Forums > Senate Hall archive > SH Archive/ Databank

When it comes to canonical information, is the Databank the say-all, end-all when it comes to establishing canon? For example, the Databank entry for Super Star Destroyer says the Executor carried two prefabricated garrison bases for ground assault, but the Essential Guide to Vehicles and Vessels and Star Wars: Behind the Magic both say the ship has three. My question is, then, is the Databank automatically "right" just because it's the Databank? Toprawa and Ralltiir 03:20, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

  • Laland has said that the Databank is G-canon. Which becomes problematic given it not always being up to date, and contradicting other sources. I believe Wookieepedia has a silent concensus not to treat it as more than C-canon in practice. DarthMRN 06:49, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Leland has said nothing of the sort. The databank is not G-Canon. It is, however, divided into two sections: "Movies" and "Expanded Universe", in which the information contained therein roughly equate to G-Canon/C-S Canon. The databank, however, is not G-Canon. The databank is no higher source than any other reference work. QuentinGeorge 06:57, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
      • Oh, he has said something of the sort. But the distinction you bring up is important. Entries for the movies are G, with everything else being C. That does, as you say, not make the Databank G in itself, but still a G-canon source in its own right where the movies are concerned. DarthMRN 15:29, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
        • No it's not. It's merely a reiteration of a G-Canon source in this case, the movie. QuentinGeorge 19:47, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
          • <sigh> I'm tempted to just ignore you as always, but for the benefit of the poor individual starting the thread: What makes you think so? "The Movies descriptions are G..." is fairly hard to misunderstand. DarthMRN 04:02, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
            • Maybe because someone else interprets and writes the movie info. A slight difference I guess... -Fnlayson 04:38, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
              • Exactly. DarthMRN, you seem to have real trouble understanding canon policy. G-canon is the films, and the other assorted notes and comments directly from George Lucas. The databank is merely the interpretation of such information. It, in itself, is not a G-Canon source. Now, having said that, the next time you make another pointless thread that basically is your beef with canon policy, I will delete it and ban you, since you seem incapable of making a worthwhile contribution to this community. QuentinGeorge 05:11, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
                • So what? If Leland says G-canon, fan assumptions that this is wrong just because someone else wrote it and because it has been wrong are worth jack. As Holocron master he is well within his rights to declare any source G-canon. And I find it funny that you question my understanding of canon, since I've come to see myself as understanding it better than even most Wookieepedia bigtimers, but sure, whatever lets you sleep at night. And regarding your threat to abuse your admin powers for personal reasons, you might wanna consider that I haven't started a single thread anywhere regarding my beef with canon. I have contributed to those of others, but not started anyone myself. Glad to hear you make such well-founded desicions when banning someone. And finally, my contributions to the community novadays consists of the occasional edit and answering questions in the Knowledge Bank. That should be sufficient since I no longer demand a voice in policy matters. Am I the only one appalled at admin autonomy being abused like this? DarthMRN 17:44, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
                  • "Am I the only one appalled at admin autonomy being abused like this?" <Soup Nazi>Yes. Next question!</Soup Nazi> -- Darth Culator (Talk) 19:14, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Toprawa and Ralltiir: No, the Databank is not the be-all and end-all source, and has been wrong in the past. However, given the fact that this update seems to be an attempt to retcon several previous facts about the Executor and her class, it's likely that this change is meant as a retcon of the previous information rather than a simple error. jSarek 13:39, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Slightly OT: Please keep in mind, for the hundreth time, the Holocron Database is an internal tool for LFL, to keep track of things, it may not be completely updated and as extensive as to cover all areas of LFL published material. Keep in mind that the policy of LFL has always been that sources closer to the films, have a "clearer view" to the "true events" while sources further from the films, see things "more dimly". This has been reiterated by LFL officals up till now, and the presence of the internal Holocron Database does not change this. The Holocron is good for determining whether something is still a valid piece of SW continuity or whether something was invented by Lucas or not, but that's mainly its scope and purpose. Don't apply it to solve external disputes, which I see happening every single time something like this comes along. VT-16 08:47, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Man and I always thought we were the end-all to be-all. :P Actually the way I see it concerning canon, movies are automatically G, and the information in C-canon sources that is most cited is the correct information, even if there is one stray *coughrebellioncough* -- Riffsyphon1024 05:40, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
  • I'm pretty sure that its accurate. After all, its on Star and its by Lucasfilm, so I'm pretty sure that its accurate User:LukeSkywalker 04.55, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Ad blocker interference detected!

Wikia is a free-to-use site that makes money from advertising. We have a modified experience for viewers using ad blockers

Wikia is not accessible if you’ve made further modifications. Remove the custom ad blocker rule(s) and the page will load as expected.