6

This question already has an answer here:

We (SFF.SE) sometimes use information from starwars.com site to answer questions.

As a random (well, latest) example:

http://starwars.com/explore/encyclopedia/groups/jedi-temple-guard/

This looks like "legitimate" source to me, since I assume that starwars.com is owned by Lucas Empire.

But I never actually ran into explicit confirmation on the canonical status of the facts cited in such pages.

Is there official confirmation of the canonicity (and canon level) of facts from starwars.com?

(I'm talking about "official" pages like Encyclopedia above, not random forums on the same domain).


To elaborate, what I am trying to ascertain is which of the following 3 situations is true:

  1. starwars.com (encyclopedia) ONLY lists facts that are 100% taken from existing canon, with no guesses or additional wording that is not from canon.

  2. starwars.com (encyclopedia) may list some facts that don't come from existing canon, but any such new fact becomes canon (of level ???) as soon as it's stated on starwars.com, assuming it doesn't contradict existing canon

  3. Some of the explanations on starwars.com may include facts/wording that are merely someone's attempt to explain what we see in canon, but are in and out of themselves NOT canonical facts.

    This last one is how Wookiepedia works. It does list facts from canon... but it ALSO lists facts that are made up by individual fans to explain small snippets seen in canon (but that include details NOT sourced from canon sources).

    this is especially prevalent in G and T canon, where you have a visual from a movie/TV that doesn't contain great level of textual explanation attached to it, and therefore a Wikia article would build a narrative "explaining" the visual.

marked as duplicate by Valorum May 3 '15 at 12:30

This question has been asked before and already has an answer. If those answers do not fully address your question, please ask a new question.

  • See the bottom of that page where it says TM & © 2013 Lucasfilm Ltd. All rights reserved. That means it's "owned by Lucas Empire." – user1027 Mar 4 '13 at 16:39
  • As of July 2014, the new Starwars.com Databank is now considered to be fully canon and solely contains information from within the main Lucasfilm Story Group. The old Databank and encyclopedia are now considered to be "Legends" canon. Note that the main starwars.com site (e.g. outside of the Databank) contain loads of info that's non-canon such as PC games, Lego Star Wars, etc. – Valorum May 3 '15 at 12:26
1

From wookiepedia:

The StarWars.com Databank was considered the official online Star Wars databank. Its content was divided into Characters, Locations, Species, Creatures, Technology, Vehicles and Starships, and also categorized by Episode appearance. It even had hundreds of Expanded Universe articles explaining characters that were in the movies and their adventures along with Expanded Universe planets and technology. The Databank was replaced in 2011 by the Encyclopedia. The Encyclopedia does not contain a fully comprehensive account of all aspects of the Star Wars saga and Expanded Universe material. Many of its pages are related to Star Wars: The Clone Wars and a great amount of material is not included—since the Encyclopedia largely focuses on the recent aspects of Star Wars, as opposed to the minutiae covered on this site—for example, material from the second half of The New Jedi Order series, the Dark Nest Trilogy and Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic II: The Sith Lords.

I can't source this further, and further google searches turned up nothing stating that starwars.com is not canon, so at this point, I'd say that it most likely is.

  • And it sounds like it's a mixture of canon levels. EU and G-canon mixed together. – user1027 Mar 4 '13 at 17:51
  • @Keen - right, though they seem to use it primarily for the Clone Wars, so most resources would be T-Canon (I assume). Wookiepedia seems to be more complete, if not "authoritative" in most cases. – The Fallen Mar 4 '13 at 17:53
  • @SSumner - please see update to the question. – DVK-on-Ahch-To Mar 4 '13 at 18:20
  • @DVK - I'll have to do some checking – The Fallen Mar 4 '13 at 18:34
  • @DVK - I tweeted at the Star Wars and the Holocron keeper's twitter accounts and got no responses. I haven't found any other information, and no other way of contacting them. – The Fallen Mar 26 '13 at 17:19
-1

StarWars.Com has more than simply stating what appears on film.

Note, that, since Lucas has sold Star Wars as a whole to Disney, the canonicity of all non-film elements is dubious at best. Disney has not stated a canon policy yet.

As a status quo, StarWars.Com was/is owned by LFL, and so is subsidiary material, probably so-called S-Canon. Some elements, however, are G-Canon or T-Canon. Sorting out which is which is an exercise in research.

  • 1
    The point of the question was mostly whether web site contained original material - or only quoting existing canon material from published works. It's obvious that they stated some facts from existing G- and T-canon, question is, did they cite NEW facts, and if so, were those NEW facts of a specified canonicity. – DVK-on-Ahch-To Mar 8 '13 at 0:03
  • @DVK - G-canon other than the films (F-canon, for lack of a better term) is now of dubious value, and the site includes much that isn't T-canon nor F-canon, and so is of dubious value. – aramis Mar 18 '13 at 18:46

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.