disney created Legends, they created a separate real-world entity from Star Wars proper. So the primary topic of Star Wars articles is the Star Wars franchise, with a secondary franchise Star Wars Legends also existing and also notable enough for discussion due to its history as the well-regarded Expanded Universe. So whatever is done with the old EU stuff, I do think we should be using the official Star Wars Legends title. - adamstom97 (talk) 23:25, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

If I'm understanding the original question correctly, by consensus we are already separating Legends and other non-canon material within the major SW articles, like Jabba the Hutt, Darth Vader, and List of Star Wars planets and moons, for example. There are many, many ancillary articles for individual novels and such that no one has gotten around to yet, but this issue has been decided and implemented.— TAnthony^Talk 00:34, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Copyvio?

I've been working on this article today, and popped over to the equivalent Wookieepedia entry looking for a particular source. I was horrified (but somehow not surprised) to find that much of the article matches word-for-word what was in this article this morning, down to the section headings. I haven't researched which came first, but the way this article was written definitely smacked of Wookieepedia style, so I'm guessing our version is the copyvio. Luckily, I already slashed and rewrote much of it. But I don't want anyone to be shocked when I overhaul even more.— TAnthony^Talk 03:14, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

FYI, the Storyline section (which shares a lot of verbatim text with the version at the Wookieepedia EU article), was added to Wikipedia on January 8, 2006, and was subsequently added to Wookieepedia on August 28, 2006. It could use some editing though. Anyone? — TAnthony^Talk 01:30, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

And it appears that the bulk of the other duplicate content originated here, and was added to Wookieepedia on November 6, 2005 with the edit summary "updated page from wikipedia" LOL. The text I haven't gotten to yet remains largely unsourced and has POV and style issues though, so I'll be fixing that.— TAnthony^Talk 01:36, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Scope

Now that we are using the term Star Wars expanded universe generically rather than as a brand, I am wondering: does the term now include only Legends material, or does it encompass all media and therefore include the films and other canon works? I'm looking to improve this article and I think the term is actually all-inclusive. In practice though, I think the canon material will be covered in detail elsewhere and this article will primarily cover the evolution of the Legends brand. — TAnthony^Talk 17:58, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Shouldn't the Star Wars Live-action Television Project be mentioned in canon instead of here?

Since Star Wars Underworld was still on active development in 2015 and maybe as of now, shouldn't it be moved as an Star Wars canon un-made project? Because since it NEVER AIRED, even if it was into consideration, it was NEVER part of the plot of Legends!!! And would it air the version that was still being developed in 2015, it would be canon!

I mean it can still be mentioned here, but the detailed version should be there instead of here. Rosvel92 (talk) 02:45, 19 March 2017 (UTC)Rosvel92

Rosvel92, I need you to reevaluate your perspective on what this article is about, and also understand the difference between "Star Wars expanded universe" and " Star Wars Expanded Universe". As the article stands now, the Star Wars expanded universe "is a collective term for all Star Wars fictional material produced by Lucasfilm or officially licensed by it." If you read this carefully, the scope includes ALL Star Wars works. Now of course, we have separate articles for many works, and (currently) a Star Wars canon article, so we don't need to get into much detail about a lot of it. But in giving this article a real-world perspective, it covers the chronological development of mostly non-Lucas works but also touches upon "canon" ones for context. The proper noun Star Wars Expanded Universe (title case) is the former brand name for the non-Lucas works, which of course is now changed to Legends. The capitalization of this article title was specifically changed because the proper noun was officially abandoned. In the specific case of the TV series in development, it originated pre-2014 and it has yet to move into any real production stage, so it seems fine here. It is also mentioned at Star Wars#Television, where else does it need to be discussed?. I need to also remind you that Star Wars canon is not List of Star Wars canon works. That article is about the concept of canonicity in the Star Wars universe. Yes, we currently list the works considered canon, but we do not get into detail about them, because this is covered elsewhere.—TAnthony (talk) 14:41, March 20, 2017 (UTC)

Just to be editing on the same page.

---

Not sure if I'm starting a new discussion, but from my understanding.

Before we had Lucasfilm, allowing two interpretations:

-the film universe which was the 6 films, and only the films (which later Lucas would expand to also, include both The Clone Wars (2008)), and

-then it was the expanded universe which was the films (and both The Clone Wars (2008)) plus everything other media that didn't contradicted them.

The thing is that the concept of an Expanded Universe was dropped when, they made the video-games, books, comics the same level of canon as the films.

The new designation is that everything is canon, putting everything within the same universe, there is not a expanded universe anymore, they got rid of it to make it all more cohesive, and to stop considering videogames, novels, and comics lesser works. Now they cannot be contradicted, not even by the films, now all the same universe, and the expanded universe concept has been completely discarded. This article should be renamed Star Wars Legends because otherwise is following a flawed logic. As none of the new products is part of any kind of expanded universe, since as of now unlike before 2014, as far as Lucasfilm is concerned everything is part of the franchise, and considering it as an expanded universe seems fan-cruft from my understanding, even if it technically is an expanded universe per sec, in the eyes of Lucasfilm is not, as now everything is the same universe with the same value as the films. To continue listing the new post-2014 non-film works as a canon expanded universe instead of the same one as the films, totally goes against the Lucasfilm official standing on the matter, and the point they were trying to make when they ditched the levels of canon.

Also a point I had edited and got reverted was that Star Wars Rebels was never promoted, from Legends to canon, it was the first canon work produced after the Legends re branding therefore it never was Legend.

We should rename the article Star Wars Legends, it doesn't mater how it was called before, w should call it by it's Official Lucasfilm designation, because if it's confusing to us imagine the un-informed reader.

Rosvel92 (talk) 11:25, 25 March 2017 (UTC)Rosvel92

Firstly, this is the exact question TAnthony posted further up the page. Secondly, I think your push to have the article renamed is ignoring the fact that even after the Legends rebranding, Legends works are still being referred to as "expanded universe" by many outlets: IGN - March 23, 2017 ("...a bounty hunter who first appeared in the Star Wars Expanded Universe novel The Paradise Snare."), Polygon - December 5, 2016 ("One picture shows why Star Wars’ slimmed-down expanded universe was the right move"), Nerdist - July 16, 2016 ("...a very familiar face from the Star Wars Expanded Universe was going to make their debut in Star Wars Rebels."), Slate - July 16, 2016 ("When Disney declared the Star Wars expanded universe to be noncanon..."), The Hollywood Reporter - December 23, 2016 ("How the Abandoned 'Star Wars' Expanded Universe Inspired 'Force Awakens'"). At that point, I'd vote in favor of keeping the page at its current name, because "Star Wars expanded universe" is still being used very commonly to refer to "Star Wars Legends". The usage of the term in non-Lucasfilm media warrants it.

Secondly, the question is: is this article covering a canonicity designation and its history, or is it covering the concept of works outside the film trilogies? That's the question TAnthony posed. Currently, as it stands the article covers the concept of the universe outside of the main film installments. You yourself admit that this is a legitimate scope: "even if it technically is an expanded universe per [se]". The question if the article should cover only the level of canonicity has been posed, and it really shouldn't be tailored purely to the whims of Lucasfilm. Frankly, the article doesn't care what Lucasfilm wants right now, it's only concerned with the development and history of a concept. It's also worth nothing that Polygon at one point, post Legends, refers to all non-film media works as the expanded universe, and I imagine that it's possible to locate more media that does so. To say it's considered francruft, that is the idea that anything outside the main film installments is expanded universe is important only to a small subset of fans, frankly ignores the definition of expanded universe. The problem we're facing for the purpose of this article's scope is if the core franchise is the film or the canon.

Frankly, the core question is the one that TAnthony posed in the prior "Scope?" heading: "Now that we are using the term Star Wars expanded universe generically rather than as a brand, I am wondering: does the term now include only Legends material, or does it encompass all media and therefore include the films and other canon works?" At which point, since it seems we're discussing it here now, I would have this article cover the evolution of what was considered "expanded universe" up through the development of what is now Legends (so, that means including the 2008 Clone Wars film and series should be mentioned here) but the article remain at its current title. It is to Rosvel's point, admittedly, but I disagree with Rosvel's assertion that it should be because this is how Lucasfilm would want it. I think because of the existence of Star Wars canon, it would be more streamlined to focus expanded universe as a branding tool and its development over the franchise's history up until Legends.

Also, Rosvel, I very much encourage that you remember that the article isn't about changing to reflect whatever Lucasfilm wants. And I also very much encourage that you don't edit the article to drastically restructure it until this discussion is finished. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 15:48, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

TenTonParasol, we seem to have been responding at the same time and I think we're on the same page. I've been reshaping and cleaning up this article to basically explore the evolution of all works outside the films in a more detailed manner than should be in the main Star Wars article. The first of what I will call the "new canon works" like Rebels need to be mentioned for context when covering the Legends transition, but we can't go too much into "canon vs Legends" because that is what is really fancrufty.— TAnthony^Talk 16:42, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Mm. I'm sure I said something to that effect (that's what I get for trying to respond while watching Hallmark), but yeah, I don't want to get into a "canon vs. Legends" article type situation. Disregard whatever I said to give that impression. It should probably mention that whole thing, as something important to the context of it, but yeah not built around it. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 17:02, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Ha no, you didn't give that impression at all, I was sort of restating the obvious for the sake of the discussion.— TAnthony^Talk 00:22, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

The term "expanded universe" is generic for any franchise, like Star Trek expanded universe. I think it could be argued that "expanded universe" and "franchises" are somewhat interchangeable. except that in usage the expanded universe seems to apply more to storyline content. In any case, at some point, Lucasfilm seems to have embraced/branded it, and it became a proper noun, Star Wars Expanded Universe (note the capital letters). But even though the article title was capitalized for awhile, the topic was always the generic body of work, not necessarily the brand name, which is why it was not changed to Legends but rather changed to lowercase "expanded universe". This is more encyclopedic. I don't know that things like video games or roleplaying games have technically been deemed Star Wars Legends but they are definitely part of the Star Wars expanded universe. I'm not sure what you mean by "they made the video-games, books, comics the same level of canon as the films", this sees to contradict your ongoing argument. All derivative works have always been part of the franchise, and always will be; the only thing that has ever changed is which storylines are considered part of the "official storyline". We do not organize Wikipedia articles around storylines.

We should not have specific Star Wars Legends works and Star Wars canon works articles because that puts an unencyclopedic emphasis on canonicity. That seems to basically be how you consider this article and Star Wars canon. It has been discussed in many places that while we usually want to delineate "canon" and Legends in articles for the sake of understanding, this is not the basis by which we should be classifying things. Topics do not get "promoted" to canon, that is an in-universe perspective. There is no increased "value" attributed to canon works. Yes, Star Wars is pretty cut-and-dry as far as what fits into the "canon", but think about Star Trek, Marvel or DC Comics; there is different and everchanging canon for comics, TV and film, and they do not organize their articles around it. Obviously Marvel and DC have created franchise names for their cinematic universes, etc. but the related articles are structured around the media franchises and not the story. You and I have discussed this several times so I don't think we will ever agree, I'm hoping others will join in but I believe I'm in the majority on this.— TAnthony^Talk 16:34, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

---

I won't make any major edits. But if the article is to be focused on everything outside of the films including canon works. I sort of think that

what, I think we should do, and I've been trying to say it multiple times, to no effect is that the main article of the Star Wars (franchise) is too heavily focused on the films,

That's why I think the --Star Wars Films-- and their development should be split into their own article Star Wars (film series) / Star Wars (films) which would be the same film section that already exits, exactly as it is, without any further edit.

Within the franchise article, the films should still be mentioned into the franchise article, but since they would be covered in depth into an individual article already, in the franchise article, they could be mentioned reduced to a small 5 sentence paragraph, two paragraphs maximum.

That way the franchise article, could feel more focused on the history of the franchise and it's development as a whole, and how it transformed from a films series into a multimedia franchise, rather than staying only as a film series, and we could merge in the Star Wars canon article there too.

Now, I don't know much about Trek, Marvel or DC comics, nor either of those franchises canons. I only follow Star Wars. But for the sake doing a quick search on DC, I found it's continuity revamps The New 52 and DC Rebirth have their own articles, and they seemed lesser, and way more smaller than Star Wars Legends. So I think, Star Wars Legends should have one, because it was kind of a big overhaul that already is hard to explain, and Lucasfilm clearly considers it to be separated from the Star Wars current direction. Or we could mention all in there but it would be confused, and it never was considered canon in the first place, I think. Rosvel92 (talk) 08:21, 26 March 2017 (UTC)Rosvel92

The terms Expanded Universe and Legends only apply to non-canon content, not to all fictional media so the introductory paragraph is wrong

The terms Expanded Universe and Legends only apply to non-canon content, not to all fictional media so the introductory paragraph is wrong. If you see any recent interview whit anyone involved in Star Wars when they say Expanded Universe, EU or Legends they start talking about non-canon content, but they never use the Expanded Universe or EU term to talk about anything canon. So the introductory paragraph as it stands right now is telling false information, by saying all fictional material is part of the EU/Expanded Universe when that's not true. To reflect what I'm saying, I suggest rewriting the introductory paragraph like this:Rosvel92 (talk) 05:49, 3 August 2017 (UTC)rosvel92

Star Wars Legends is a collective term for all non-canonical Star Wars fictional material produced by Lucasfilm or officially licensed by it. It includes an array of derivative Star Wars works published before April, 2014. Before such date it was originally branded as the Star Wars Expanded Universe (and abbreviated as SWEU, Expanded Universe or EU). The EU works (novels, comic books, video games, and television series) were produced conjunction with, between, and after the Star Wars films produced at the time (the original trilogy (1977–1983) and prequel trilogy (1999–2005) of films). Originally EU works were intended as an enhancement, and extension, of the Star Wars theatrical films produced by George Lucas, with Lucasfilm tracking the continuity of all Legends material. However Lucas reserved the right to both draw on it and contradict it in his own works. In October 2012, Lucasfilm was purchased by The Walt Disney Company. In April 2014, before development started on sequel trilogy of films and further works, Lucasfilm announced that all previously released EU content would be declared non-canon to the franchise and rebranded as Star Wars Legends. To ensure that from then on that all forthcoming comics, books, games and other media were non-contradictory to the films, other canon media, and each other, Lucasfilm, created an Story Group division. The canon restructuring left the Star Wars theatrical films, the Clone Wars animated film, and the 2008 Clone Wars animated TV series as the only material embodying the official Star Wars canon. Apart from such works, all the works released after April 2014, would also be canon. Among such canon works produced after wards are the Rebels animated series, and the 2015 film The Force Awakens, and multiple novels and comic book series.

Re-title the article to Star Wars Legends

The problem is the terms Expanded Universe only apply to non-canon content, not to all fictional non-film media as this article seems to imply. Even if expanded universe is used as a broad term instead of the defunct-brand name. Using the word Expanded Universe in the title is confusing and misleading. So I suggest to rename the article in Star Wars Legends, since it is completely focused on the Legends lore.Rosvel92 (talk) 06:04, 3 August 2017 (UTC)rosvel92

We've discussed this. This article in its current form is not just about non-canon works. Expanded Universe in title case (capital first letters) is a proper noun for the branding, and this has become Legends. The lower case term "expanded universe" is generic, and is used in multiple franchises. I know you love to overexplain the new canon situation in every SW article, but no one seems confused about this except you.

We can discuss changing the article to Star Ware Legends, but no one but you seems to want to restrict this article to Legends works. Part of our resistance is that we have already agreed that it is inappropriate to organize our articles around canonicity, which is basically an in-universe storyline concept.— TAnthony^Talk 14:17, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Re-title the article to a title different than Star Wars expanded universe

It's not so much that I want to restrict this article to only talk about Star Wars Legends non-canon thing, the issue is that the article's title is Star Wars expanded universe, which sounds almost exactly the same as Star Wars Expanded Universe which is the term people use to describe the non-canon contents. Even if it is not the same it sounds the same and is read the same, no one who reads the title is going to figure out the title refers to the broad term, instead of the non-canon defunct publishing line. That's the issue the broad term "expanded universe" sounds exactly the same as the defunct "Expanded Universe" label of non-canonical works, and I believe the usage of the term "expanded universe" to talk about canon and non-canon things may cause confusion to people. I don't think the title of any article should confuse people. So if the article will talk about both the canon and the "Expanded Universe", is fine however to denote this then the article should be renamed to a titles that says: "Star Wars" along something that means the same as the broad therm "expanded universe", but doesn't includes the words "expanded universe". So it doesn't confuse people and casual readers?

Rosvel92 (talk) 18:30, 3 August 2017 (UTC)rosvel92

For what it's worth, this article was earlier Expanded Universe. Honestly, I think we should have had some sort of discussion on what this article is. Is it about the specific created universe that began taking shape around the tabletop RPG and Heir to the Empire, which was later discontinued? Discussions like this seem to indicate so. Is it about the general idea of an expanded universe surrounding Star Wars? If it's about the latter, is the former noteworthy enough that a split might be in order? If it is about the idea of just an extended universe, where does Star Wars canon fit into this, and does it really need to be a separate article? The idea it's about the general idea of a Star Wars expanded universe seems to be supported by the move, but only one user makes the argument that this is what the article's about, and doesn't argue it intensely; the other two simply aren't acting in any awareness of SWEU as a proper name (is it even one?). – The Millionth One (talk) (contribs) 18:54, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

---

I agree with everything you say. There's not a definite idea or notion about what this article is about.

To quote what TAnthony told me, in the earlier discussion...

-Rosvel92, I need you to reevaluate your perspective on what this article is about, and also understand the difference between "Star Wars expanded universe" and " Star Wars Expanded Universe".-

(My opinion is even if the word expanded universe, doesn't have capital letters it cannot be the title of the article because it is a SUPER CONFUSING title, people will think the article is about the legends brand. I even think the people who edited the article, are confused and don't know if the article refers to the concept of an expanded universe or the Lucasfilm former Star Wars brand)

The word is the same "expanded universe" is exactly the same as "Star Wars Expanded Universe", the average reader will get confused, because the title of the article is confusing, the article leads to a discussion, it means the title of the article is misleading. I'm ok with the article including including info about canon things, as long as it is not named "Star Wars Expanded Universe" or "Star Wars expanded universe", as long as the article has "expanded universe" (title capital letters or not), it should not be allowed, to also focus on the "Star Wars canon", which is not part of the expanded universe.

To me the title Star Wars expanded universe suggest the article focuses on the non-canon thing, but every-time I start a discussion they told me they are using expanded universe as a broad term and that the article is about the Legends and the canon plot lines, despite the confusing title of the article suggesting otherwise. If the article is going to be about the non-canon Expanded universe and the canon, then the article CAN NOT have a title that reefers strictly to the non-canon expanded universe.

There's two options

1-the title of the article must be changed,(and the article can be about both the non-canon and the canonical Star Wars)

2-the article can keep the name "Star Wars Expanded Universe", but in order to do so the article must be entirely re-focused to solely focus on the non-canon Star Wars stories.

Rosvel92 (talk) 20:53, 3 August 2017 (UTC)Rosvel92

While I think Rosvel92 may be the only one who thinks Expanded Universe vs expanded universe is confusing readers, I agree with both of you that we have yet to find a proper hierarchy of Star Wars articles in general. I understand that fans familiar with the EU terminology could be theoretically misled by this article title, so what to do. Star Wars is the franchise article, and this article is really a split off/expanded version of the material at Star Wars#In other media, and more robust thanks to its real world chronology. So this could be called something like Star Wars in other media, except I don't like that title for some reason LOL. The bulk of Star Wars canon would probably fit within the same article, minus the list of canon works. The only reason I have defended keeping that list where it is now is because it is properly organized by real-world dates while List of Star Wars books is still in-universe.— TAnthony^Talk 22:38, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

I'm mobile so I can't really follow this discussion well, but I think the reason we have a "Star Wars canon" article is that the concept of the Star Wars canon has its own much remarked upon history, so if anything, I'd argue that the canon is a smaller subset of an expanded universe article, since it's talking about the concept of a canon. It isn't really, or it shouldn't be, an article solely about the current state of the canon. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 23:02, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

In general, I think that organizing article scope on the basis of canonicity is silly, because frankly, a properly written "Star Wars canon" article will discuss works that are currently not considered canon. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 23:04, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

One of the reasons I bring up Star Wars canon is because the history of how Star Wars continuity was structured and commented on is easily interchangable with how the expanded universe is and was viewed. I don't think it's much of a surprise to see the History sections tread a lot of similar ground. – The Millionth One (talk) (contribs) 18:27, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

I would honestly expect them to retread the same ground. I was just pointing out that the canon article overlaps because it's not meant to talk only about the currently canon works, but exactly because it's about the development of the concept of the canon. I'm trying to refute that the canon page is about only the current collection of canon works, because it really isn't, and that the existence of Star Wars canon means we automatically should have Star Wars Legends. I don't think I'm making much sense? ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 19:09, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Yes I think we all agree on that! I believe the canon article evolved from an indepth look at the minutae of the Holocron, which was identical to and probably copied from the equivalent Wookieepedia entry. I overhauled it but parts are redundant of other articles, and eventualy it should be merged somewhere. While the SW articles in general were not in the best shape before, the the Disney purchase and new direction has created new problems for us. We probably have to rethink the whole franchise of articles and see how it shakes out; possibly similar, possibly different. I think we can all agree that the feature films are the primary focus of the franchise, and like I said above, this article is a more detailed chronology of "everything else". When I worked on it awhile back, I tried to stick to a real-world chronology as much as possible, and only minimized the post-2014 works because they were covered elsewhere. Perhaps we do merge this with Star Wars canon and rename.— TAnthony^Talk 19:46, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

--- I'm 100% sure that this article must be renamed, Star Wars expanded universe is the same words as the non-canon Star Wars Expanded Universe, so renaming the article is a definitive go, either way.

My opinion is that ALL the content regarding the Works subtopic can be easily merged into the main Star Wars article, as it already as each of the Works subsections in almost the same order, lets properly describe those topics within that same article, that would work best in my opinion, to have the whole description in a single article, instead of one here and one there (I'm talking about the television, novels, comics, video-games, there's one section about that here and another on the main article, let's move the duplicate topic paragraphs here, into there). The few added paragraphs at each section will enhance the article, and will be the definitive version.

Then all the content above the works section we merge that with Star Wars canon. And that's it. (But, later we have to add more info about the actual canon eras, it bothers me that the Legends eras are covered here, but the canon eras are not covered anywhere. I would say we could rename the Star Wars canon article as Star Wars setting and canon or as Star Wars fictional lore.) I don't know.cRosvel92 (talk) 21:33, 4 August 2017 (UTC)rosvel92

We do not need to move anything, not an in-depth description of canonicity nor works lists, onto the main Star Wars article. It has issues with bloating and issues with just throwing subarticle stuff onto it as is. We absolutely do not need Star Wars setting and canon or Star Wars fictional lore and we do not need to go in depth about describing the fictional plots and settings of any era, canon or otherwise, anywhere. This proposal only continues to deepen organizing information along canon/non-canon lines, and it's getting quite tiresome to have to explain over and over that we cannot do that. We don't need to cover things more because they're more canon than anything things or because they're equally as canon as the films. We absolutely do not need to devote more time talking about in-universe settings, storylines, and items on any pages. Frankly, and I've been meaning to say it for a long time, the "Storylines" section should really just wholesale go.

Personally, the best term to describe the article is really "expanded universe" but, like, if the general lean is to merge, which seems to be, perhaps it can be renamed, I don't know, Star Wars continuity, and I propose it be organized as I put forward here in a subpage. Or, we could always risk Star Wars extended universe, a la DC Extended Universe. But that would probably require some slightly different structuring than what I put forward in the subpage. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 22:08, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

No merging this article back into Star Wars. This is basically a split off of Star Wars#In other media, which is meant to introduce each subtopic, and lead readers here and elsewhere for more detail. After I cleaned up and cited the media sections of this article awhile back, I meant to go back to Star Wars and trim the Other media subsections further to bare intros, but never got around to it. A name change here may be possible, but there is no real confusion between EU and eu. And yes, we need less story info, not more; much of it is lingering from previous in-universe incarnations of the article.— TAnthony^Talk 22:42, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Refine format and possible rename

I'd like to reboot this discussion with a focus on refining the format and scope of this article, and probably renaming it accordingly. Although this article started out as an in-depth and (a bit in-universe) look at the SWEU, as I've been saying, I believe it currently represents a split out of Star Wars#In other media (a section which I think we can agree can be further reduced into a sleeker intro to this article). This article should (and does) cover the real-world chronology of Star Wars derivative works (outside the feature films), which includes Legends and the new canon works. Here are my ideas based on what we all seem to be saying in the previous discussion:

• Keep the existing format, though leaning in the direction of TenTonParasol's descriptive headings would probably be helpful. The Publication history section covers the overall chronology of publishing and production, citing notable works as necessary. The Works section goes into further detail about notable works and their progression in media subcategories, and directs readers to longer lists etc. The post-2014 "new canon" should be included in each section as appropriate, if not already.
• Delete the storyline section. I would have done this when I overhauled the article earlier this year, but I was concerned about too many drastic changes. Most notable works and characters in the franchise have individual articles for those interested in storylines. And there's Wookieepedia.
• Merge in the content from Star Wars canon, which should fit in nicely. The list Star Wars canon#List of canon works needs to go. I think this can be preserved in effect by adding a Legends column to the tables at List of Star Wars books and List of Star Wars comic books; everything without a check in that column is canon without us explicitly tagging it that way.
• Rename, to finally end this "confusion" discussion (Star Wars expanded universe vs. Star Wars Expanded Universe/Legends) and clarify the scope. I'm liking Star Wars in other media more and more, but ... does it make you ask, "other than what?" or is it obvious that the films are the primary? Star Wars continuity connotes storyline and canon vs. non-canon to me, but I can't think of other words at the moment that cover everything.

Discuss? — TAnthony^Talk 17:04, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

I think there issues with this article which relate to issues with the Star Wars article and related articles. Currently there are a few high-level Star Wars articles without a clear focus as to what they really are. To me, Star Wars should be the parent article to all other Star Wars articles. Which means it deals with the franchise as a whole and details its history and what it consists of. It is NOT only about the films. Splitting the "other media" part to here, would make it only about the films. For that there is already a List of Star Wars films and television series. I don't know what the original purpose of this article was, but it seems that its currently cannibalizing material which should be in a franchise article. As such I'm against any merge or copying information from the franchise article. --Gonnym (talk) 20:44, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

The Star Wars article is the parent article already. And, like, frankly, the main thrust, most iconic, most visible part of the franchise is the films, so the parent article will be naturally more weighed (WP:WEIGHT) toward the films. The parent article already exists as a top level look at the franchise, but I think what isn't being understood is that the films are, in the real world, the most important element of the franchise and so are looked at most deeply there. That article should take a very very summarized look at the rest of the immensely extensive franchise, but because of the real-world weight of all the items, naturally things that are not the films will be summarized in less detail. The Star Wars article already deals with the franchise as a whole, the problem is is that it's becoming more and more weighed down with over-detail about supplementary pieces of the franchise, devoting too much time to things of not enough weight. I believe the attempt here at this article is to give a more indepth look at those supplementary material that don't have the weight to be in-depth summarized at the main article. The List of Star Wars films and television series is a list of items, where the attempt here is to detail a development history—in my understanding. The issue with the parent Star Wars is that it's been commented that the 'In other media' section reads like it was cannibalizing the subarticles.

As for the proposal, I generally agree with TAnthony's suggestions, or I'm ambivalent about particular points, so just count me as a support. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 21:09, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

I like Star Wars supplementary media more than Star Wars in other media, because I believe the word supplementary denotes, yes that media is important, but is not obligatory. I'm fine with deleting the story-line section, the thing that bothered me was that there was a section describing the Legendsstory-line, but there was none describing the canon story-line (which is the official one). If the story-line section remains, it must explain both the canon and the legends story-line, but if it is removed then I'm also okay with that.Rosvel92 (talk) 06:20, 6 August 2017 (UTC)rosvel92

@Gonnym: You make a good point here and at Talk:Star Wars#In other media. Currently, the "Works" section of this article does not have much more than the equivalent section in Star Wars, and merging any unique info back into the parent article and eliminating it altogether here would not be a big change. The production chronology of these derivate works is important though, do you think moving that to Star Wars#In other media would be too much? Especially considering the ongoing discussions about the Star Wars article being too large already? It seems if we merged all of this back into Star Wars we would be compelled to just split some of it back out. Hmmm.— TAnthony^Talk 16:58, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

I think that considering this conversation is already encompassing Star Wars, List of Star Wars films and television series, Star Wars sequel trilogy, Star Wars expanded universe, Star Wars canon and maybe others, that this issue should be a wider conversation with a road-map as an end-result. As it is, everyone is pulling their own article one way, while leaving the articles as a mess. @TenTonParasol, no idea why you keep arguing for the films as if their feelings will be hurt if they "lose" some space in the main article. Also, regarding WP:WEIGHT, if you keep bringing that up, then back your claims. Why in your opinion are the films the most important? for 16 years no new film came out, but the franchise was kept alive with TV shows, toys, games, and of course, comics and books. Without those the franchise would have died out. But again, there is no point in even discussing who is more important. A franchise article is about the franchise, not about one part of the franchise. --Gonnym (talk) 17:43, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

My opinion is we don't need this article, let's move the publication history into the Star Wars canon article, delete the story-line section (or move it into the canon article, I don't care), and move the Works section into the main Star Wars article for the franchise (adding three more paragraphs to each section television, comics, novels, video-games, etc won't destroy the article, and is way better than having the info split across two articles, if it feels the info from here overloads the franchise article with too much info, then just reduce it more and that's it). Rosvel92 (talk) 03:07, 8 August 2017 (UTC)Rosvel92

I actually agree with Rosvel92 that this article should probably be dismantled, but while I agree that the publication history could be merged in some way with the content of Star Wars canon, that article itself should be renamed or repurposed.— TAnthony^Talk 15:38, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

Then let's move the content. Gonnym also seems to agree with us,at least in that by his opinon, you can clearly read he wants the whole in other media of the main Star Wars article to be slightly expanded with the content from this page works'section. And, I also agree, that the name of Star Wars canon can be changed to something better after adding the content from this page there, maybe Publication History of Star Wars. However changing the name of the canon article is another lengthy discussion that should be held on that page not here.Rosvel92 (talk) 03:16, 10 August 2017 (UTC)Rosvel92

I already moved all the content under publication history section into Star Wars canon.Rosvel92 (talk) 17:48, 11 August 2017 (UTC)Rosvel92

While I do not necessarily dispute the move because it is consensus, Rosel, the way to you did it is a goddamn mess. Firstly, and you've been told this before, please read WP:COPYWITHIN. Also, now the Star Wars canon article has a very confused scope because it is covering things very much well beyond the scope of the concept of canon. And, the organization on that article is a right mess. Personally, I think the canon article should've been merged into here, rather than vice versa. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 03:37, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

I don't know that the four of us spitballing counts as consensus, especially since we didn't have a clear plan ... and yes, I agree with TenTon that the merge should have happened in the reverse. I can appreciate Rosvel's boldness but I dislike one-edit massive changes because it is hard to see everything that has been altered. I haven't had any time to actually look at the change (except for Rosvel's signature run-on section headings) but we may want to redo it somewhat.— TAnthony^Talk 17:28, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Well, a sort of local-ish consensus, construed broadly. At any rate, I didn't say it in my post, but I do agree that the merge should've put the Star Wars canon into his article, as technically this article is the broader scope. At any rate, whether this goes there, or there goes here, the [{Star Wars canon]] article is now horribly out of scope. And, something needs to be renamed. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 01:40, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Should we delete this article?

Since we moved the info from here to the canon article, all the remaining info within this article already is placed on a more detailed manner within the Star Wars canon article. So as it stands right now, this article doesn't seem to have enough information of it's own to justify it's existance, in fact the current version is only a repeat of information already in the canon article.

So I want to suggest this article for deletion, unless someone objects, and shows a plan of action to actually justify saving it. Rosvel92 (talk) 16:01, 21 August 2017 (UTC)Rosvel92

Above, @TAnthony: did express a belief that the information that the merge that was done should've happened in reverse, which I interpret to mean that the information should've been merged into this article rather than Star Wars canon? The merge into Star Wars canon has made that article out of scope—that article is now about the history of all supplementary material of the franchise rather than just the concept of canon—not that I've had time to actually think about how to fix it. At any rate, deletion is inappropriate, this is a valuable redirect. That said, inb4, do not redirect this article yet, Rosvel. I generally, re-propose that what exists at the Star Wars canon article be moved to here and the canon article be redirected here. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 16:11, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

So the issue with this article, clearly has not been resolved at all. What's the deal whith this article? And why should we keep it, if all the info here is already on the Star Wars canon article? Im not saying to delete it. But do solve the issue.Rosvel92

There's still some concern that the merge you performed was done improperly and somewhat counter to what the discussion was moving toward. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 13:58, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Rosvel92, one of my concerns is that this article is linked from many others, and readers following that link have certain expectations of what they will find. In the least, this should be redirected to Star Wars canon#Publication history. However, I really believe that Star Wars canon should have been merged into this article, and this article perhaps renamed or reconceived. I appreciate your boldness in moving material, but only the three of us ever really discussed this and I don't know that the current configuration makes sense. Gonnym made some interesting points above.— TAnthony^Talk 14:37, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Merge

I've gone and boldly done it. I merged in content unique to Star Wars canon (there wasn't much) and redirected that article here. @TenTonParasol: Can you weigh in on the section headings? I was trying to expand them from just year spans but they may be clunky. Though this may get some attention, I really don't think this can ultimately be considered a controversial edit.— TAnthony^Talk 23:11, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

I don't think the headings are clunky. They look fine to me. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 01:36, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Top image

Yes, the image at the top is an image associated with the Legends material, but the first sentence explains the scope of the article, and also the vast majority of expanded universe material is currently Legends works. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 21:39, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

On a related note, I have been trying to research the use of the term "Star Wars Expanded Universe" (title case) as official branding. It was adopted by StarWars.com, but was it ever actually printed on any books or comics in the way Legends is now?— TAnthony^Talk 06:23, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

-- I'm glad both articles were merged. However are y'all sure the words expanded universe should still remain in the title of the article? Let me explain my opinion, for the non-canon stuff, the "expanded universe" labeling got dropped in favor of the "legends" banner. The current canon wave of suplementary non-film stuff, does not have a label, is simply labeled as "Star Wars". But this article is covering both the canon and the "legends" (formerly known as "expanded universe") works. So if the article is covering all the publication history why is the article confusingly named "expanded universe" as that title from my understanding, solely refeers to the the defunct "expanded universe" branding? (It would be like having an article named "Star Wars original trilogy", but the content inside covering also the prequels, anthology etc films.)

• Also having "expanded universe" in the title and then having the pic of the "legends banner" at the top, it does not help either. Even if the caption is clear, given the current title of the article, it might lead to missenterpretation from my poin of view, at least.
• Given the main section of the article's title, how about renaming the article into "Star Wars publication history" or any other more appropiate title that does not include the words "expanded universe"?Rosvel92 (talk) 03:41, 26 November 2017 (UTC)rosvel92

Also, I just wanted to suggest, that perhaps, maybe we should move this entire article into the main Star Wars article. We can make space there by moving most of the film focused info within there, into the List of Star Wars films and television series article.Rosvel92 (talk) 03:54, 26 November 2017 (UTC)rosvel92

As explained previously, multiple times, "expanded universe" is used because it's a common phrase used to mean "any part of a franchise that is an expansion outside the main installments". See expanded universe. Lowercase expanded universe, versus uppercase Expanded Universe. The lowercase expanded universe covers basically all secondary media of the Star Wars franchise that aren't the films, which are the primary media of the franchise. These secondary media include both non-canon Legends and canon material. All of it is lowercase expanded universe material. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 04:09, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Rosvel, as in the previous discussions on this, I totally see your point, but it doesn't seem like anyone else is confused about the difference between generic "expanded universe" as used in other franchises and the former brand Star Wars Expanded Universe. I was asking earlier about whether "Expanded Universe" was ever printed on books or comics because it seems even less of an issue if the term was just used colloquially on the web. In any case, this article is now a spin-off of Star Wars#In other media which covers the publication chronology in more detail. I see no value in merging it back in there.— TAnthony^Talk 01:36, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Canon List?

Is there ever going to be a list of all the canon books, games, comics, etc? I can swear I found one around this time last year on Wikipedia (or maybe Wookiepedia) but it seems to have vanished. I think one would be very helpful. 2602:304:CE09:F040:EDD3:A12C:D6E8:43A1 (talk) 08:15, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

It might not be what you're referring to, but there is a list of canon media, sorted by timeline, on Wookieepedia. Over on Wikipedia, there are some lists on, e.g., Star Wars books and Star Wars comics, which do make a divide between canon and Legends. Of course, it wouldn't surprise me if there's some other article I've missed or that's been redirected. There could be an argument made for a full list of the new-canon works -- there's some utility if we want to formally talk about how the new universe was established and set out -- though I worry it'd become pretty thick pretty quickly. If it were made, I'd push for it to be sorted by release date in any case; timeline would probably be a lot too finicky, and I'd want to keep an out-of-universe view of it all. – The Millionth One (talk) (contribs) 17:15, 31 December 2017 (UTC)