Talk:Star Wars Databank

Who writes it?

not canon —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.53.84.109 (talk • contribs)

• Wookieepedia says:

"Most entries are written by Pablo Hidalgo. The recent What's The Story? feature of Star Wars Hyperspace has allowed fans to write databank entries on the more obscure characters, vehicles, species and locations of the saga."

Sounds like fanon to me! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.53.84.109 (talk • contribs)

• Entries are checked and changed by LucasFilm before being added to the Databank. People can't write things like "Darth Awesomeus was teh koolest sith lord evah!!!" and expect it to be added. -- I need a name 16:01, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

• This article should be expanded with details like that. However, the issue of Star Wars canon is a controversial one, so statements about the canonicity of the website's entries should be qualified. Otherwise readers will become confused (as I think the original writer was) between the Holocron's database (which is managed by Chee and cannot be added to by fans) and the "Star Wars databank" on the official site. They are not the same. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.59.228.228 (talk • contribs)

They are virtually the same as the Databank draws material from the Holocron, though it certainly doesn't represent every scrap of info the Holocron has on a given subject. Also, the winning entry from "What's the Story" enters the Holocron, so it does become fully canon. -- Huntster ^{T • @ • C} 20:58, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

So we're merely inferring that the Databank is canon because it parallels some material in the Holocron? That's the same way in which any Star Wars material that is confirmed by the Holocron is canon, that doesn't mean all the "movie" entries in the DB are canon. Only the material that is supported by other canon sources is correct, it has no authority of its own. Unless of course somebody can present a quote from a VIP that the DB is canon, that's enough for me to say that the DB is not canon. Because if I say "Luke blew up the first Death Star" what I said was just canon, but only because it agreed with an authoritative canon source (the movie), not because I somehow have authority to determine Star Wars canon! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.59.228.228 (talk • contribs)

It is stated here and a few posts onwards by Leland Chee (Tasty Taste) that Databank entries are canon. -- I need a name 20:24, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

• A good find! However this is what Chee says:

Date Posted: Oct 24, 2005 12:08 PM

"TT: Databank - The Movies descriptions are G; Expanded Universe descriptions are C."

and

Date Posted: Oct 22, 2005 08:45 AM

"I just wanted to know what was Holocron's stance on the OS Databank. Does everything in the Databank have to be up to par with the Holocron?

TT: Before a databank entry is posted, it goes through a continuity check just like any other book or game or product.

One thing to keep in mind. If something gets retconned or new information is created, the databank is not automatically updated."

To me that's saying "the databank entries (the "canon" ones) are canon so long as they are up to date and accurate to the materials they're referencing." Since they often aren't, an entry can't merely be assumed to be canon, until it is checked against canon sources. If the databank contradicts a canon source, it would not override it, at least Chee doesn't say that. - Snafu 20:38 13, September 2007 (UTC)

Fixed Up

Ok, so I did a bit of fixing up to the article, hope more stuff will come to it :) Stealth (talk) 01:16, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Okay, who writes the Databank entries?

I know we can use the source, as it is an official, reliable source, but do folk from Lucasfilm write the entries, or do fans? That wasn't really addressed above - you know, with citable refeences that back up the statements. As I see it, this is what we need cites for:

1. Who the heck is Pablo Hidalgo, and does he write the majority of the entries? Cite that, please.
2. If he does, why was given this massive task? Cite that, too.
3. Do fans actually contribute to the entries? Cite.
4. It was mentioned that they go through a "rigorous" fact-checking exercise. Please provide references that note that process, please. I think we are all familiar with crap being shoved out the door and onto the store shelves with numerous bugs/plot holes. or just plain wrong stuff in it. Therefore, some idea of the process is helpful.
5. Canon isn't a consideration to Wikipedia. We add anything, so long as it can be solidly, reliably cited. Without citations, info cannot remain. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 09:35, 13 July 2008 (UTC)