Seems to me like it's six, one, half-a-dozen or the other. Some C-canon stuff even goes to great lengths to reconcile small details from the comics (gundarks and TIE Fighter ejection seats come to mind) with the greater continuity. What is it in Marvel that you don't want to see as part of the continuity?

TC

And it seems the only defense you can muster is a notion that something bearing the Canon label has to be part of continuity, despite C-licensors ability to disregard it completely

Licensees can also completely disregard C-canon material, as Path of Destruction recently demonstrated. Canon and continuity are more malleable than people think, which is why the fact that S-canon can be disregarded doesn't mean it's not canon or in-continuity.

? Both of those links mention N-canon along with the other letters.

Reread them; you'll note he never calls them N-canon. The quote I quoted is him clarifying that "N" is not a level of canon, but the way he marks non-canon things in the mandatory canon field. S-canon, on the other hand, IS called canon throughout.

Or maybe I don't...

Note that, in every case, including Tasty's original revelation on Page 2 and in Tasty's blog, that S-canon is always referred to as canon, while N-level material is not. Thus, it's canon.

? Both of those links mention N-canon along with the other letters. Is this entire line of reasoning based upon G, C, and S being labelled canon, while N is labelled continuity? Doesn't that strike you as a rather thin basis for an argument? All that tells me is that N definetly isn't part of continuity (although Tasty has contradicted that one too...), while G, C, and S either are, or could potentially be.

Also note that all material, including G, C, and S, is "available" for continuity. That doesn't mean it wasn't continuity in the first place.
What is that supposed to mean? G and C are continuity. How can they be available for something they already are. That would make it redundant to call it available. Sorry, man, but this last one was rather weak.

Besides, where does this notion that anything with the Canon label is definetly a part of continuity come from in the first place? I mean, we've got N-canon to contradict that possibility right there.

You're not the only one on long searches . . . I finally found for to answer your question:

Okay, Non-continuity is not canon, it's just a way to classify non-continuity stuff in a database field called "canon."

Note that, in every case, including Tasty's original revelation on Page 2 and in , that S-canon is always referred to as canon, while N-level material is not. Thus, it's canon.

Also note that all material, including G, C, and S, is "available" for continuity. That doesn't mean it wasn't continuity in the first place.

I'd even go so far as to say Marvel can be disregarded entirely, because the only parts of them that are Canon owes that entirely to a C-canon reference, which can stand on its own two legs. I.e, the only Canon parts of it are those in the reference -the Marvel comic just happens to feature a storyline revolving around the same.

The last bit is speculation on my part, though. But considering how C-canon licensors are free to use or discard S-canon at their own leasure, I don't see how it can be any other way.

Even #78 has been dealt with. The Planet Hoppers: Hoth articles explained the "Janson dies" part of the story as a tall tale, and even the framing story was subtly dealt with in a throwaway line in the Planet Hoppers: Adumar article. So while the original intent isn't canon, the whole issue can now fit with everything else. I'm not sure that the original writer would appreciate having his gritty war story turned into a wacky Allstonesque prank, though.

The thing is that Marvel has been referenced with such frequency that nearly all of it has been mentioned in C-canon stories. So any way you look at it, most of (just about all) Marvel is C-canon. It's tough to think of a good example of a major Marvel storyline that hasn't been referenced and brought into canon.

TC

*1) I've misunderstood S-canon completely, and Han Solo featuring in a work of G-canon automatically makes every S-canon storyline, name and object centering on him C-canon.

2) S-canon is merely a non-canon, yet approved pool of ideas which licenced artists are free to draw upon for inspiration in their works, compared to N-canon, which they are prohibited from drawing upon in any way. For example, creators are free to canonize Crimson Jack from Marvel Star Wars 7 if they are so inclined, in which case the storyline about him from that comic never happened, whereas they cannot canonize Tag & Bink however much they want to.

Which is correct? And if neither, please explain. *

After long searches, I've found the answer to my own question. And it should hold some interest.
http://forums.starwars.com/thread.jspa?forumID=24 &hilite=true&start=15&threadID=74104&q=marvel#3629650

According to 4-Inches.de (http://www.4-inches.de/inhalt/hom e.htm), the Battle of Endor battlepack contains an Ewok known as Dochee. He's a black Ewok.

I was wondering where and if he can be seen in the movie or was he only created for Hasbro?