BrandonSM Posted January 22, 2012 Share Posted January 22, 2012 No it's not. And I'm not accepting random assertions at face value because, I don't trust anonymous people on the internet to be honest. Now if you'd like to link something. Wookieepedia even admits it. It's not an official source, it's not licensed or owned by LFL or even affiliated with it. It's not canon. But, BW Devs and Writers and Leland Chee said its a great canon resource 2nd to the books. So, I take it as canon, and many others do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jorander Posted January 22, 2012 Share Posted January 22, 2012 But, BW Devs and Writers and Leland Chee said its a great canon resource 2nd to the books. So, I take it as canon, and many others do. No, they don't say that, and neither does Wookieepedia. Here is the official stance of the people who manage Star Wars canon. G-canon. Movies, movie novelizations, movie scripts, original screenplays, and other things of simliar natures. T-canon. Any Star Wars television show. This was created originally for TCW. C-canon. Continuity canon, movies, books, and games. S-canon. Secondary canon, things like statistics in Role-playing games, and item descriptions. N-canon. Non-canon, what if stories, things that didn't actually happen. Higher elements of canon auto-contradict lower elements, pushing them into n-canon, when equal canon elements contradict each other, a ruling from Chee or Lucas is needed. See wookieepedia on there? I don't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
obarskyer Posted January 22, 2012 Share Posted January 22, 2012 not to start stuff but (again not into the whole reading blogs and other stuff) when does GL say fett is really dead? Other than the jacen jaina thing that some people say are pointless there are other things that are tied in there with the legacy of the force and fate of the jedi. With jag fel getting the beskar gauntlets he was using to help fight the jedi. If fett would be dead mirtas mom/fetts daughter would not have gotten killed and fett wouldn't be around to make the gauntlets and it would throw other parts of the story off or of coarse they could just rewrite it so everything happens differently. And If I'm mistaken well than just ignore this whole post and i'm sorry. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bobinator Posted January 22, 2012 Share Posted January 22, 2012 Clone Wars cartoon has ruined many things.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheTurniipKing Posted January 22, 2012 Share Posted January 22, 2012 (edited) There is no Boba Fett. Boba Fett is the alias of a man named Jaster Mereel, former Journeyman Protector of Concord Dawn. He took the name after being exiled for killing another protector for being corrupt. Later, he crawls out of the Sarlacc and is best man a Dengar's wedding This is the story of "Boba Fett" before there were prequels. This is the story I, personally, prefer to think is "correct" I think there's actually a few bounty hunters out there trading on old Boba Fett's name. So, there could be a real one lurking out there, too. Edited January 22, 2012 by TheTurniipKing Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrandonSM Posted January 22, 2012 Share Posted January 22, 2012 (edited) "Wookieepedia is a lavish and stunning homage to the Star Wars pop cultural phenomenon. Thanks to its professional appearance, the scope of its content, the quality of its writers and diligence of its administrators, Wookieepedia has become a valuable resource to fans both casual and obsessive, as well as to Star Wars authors. It's becoming the new nexus for everyone who wants to know as much as Yoda about that galaxy far, far away." ―Abel G. Peña Wait a second Abel works for LA! In September 2011, an overhaul at StarWars.com resulted in a new Encyclopedia with every entry linking to a Wookieepedia article. By November, the Senate Hall was altered to include listings for sticky threads, which would stick to the top of a separate list. At this time, the community readied itself for Celebration VI, with intentions to host a table again. ■Dave Filoni mentioned on the Official Star Wars Blog, among other topics, that George Lucas was shown printed Wookieepedia articles when discussing material he was unaware of. [33 Its more canon than you realize. Edited January 22, 2012 by BrandonSM Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Forgon Posted January 22, 2012 Share Posted January 22, 2012 This thread got on my nerves quickly. Disclaimer: My stance in this thread is against the idea mandalorians were ruined by TCW. I have read Karen's novels, watched TCW up to now, and consider Wookipedia an excellent source for Star Wars lore. I will be cementing my own opinion into this thread to add to the, in my opinion, chaos. Wookipedia is a great source of information and is imo the best, largest and most reliable wiki on the internet. The fact Lucasarts acknowledges it alone is testament to their dedication and hard work. As for this issue with Mandalorians: the EU and the movies are in a wonderful mess of having a sloppy relationship at best and a violent fallout at worst, the mandalorians being no exception. Until more sources in the EU and the supplementary SW encyclopedias say otherwise, Boba and Jango are going to be canonically, though ambiguously, mandalorian simply because one man on TCW saying they aren't in the context of the situation, no matter the intent, isn't enough to require an entire EU retcon. This will change when/if other Star Wars media supports this or GL says it himself. As for Traviss, disliked what she did with her series and dsilike the woman personally just by researching her, imo. Next off, the EU trips over itself on its own so TCW isn't doing much then adding another shoelace to step on. The New Mandalorians were represented and added in such a way that the most minimal of a retcon was possible for their inclusion. All Mando EU is virtually intact, the show basically added a third faction that logically made sense and contrasted the other two, True Mandos and Death Watch. Not only that, the New Mandos provide reasonable culture and history and allow for a very abstract version of the Mandos we know to be recognized but still acknowledge the other parts of their old culture, Death Watch being the most prominent example and the portrait of the Mandalorian Wars and Mandalore the Ultimate in the backgrounds of some scenes being the most subtle. No matter how you spin it, you can't say the show made a mandalorian trainwreck that imo hasn't happened. Carry on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hargrave Posted January 22, 2012 Share Posted January 22, 2012 I have to say i find the clone wars more entertaining then those new movies were.... now if could only make a cad bane chiss that looked like cad bane and not a member from the blue men group sigh Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JacenHallis Posted January 22, 2012 Share Posted January 22, 2012 Wookieepedia is not "canon" because it isn't a source material. It is merely a consolidation of all the source material into one location for easy reading. Wookieepedia provides no new content of its own, and, thus, it requires no rating on the "canon" scale. It's still extremely useful as a repository of information. Since it provides sources for its information, you can find the actual canon material easily enough to verify the veracity of the information. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JacenHallis Posted January 22, 2012 Share Posted January 22, 2012 I have to say i find the clone wars more entertaining then those new movies were.... now if could only make a cad bane chiss that looked like cad bane and not a member from the blue men group sigh Cad Bane is a Duros--not a chiss. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grodo Posted January 22, 2012 Share Posted January 22, 2012 ok, seriously. I was slaming my palm into m face when I read this... in the clone wars there were no actual mandalorian warriors, they wer death watch. The rest of the true mandalorians died out in the mandalorian civil war, along with Jaster mareel. the guys in the CW were death watch, the opposite in what a mandalorian is. And as for boba fett, no actually he was never a real mandalorian until he became mandalore in the EU (after episode VI) the armor he wears is Jango fett's armor, FROM the Mandalorian Civil War. after that war Jango recieved his metalic armor. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elder Posted January 22, 2012 Share Posted January 22, 2012 For whatever it's worth, here's Wookeepedia's stance on all this: Nope, nothing's overridden. Jango is indeed still a Mandalorian, with all of his previous history still intact. Filoni's commentary is not part of an official release, and therefore ambiguously canon. We usually only take such input when the commentary clarifies or adds to another otherwise ambiguous situation. Also, it's incorrect, as the concept of Jango being Mandalorian was not a fan assumption, but a fact stated in numerous licensed, official books, comics, and other releases, beginning—I believe—with the Visual Dictionary for Attack of the Clones. In situations such as these, where commentary is incorrect and in conflict with official canon, a behind the scenes note of the inconsistency is made, instead of altering the main body of the article. As for Almec's statements: The Essential Atlas indicates that the New Mandalorians—the faction of which Almec is a part of—looks down upon the traditional warrior clans, and the New Battlefronts Visual Guide implies Almec dismisses Jango out of pride, rather than fact. Bella'Mia 05:47, January 22, 2012 (UTC) http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Talk:Jango_Fett take that as you will. Beyond throwing this in there, I wash my hands of this discussion. Have little stake in it, so long as Lucas stays away from KotOR/TOR era Mandos and Legacy Comics Mandos. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wolfninjajedi Posted January 22, 2012 Share Posted January 22, 2012 Wookieepedia is not "canon" because it isn't a source material. It is merely a consolidation of all the source material into one location for easy reading. Wookieepedia provides no new content of its own, and, thus, it requires no rating on the "canon" scale. It's still extremely useful as a repository of information. Since it provides sources for its information, you can find the actual canon material easily enough to verify the veracity of the information. Wha?.....So your saying it isn't a source material.....but then you say it consolidates all source material into one location. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrandonSM Posted January 22, 2012 Share Posted January 22, 2012 Wha?.....So your saying it isn't a source material.....but then you say it consolidates all source material into one location. I think he means to say, its a secondary Database for Source Material. The Primary is the Source itself(Books, Movies, etc). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DarthMoord Posted January 22, 2012 Share Posted January 22, 2012 (edited) Its more canon than you realize. It either is canon or it isn't. As a LFL non-affiliate and by virtue of being editable by anyone, it can not be canon. All that says is it's a good source of information and not that it's entirely correct information. For example: A couple months ago Wookieepedia listed the orbital bombardment of the Seperatist Factory on Mustafar in the Base Delta Zero and listed Battlefront II as the source. This operation is never said to be anything but an orbital bombardment. A wiki can be a good source of information, but it's information must be independently verified from the source it quotes. You can't just trust a wiki at face value as anyone can make changes that aren't correct. You never quote a wiki as a source, instead you go to the wiki thread and read what sources it quotes as to where it got it's information from. ok, seriously. I was slaming my palm into m face when I read this... in the clone wars there were no actual mandalorian warriors, they wer death watch. The rest of the true mandalorians died out in the mandalorian civil war, along with Jaster mareel. the guys in the CW were death watch, the opposite in what a mandalorian is. Are you familiar with the concept of the No True Scotsman fallacy? As the 'True Mandalorians', 'Deathwatch', and 'New Mandalorians' are all descended from the Mandalorians they are all Mandalorians. This is literally no different than say a Catholic declaring that Mormons aren't True Christians or Haredi Jews in Israel denying the Jewishness of non-Haredi Jews. It's a simple matter of one or more sides of a schism denying the legitimacy of the other side to bolster their own. Edited January 22, 2012 by DarthMoord Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wolfninjajedi Posted January 22, 2012 Share Posted January 22, 2012 I think he means to say, its a secondary Database for Source Material. The Primary is the Source itself(Books, Movies, etc). Ah...but even then, it has the links of where the information comes from(books and the like) so I don't see how its not valid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrandonSM Posted January 22, 2012 Share Posted January 22, 2012 Ah...but even then, it has the links of where the information comes from(books and the like) so I don't see how its not valid. That proves that it is valid, and I proved LA recognizes it greatly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheGreenAlloy Posted January 22, 2012 Share Posted January 22, 2012 nope According to Star Wars canon it goes G-Canon (movies scripts and what George Lucas says) T- Canon (tv series ie The Clone Wars) E - Canon ( Everything in the Expanded Unvierse) So since it happend in the Clone Wars TV series that is how it now officially happened. and to the other poster yes Boba Fett is dead he died in the Sarlac Pit. He fell was eaten he never escaped and George Lucas says he is dead as well.. You're a silly man. It's still a retcon, no matter what order the canon goes. It's like change of mind on something already percieved and established. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JacenHallis Posted January 22, 2012 Share Posted January 22, 2012 Ah...but even then, it has the links of where the information comes from(books and the like) so I don't see how its not valid. I never said it wasn't valid. I merely said it doesn't fit into the scheme of canon. The main reason is because it's not a licensed Lucasfilm product. It merely takes the information from the official products and puts it all in one place for easier reading. The information in the wookieepedia is canon, so long as it is verifiable. Since Wookieepedia requires sources for its information, this isn't a problem. Wookieepedia is valid as a resource for finding canon information, but not as a source of canon information in and of itself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Forgon Posted January 22, 2012 Share Posted January 22, 2012 I never said it wasn't valid. I merely said it doesn't fit into the scheme of canon. The main reason is because it's not a licensed Lucasfilm product. It merely takes the information from the official products and puts it all in one place for easier reading. The information in the wookieepedia is canon, so long as it is verifiable. Since Wookieepedia requires sources for its information, this isn't a problem. Wookieepedia is valid as a resource for finding canon information, but not as a source of canon information in and of itself. ^ Partially correct. Wookieepedia cannot create its own articles and characters that defies their actual source material. Their articles are correct and fall in line with canon, legitimizing the information as canonical, but only because they are cited from their source. However, they cannot make canon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JacenHallis Posted January 23, 2012 Share Posted January 23, 2012 ^ Partially correct. Wookieepedia cannot create its own articles and characters that defies their actual source material. Their articles are correct and fall in line with canon, legitimizing the information as canonical, but only because they are cited from their source. However, they cannot make canon. That's exactly what I said. The sources Wookieepedia uses for its information are canon (and some non-canon sources that are cited as such, for example the story of Darth Maul's relentless pursuit of Obi-Wan Kenobi that culminated in a lightsaber duel at the Lars homestead). However, the wiki itself is not canon. If Wookieepedia were to start putting in information not found in any book, like, say, a new Wookiee jedi, then that would not be canon information. If Wookieepedia itself were canon, then anything put into it would be canon information as well, and that's just not the case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gantoris_Aym Posted January 23, 2012 Share Posted January 23, 2012 (edited) I don't accept anything from Cartoon Network. That's how I solve problems like this. The cartoons might be vaguely entertaining (sometimes) but I don't think they should be cannon...It's a TV show ran by people who want ratings and airtime (they are employees of a TV company first and foremost). I don't think that they ultimately have star wars cannon in mind. They'd probably kill a saga Character if they though it would give them superb ratings. Edited January 23, 2012 by Gantoris_Aym Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fyurii Posted January 24, 2012 Share Posted January 24, 2012 Gantoris, Cartoon Network doesn't make the show.It's still made by Lucas Film, and quite often with direct input and overview by Lucas. Like it or not, nothing you say will ever make its content non-canon*, and it will always have a higher level of canon status than anything in the EU, as all EU content is C-Canon at best with some aspects falling into S-Canon and N-Canon. *Canon not cannon. One's a weapon, the other isn't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heimskringla Posted January 24, 2012 Share Posted January 24, 2012 I am not saying you are a fandalorian, what I am saying is that the CW hasn't ruined mandalorians they were already ruined. Pretty sure Karen Traviss ruined them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrianDavion Posted January 24, 2012 Share Posted January 24, 2012 Pretty sure Karen Traviss ruined them. Karen Traviss started off well but by the end of her tenure writeing for StarWars had lost ANY objectivity (important if you want to write in a shared setting) I mean when another writer publicly says she's "obsessed with all things Mando" that's proably suggestive of deeper problems. BTW this "Retcon" re the Mandos isn't even that bad. it's been slid fairly smoothly into contiunality (it's not the first time some books have had to be.... reinterpreted in light of new info, go read the thrawn series sometime) the OFFICAL story is that there where 3 factions of Mandalorians. The New Mandalorians (who at the time of the clone wars where in power) the True Mandalorians,and the Death Watch (who eventually win, remember other then Jango the True Mandalorians where wiped out to a man) as for Jango "not even being a Mandalorian" remember who said it. the New Mandalorian government. who have multiple reasons to reject any association with Jango. think about it not only was Jango a "pretender to the throne" (reason eneugh to disavow him and say "ohh he's not eeven a Mandalorian) but he's also the face of every clone trooper, the "Face of the Clone wars" if you would. I could see the pacifest new Mandalorians denying Jango was a Mandalorian on that alone. so yeah the cartoon stuff isn't terriably hard to make jive, and Karen Traviss' books are hardly the hardest hit by "new changes" go read the thrawn trilogy sometime. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts