Talk:Thrawn trilogy

Merge? (2006)

• Oppose - Although about the same subject these are different things. One is the campaign one is the series of novels about that period. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 12:31, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Unfortunately, Wikipedia is an out of universe source, so the campaign belongs in the plot synopsis of the work, which, in this case, would be this page (and divided/further detail in the synopsis on the articles for the books). — Deckiller 12:35, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support per obvious reasons stated above. — Deckiller 12:35, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Test of public's interest for prequels?

I remember reading a newspaper article about the Zahn novels prior to their release. I seem to remember that Lucasfilm was using the success of the novels to gauge how receptive the Star Wars fans would be for a new series of films (the prequels). Anybody have that item? If it's true, then the Zahn novels are very important to the development of the prequels. ---Ransom (--68.125.111.217 (talk) 22:56, 19 April 2008 (UTC))

Article lacks basic information

The article is lacking much very basic information about the books such as the publisher. JoshuSasori (talk) 12:52, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

This information can probably be culled from the articles on the individual books in the series. I just now put this article on my watchlist, and if no one else beats me to I'll add some more stuff in the near future.--Sus scrofa (talk) 15:00, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Start of the SWEU

This article should mention that the SWEU starts with this trilogy, and all pre-Thrawn works except the films were not canon, but the SWEU was canon -- 65.94.168.229 (talk) 09:25, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

If you can find a reliable source that makes that clear I'd be glad to had it here and probably to the Star Wars expanded universe and Grand Admiral Thrawn articles.— TAnthony^Talk 16:55, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Merging specific titles

There isn't anything that can't be merged from these Wookieepediaish articles. Refer to the redirect page histories for incorporation of infoboxes (see The Han Solo Trilogy) and any relevant plot information. UpdateNerd (talk) 12:28, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

≤== Should the Hand of Thrawn and the canon Thrawn trilogy also be merged here?== Because, it at least seems better than those three sentence stubs.Rosvel92 (talk) 02:20, 18 June 2019 (UTC)Rosvel92

A better location would be Grand Admiral Thrawn#Expanded Universe works, which already discusses both series. UpdateNerd (talk) 04:01, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

That seems like a more complex discussion. They should be merged here first, regardless. Rosvel92 (talk) 14:48, 18 June 2019 (UTC)rosvel92

Yeah that would be a more complex discussion as it sets a precedent for other articles. But I don't support moving them here; a trilogy has three parts, not five. UpdateNerd (talk) 21:54, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Considering the stub state of the Hands of Thrawn article, I think I might agree with Rosvel92 on this one. The Hand of Thrawn could redirect to a Sequels section that explores the two books. Off the top of my head, Preserve and Protect does this with its sequels, and I know I've seen it elsewhere.— TAnthony^Talk 23:04, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

I actually hadn't considered that. Not opposed to a Sequel section with the duology under it. UpdateNerd (talk) 05:33, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Unmerge

• I really feel that we don't need to merge these articles. Per WP:BK it needs to have two reliable independent sources discuss it for notability. Heir to the Empire clearly satisfies these criteria. I'm not sure about the other two, but surely a separate Heir article could be created, one that has less plot summary and more focus on the actual book. The Grand Admiral Thrawn article provides plenty of sources for creating an Heir article with reliable sources. Senior Captain Thrawn (talk) 14:31, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

EU not canon?

This is disputed by many. The reference to George Lucas not considering it canon just states that “he didn’t consider it canon” with no other reference. This statement should be removed. 188.30.113.118 (talk) 23:19, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

The source is considered reliable; I don't see why it should be removed. — Czello 08:10, 9 April 2023 (UTC)