Are Licensed Sources Canon?

[Nathan Brazil]

Hi, new person here. I was wondering if licensed sources are canon? The licensed roleplaying game is out on PDF already and the hardback version is coming later this month. The PDF has new information not mentioned in the series like the structure and orbits of the planets in the 12 Colonies star system, weapons used by the (former) armed forces of the the Colonies, Colonial vehicles besides spacecraft, things like that. Then there are the novels which I have seen at the bookstore (haven't gotten them yet :(). Is information from these sources allowed to be posted as additional information to existing entries or as entries of their own within the Re-imagined wiki?

[Mercifull]

I dont think ts so simple as to say yes or no. The novels for example are set in a different canon with different character names. Cally is known as Jane Cally (http://en.battlestarwiki.org/wiki/Jane_Cally) instead of Cally being a first name for Mrs Henderson-Tyrol. Caprica-Six is also known as Natasi (http://en.battlestarwiki.org/wiki/Natasi) in the novels. This information is however still allowed on the wiki provided you add the relevant tags and categories. An example of a page which was written form information gleaned from the comic series is Medivac 12 (http://en.battlestarwiki.org/wiki/Medivac_12)

Do NOT add any separate-continuity references or information to the canonical articles. always used the {{seperate continuinity}} tag and create new articles.

More information can be found on these links:
http://en.battlestarwiki.org/wiki/Canon
http://en.battlestarwiki.org/wiki/BW:SEP

[Spencerian]

Hi, Nathan!

What Mercifull notes is correct, but I'll add a clarifying comment.

Many TV shows and movies (Star Trek is a great example here) with many stories from books, movies, comics and the like that conflict with each other, often badly.

To avoid this but still allow Battlestar Wiki to be a resource for all licensed Battlestar universe works (Original Series or Re-imagined), we developed the separate continuity policy. If you, say, read one of the comics or novels based on the Re-imagined Series, you can create an article for that book or comic. You can use links to character, event and situation articles in the canonical continuity (which includes only the aired episodes and most deleted scenes from them, unless contradicted by aired stuff) in that article, but you can't add sep-con info into the canonical articles to keep the stories straight. You can create new articles on characters, events and situations from the licensed work provided you add that separate continuity tag that Mercifull noted.

Hopefully it's not too confusing and hopefully makes sense. Just ask if you need more information outside of the links or explanation Mercifull and I provided.

[Serenity]

Hi, Nathan!
Many TV shows and movies (Star Trek is a great example here) with many stories from books, movies, comics and the like that conflict with each other, often badly.
I've seen you say this a couple of times now. But it's just flat out WRONG!

Yes, the "Star Trek" books are not canon. But you need to distinguish canon and continuity. They are completely different concepts that have nothing to do with each other.

First off, ST books aren't allowed to actively contradict movies. They sometimes find creative ways to work around events and constraints, but they don't contradict them. Sometimes they find nice ways to explain small errors introduced by the filmed shows. But they can't just do whatever they want.

Second, comics are handled by a different license from the books so they are - with some exceptions though! - in their own continuity. If editors chose to acknowledge books, they can. Again that has nothing whatsoever to do with canon.

Thirdly, since about 2000, nearly all ST books are within one continuity. While not all of them directly references each other, they don't contradict it each other. Aside from small editorial screwups and deliberate decisions like the Crucible trilogy. In fact ST books had a limited continuity from the get-go. It was only in the late 80s and early 90s when continuity was forbidden by editorial control. Those rules don't apply anymore. Today there are sweeping story arcs, book-only series, major book-only characters, major changes to things established on television, small and big crossovers between book series, etc.

Are there contradictions between the novels and the television shows? Sure. Sometimes big ones (I'm channeling Lee Adama here...). But it's not as bad as you make them out to be. Some books are completely contradicted. Some have small facts that have been contradicted, but whose story still holds up aside from that. Some contradict each other and have alternate versions of events. But most of them are perfectly in sync with the filmed part of the franchise and even each other. For 500 or so books that's a fairly good track record.
Moreover, the chance for new books to be contradicted is very slim, with ST being off the air. What will happen with the new movie will be seen, but the editors and authors will do what they have always done, and somehow work it in.

There even a handful of things established in the books that made it into canon, but admittedly that's the rare exception.

That's where personal continuity comes in. You can actively pick and chose what counts for you. If a book isn't contradicted, you can consider it as "happened". Even if a detail doesn't fit, you can either ignore it or come up with your own explanation. I don't know about you, but I don't need some canon dictator who decrees what counts and what not from up high. I can think for myself.

Even contradicted stories can be great! Strangers from the Sky is still a damn good ST novel. So is Federation if people are to be believed, though both are completely contradicted by "First Contact". Or The Final Reflection. Or the Rihannsu series. The latter are very good books, that are not entirely contradicted by TNG, but partly invalidated. They also offer a far more intriguing look at the Romulans than the TV shows.


The vaunted Star Wars books are allegedly canon, but while some usually small things are referenced, they also have often been contradicted by the movies, when it's convenient. It's more like "It's canon until it it's not", which is for all intents and purposes the same situation ST books are in these days, except that they don't have an official canon sticker.

All in all, the concept of canon doesn't have any relevance whatsoever to a fan unless he or she is a writer for the show and needs to know what to follow and what not. Or in a special case, with BS Wiki for example, when you document a universe (for that you obviously need strict rules).
But non-canon stories can still be tons of fun if the quality is alright and if one can accept them for what they are. I'd just say that in a series as tightly written as BSG, it's too early for tie-ins. They are bound to be contradicted, so they should wait until the show is over to have freedom.

[Spencerian]

Don't get me wrong. I love Star Trek. I'm probably one of the only few on the board (yet) that has watched it since it first came on. Around 1968. I was alive then.

Stories work when they don't fight with each other. That's why we have the sep-con rule on the BS Wiki, allowing the stories to keep their integrity without violating their own.

Star Trek, today, can and does confuse the hell out of people. Rihannsu? I liked The Romulan Way (I think that's the title) when it came out, but "Romulan" is the name of the race. I'm not arguing the point that Star Trek has many non-canon elements. I'm arguing that the sheer volume of stories makes for a universe that can hardly be enjoyed anymore because it's a story that refuses to close itself (and thus limit the story and make sense).

Memory Alpha tries not to get involved with that debate, and for good reason. Memory Beta picks up the sep-con/canon issue and appears to do well. Star Wars does far better at continuity and canon than Star Trek ever has, but less so than the Babylon 5 world.

In short, the longer the SF story exists, the more likely it becomes a morass that is less enjoyable, unless one focuses on only one or two continuities. I enjoy TOS Trek (especially the remastered shows and "Star Trek: New Voyages") but, save some TNG like "Best of Both Worlds", I can't watch it...I can't keep track of it all.

And isn't enjoying and understanding a story the basis for watching it in the first place?

[Serenity]

You make this out more of an issue than it needs to be though. And you vastly overstate the contradictions in ST, especially between the shows and the novels. The canon universe still make sense, because nearly all the contradictions are in small details. The cohesiveness could be better, but for 5 widely different shows and 10 movies with different creative staffs it holds together pretty well.

Star Wars is 6 movies. Big frakking accomplishment keeping them consistent. As said, the canon label for books doesn't really mean much in practice. The holy Babylon 5 is little more than 5 seasons. It also ended its story in season 4. The rest is beating a dead horse.

ST in comparison doesn't just tell one story. It's a whole universe with many different stories. There is closure in some them. And you don't need to like all aspects of it. I only really like TOS and DS9. I hate TNG, VOY is a failure overall and ENT is only watchable in its 4th season. If people perceive it as one single entity that they need to take in as whole, that's really a misconception.

Of course there are some annoying inconsistencies between even the TV shows, and ideally they'd all fit together perfectly. But even reconciling those is not such a huge insurmountable task, or something that destroys the entire universe. At most it invalidates the show or episode that causes the contradiction. Some people look over it and enjoy the stories for what they are, while others stick with the original versions. But saying "oh noes, it doesn't make any sense!" is not necessary. Some fans even enjoy coming up with ways to reconcile the contradictions (of course that's not something for a Wiki).

And yes "Rihannsu" still holds up well. In fact the books re-printed as omnibus not long ago, and the last volume finally released after being delayed for years. Even the contradictions with TNG aren't that huge (except for the Reman thing). As far as the first book goes, they are about a culture shift in Romulan society. The differences are really more with Diane Duane's unique way of handling Starfleet and space combat. Something which I personally enjoy. And I don't accept they they call themselves "Romulans" (until ENT it was just the name humans gave them) just because it happens to be on TV. It doesn't make sense and I can think for myself.

Sure, for a Wiki you need rules, but as far as personal entertainment goes, it's irrelevant. In general, I have an intense dislike for canon fanatics, who hold up the concept as some kind of all-important dogma. For me, ST has been in the books for years. At their past they are consistent with TV and far surpass in quality and scope. I couldn't care less for TV Star Trek since 1999.

[Spencerian]

It's far less canon zealotry for me than one simple thing. Something that I've been spoiled about since watching B5 and will be pleased to have with Battlestar:

A story that ends.

For all its entertainment that I've enjoyed over the years, Star Trek can never make that claim. It is still a fun universe to read, but to read, not live in. Contradictions and rewrites happen. It's the scope of them within such a now-incomprehensibly large universe(s) that makes enjoying anything but TOS and some TNG for me a complete pain because there is no more mystery. No more questions. No more story.

Universes as large as the Trek universe has become is why comic book writers love to kill off characters, worlds and even universes periodically just to keep focus.