hmmmm does the (Films) episodes 1-7 also include the novelisation or only the films themselves?

@Thomas - The ruling is that the novelisations are mixed canon. Where they show events that happened in the films, they're canon. Where they show events that didn't happen in the films, they're "legends" canon (e.g. non-canon). A good example would be in the Star Wars novelisation where ben uses an expression about a duck and luke asks him what a duck is. Since it didn't happen in the films, it's considered apocryphal.

Ah tnx. so in total they don't really count as the new canon only the films themselves.

@Thomas - They can add info to the canon, but only where they're explaining what's happening on screen.

Isn't information included in non-narrative reference works published since April 2014 considered canon?

@Hypnosifl - Yes, in my answer they're grouped together under the link for "Journey to the Force Awakens".

@Richard - I see two such reference works are mentioned in that link, but there have been other reference works published since April 2014 that aren't mentioned there, like Star Wars: The Force Awakens Visual Dictionary and Ultimate Star Wars and Star Wars: The Force Awakens Incredible Cross-Sections.

I see there is a link for the statement about novelizations, but can you provide a link saying that "elements of the Jedi Path Manual" are considered to be part of the new Disney canon? Also has anyone at Lucasfilm explicitly said that factbooks and the new Star Wars Databank should be considered canon (the explanation of the new canon here doesn't address the issue), or is this more like a commonsense inference based on the publication date being after April 2014?

But the book was published in September 2010, well before the April 2014 announcement about the new Disney canon, it seems rather speculative to assume this was asked out of concern for new canon plans they were cooking up, rather than just to keep C-canon in the EU consistent with what was going to be shown on The Clone Wars. And what about the other part of my question about factbooks and the Star Wars Databank?

@Hypnosifl - The post 2014 factbooks (such as the SW:Awakens Visual Dictionary) are considered fully canon but as far as I'm aware, the older ones aren't. It's one of those weird grey areas where they're basically the same but different.

I'm not disagreeing that it's reasonable to infer the Databank and factbooks would be canon, just wondering if there's been an official statement. If not it might be at least a little ambiguous in the case of factbooks that were published shortly after the April 2014 announcement, which could have been in the works for a while before, like Star Wars in 100 Scenes from August 2014. They did continue to publish some non-canon stories after April 2014, like this Dark Horse comic from July.

I thought "future prints of old titles" meant reprints of specific books or comic issues that had been originally published before April 2014, not entirely new entries in series that had been around before. The wookieepedia page indicates that particular issue had an original publication date of July 2014.

I agree that comic isn't canon, I'm just wondering if the rules are a little fuzzier than you're suggesting--instead of something precise like "everything after April 2014 is canon except for some well-defined exceptions like ongoing Legends series", it was more like "starting now basically everything new is canon, aside from a few things that in some way or another are carry-overs from before we made these new canon plans".

Another issue: a lot of people have interpreted the statement by Del Ray about novelizations to mean something like "only those parts of novelizations that are shown onscreen are canon", rather than "everything in the novelizations is canon except where it explicitly contradicts something onscreen". For example, see wookieepedia canon policy. And this tweet by Pablo Hidalgo of the LucasFilm Story Group seems to dismiss them from canon.

Unless something has changed very recently, I believe Pablo Hidalgo is still one of the head honchos of the LucasFilm Story Group which coordinates Disney canon--his twitter page lists him as "Creative Executive, Lucasfilm Story Group", and this article from January 2016 about Matt Martin joining the LucasFilm Story Group says "Martin will be joining the likes of Pablo Hidalgo, Leland Chee and others in the group which oversees all Star Wars storytelling".

There's a very good chance that LucasFilm Story Group had discussed the issue beforehand and decided on the novelizations' canonicity (especially since Del Rey would have had to have consulted with them before making their own comment about canonicity), in which case I doubt Hidalgo would contradict the decision in a tweet. In the interests of objectivity I think you should at least note that the Del Rey tweet can be interpreted either way, and that Hidalgo made a dismissive comment when asked about their canonicity, rather than stating as a fact in your answer that they're definitely canon.

@Hypnosifl - The del rey statement seems pretty definitive to me. They're canon in some respects. There's really no other way to read it - This was the earlier statement from Del Rey and Leland Chee; "The novelizations of the seven films--including The Clone Wars--are canon." twitter.com/delreystarwars/status/461541040273764352

In the comment "movie novelizations are canon where they align with what is seen on screen" there is ambiguity about the phrase "align with what is seen on screen"--you seem to be interpreting it to mean "aren't explicitly contradicted by what is seen on screen", but how can you be certain they didn't mean "match up specifically with what was seen on screen"?

@Hypnosifl - In the earlier comment, they outright stated that the novels were canon. When it was pointed out (by many people) that this was dumb, they rowed back on that and stated that they were canon where they didn't disagree with the films. I admit you can read it the other way (e.g. they're only canon where they are literally physically describing the action on screen ("luke held up his lightsaber", etc) but that's an intensely narrow way to look at what was said, and ignores the prior statement entirely.

Either way you slice it, their initial tweet was wrong and they had to walk it back, which raises doubts about how clearly they had thought out the wording of their tweet #2. Also, as the publisher of these books, they might have some tendency to put a "positive spin" on things if they had gotten a message from LucasFilm Story Group that was more in line with the second interpretation. Finally, would you assume they had gotten word on the novels' canonicity from the Story Group before making that tweet? If so wouldn't you expect Pablo Hidalgo to be aware of whatever the Story Group decided?

One more point: if the Story Group wanted the novels to be canon wherever they don't explicitly contradict the movies, then they aren't doing a good job keeping canon consistent, because the Phantom Menace novelization says on p. 137 that "the Sith had come into being almost two thousand years ago", but the novel Tarkin talks of "an ancient Sith shrine" and says "no sentient being in close to five thousand years had set foot in the shrine".

What about my point that we can't be sure that Del Rey are conveying the views of the Story Group in a totally accurate, non-misleading, spin-free way, especially after the first tweet? Do you feel entirely confident that the Story Group told them unambiguously that everything that isn't explicitly contradicted is canon, despite Hidalgo's comment, or is your "dunno" meant to indicate you aren't sure? I'm just saying it would be good to mention both arguments if there's any ambiguity, since your answer is likely to be the only source many stackexchangers see when answering SW canon questions.

That isn't quite what I asked--I was asking not about their statement in itself, but about how confident you are that it accurately conveys the wishes of the Story Group (since Del Rey doesn't have any independent authority about canonicity). You're confident that they didn't misunderstand what the Story Group told them slightly? And furthermore, that they also didn't choose to spin their explanation a little, in a way that was technically true but misleading, in order to try to avoid discouraging people from buying their books? They probably did one of those things in the first tweet, no?

No comment? Again, if you aren't near 100% confident the folks at Del Ray didn't distort the directives given them by the Story Group in their second tweet (whether through misunderstanding or an attempt to spin things), as they seemingly must have in the first tweet, then in the interests of objectivity you should really mention Hidalgo's comment on the novelizations, which in its most straightforward interpretation seems to be answering negatively to the question he was responding to about their canonicity.

(continued) Also, two unrelated issues--this liveblog with people in charge of Star Wars canon mentions that 'Sadie Smith shows off DK’s new Ultimate Star Wars – their first book that adheres to the new canon.' This at least suggests that factbooks published before April 28 2015 may not be canon. Also, Star Wars Insider short stories are apparently canon, see here.

Yes, but comments are meant to be ephemeral on stack exchange, anything that's highly relevant to the answer (in this case, any ambiguity or mixed messages from the people in charge about what's canon and what's not) should be incorporated into it.

Good point, but Star Wars in 100 Scenes is an example of a factbook that address the original trilogy but was published between April 2014 and April 2015 (it came out in August 2014)--not sure if there are any other examples like this, but at least that one's canonicity may be in doubt.

A blurb from Star Wars Insider here says "DK's Ultimate Star Wars is the first official reference book to reflect the updated canon". The quote you give doesn't specifically say that providing canonical info "in chronological order" is what makes it a "first", I think you could paraphrase that as "This is the first canonical reference guide, giving info about characters, vehicles, locations and technology in chronological order". The Rebels guide is retroactively canonical, but like Clone Wars may predate decisions about new canon.

"Updated canon" doesn't refer to the new film, it refers to the new Disney canon. For example, the last comment in the interview at the bottom of this page on Ultimate Star Wars says: "This is it—this is the new canon! A lot of different Star Wars® spin-off stories were published in the past, but under the new direction at Disney/Lucasfilm, the official Star Wars® universe is more streamlined and a lot easier for fans to understand. Everything that’s in Ultimate Star Wars® is part of the new, official storyline."

Good idea--I sent a tweet, will report back if they reply.

I also tweeted Pablo Hidalgo to ask about the novelizations, he indicated that facts mentioned in the novels which aren't shown onscreen are not canon, future storytellers are free to incorporate such facts if they wish but are "not beholden to anything published previously" (i.e. pre-2014, which is what I asked about in my tweet)--see the exchange here.

I think "Maybe it happened. Maybe it didn't" is their attitude to all Legends material that doesn't explicitly contradict current canon. It's just indicating that future writers are free to pick and choose those Legends ideas they like to incorporate into their own stories, but aren't obligated to be consistent with Legends stuff they don't like. Note that in the original 2014 announcement they said "Creators of new Star Wars entertainment have full access to the rich content of the Expanded Universe."

Yes, but my tweet to him was specifically asking about facts that were not seen onscreen, but also don't explicitly conflict with other canon (for example, the idea that the Millennium Falcon stopped at Anoat before reaching Bespin in ESB). I think his answer clearly indicated that future writers shouldn't feel "beholden" to be consistent with such facts if they don't like them, i.e. these facts are not considered canon.

Not sure if this should be included in your answer or split off into it's own question, but the canon status of games is, to me, confusing. How do we know which games are canon and what parts of the game are considered canon or non-canon?

What do you mean by "elaborate on" though? If the novel tells us what a character was thinking in a scene, or a snippet of conversation shown right between two onscreen bits of dialogue (with a cut between them) in the same scene, are you saying that should be canon? My tweet asked him about any "fact not shown onscreen", which would seem to include things like thoughts and bits of dialogue. Given this, I think it'd be better to say facts from the novels are only canon if also shown onscreen.

@Ellesedil - Yes, that's another element that seems a bit ambiguous, see this article which indicates games are canon, followed by this one which indicates their canonicity is "complicated".

He never said they "could be considered any sort of canon", he just made the blanket statement that writers were "not beholden to anything published previously". If you think there could be exceptions where writers are beholden to facts in the novels not shown onscreen, perhaps you should reply to his tweet yourself to ask about whatever specific exceptions you're imagining.

@Hypnosifl - I shall have a think on it. On another note, I think this comment chain is getting a but unwieldy. I'm gonna delete a few of the comments above to get it back to a reasonable length. You might want to do the same with your replies