Definite official canon-quote?

[VT-16]

This may have been said in the stickified "Canon"-thread, but I can´t find anything definite amongst the posts there.

Someone said a while ago that the G/C/S-canon lables are used internally by Lucas Licensing and that the old canon-rules still apply (i.e the closer you get to the films, the more "relevant and overriding" it gets).

Now, I´m searching for an exact offical quote that states either this, or that the DK line of factbooks pertaining to the films override the massive amount of WEG-based material.

"Someone" I´m debating keeps claiming that "Star Dreadnought" is a one-time occurence (even after he asked Leland Chee and got a definite answer to the contrary) and does not override the term SSD. I want to prove him wrong and I´ve only been able to go on hearsay and nothing else.

Once again, if such a quote does exist, please lock this thread. Thanks. =)

[Illuminatus Primus]

Ask HIM for proof that quantity of reference is as important or important at all, given that both the superiority of DK and of newer publications over older ones has been stated, but not his implied inference.

[VT-16]

The problem is, I can´t find any quotes that prove this, only hearsay from fans. I hear this over and over again in canon-debates here, but I don´t know where people get this info. That´s what I want, the source of the canon-hierarcy. Otherwise, I might end up in yet another wiki-war if he decides to erase/change stuff.

Since I take great joy in working on that site, I´d hate to see it ruined by a random palm-fucker who won´t accept even official quotes unless they state policies explicitly.

[The Dark]

Star Wars Insider #23 had an interview with the Continuity and Production Editors:

'Gospel,' or canon as we refer to it, includes the screenplays, the films, the radio dramas and the novelisations. These works spin out of George Lucas' original stories, the rest are written by other writers. However, between us, we've read everything, and much of it is taken into account in the overall continuity. The entire catalog of published works comprises a vast history -- with many off-shoots, variations and tangents -- like any other well-developed mythology.

Thus, anything dealing directly with the films is superior to anything else. Dr. Saxton has one of the better analyses of canonicity and how to apply it.

[VT-16]

Took the liberty of checking out Poe´s Morgue and found some fine, relevant quotes from the DK illustrators. Pasted the links on the SW Wiki´s, sigh, "SSD Continuity"-article. I´m sure the fuck-up will manage to say two Lucasfilm-approved interviews don´t matter. =P

Dr. Saxton has one of the better analyses of canonicity and how to apply it.

Saxton is off-limits, I´m afraid. Said douchebag has implied that Saxton´s presence clouded Lucas Licensing´s ability to think straight. or something. (No, I´m not joking, he really thinks Saxton made them make poor decisions in these matters).

[Kazuaki Shimazaki]

(even after he asked Leland Chee and got a definite answer to the contrary)

Wait. You mean the guy got a definite answer from Chee himself? Exactly what did he say? Can you quote it?

Saxton is off-limits, I´m afraid. Said douchebag has implied that Saxton´s presence clouded Lucas Licensing´s ability to think straight. or something. (No, I´m not joking, he really thinks Saxton made them make poor decisions in these matters).

OK, ignoring the canon policy's decision on whether Saxton's corrections are allowed to say, in what way is Saxton's proposed solutions inferior to the old WEGish solution? They might not always be perfect, but how are they inferior to the old ones?

Tell me what he says.

Thank you.

[VT-16]

Well, according to him ITW:OT is the soletary reference for Star dreadnought, therefore it doesn´t count when all other sources say SSD.

I think Leland´s quote was posted here before, it´s about the Executor´s length and how they decided on it:

Question: how are we supposed to read retconns like the revised length of the Ex - as absolute truths and matters of dogma; or as "best guess" conclusions based on the interpretation of evidence?

I'm not sure I understand the question. There's a size field for the Executor entry in the Holocron. That field now say s ~19 km long. It used to say 12 km and before that 8 km. In the Continuity Notes field of the Holocron, it lists some (though not all) sources where the different lengths were stated. There are some notes as to the entire discussion. The next time someone wishes to print a length for the ship, we look at the size field and say, the size is ~19 km long. Could this change yet again? It's unlikely, though never impossible.

Question:...friends who have a certain nostalgia for...

Taking a cue from the films, things in the EU can always change.

Question: these sorts of thought processes are part of what I'm interested in...

In a nut shell, I recall it going something like this:
A: The size is X
B: These sources say X, these other source say Y.
(group discusses)
A: We've agreed that Y seems to reflect more closely what we see in the film, so Y.
C: It's neither X, nor Y, it's actually Z. What's to be done?
A: Nothing, until someone writes about it.
(C finally gets in a position to write about it and submits draft)
A (to group): C is suggesting we use size Z.
(group discusses)
A: We've agreed that new size Z is more accurate to the film, so that's what we're going with.

Really, I assure, you there's nothing diabolical going on here. Rationale discussions take place, sometimes there's even heated debate, and then a decision made. And then, if that decision needs to be revisited for whatever reason, then it is revisted. The Executor discussion is a prime example of this process.

That´s from a discussion at SW.com. Would you believe it was the same fuckup who asked the question there, and now claims LC "avoided" other parts of his post (which I can´t even find) and still says this is not definite?

Side-note: I posted links to interviews with Hans Jenssen and Richard Chasemore about working with Lucasfilm (which were relevant to the "authority of the DK books" question), as well as the thread quoted above. Wanna know his response?

sigh* I won't complain about more evidence; thank you for that. I appreciate. But I may disagree with the interpretation you put on it. I'll read the links, and get back to you. Again, thanks! There's no need to get riled up. --McEwok (Arkady Hodge) 00:18, 3 Sep 2005 (UTC)

This was in a thread I started on one of the Wiki mod´s "complaint" section, about his actions of course. Needless to say I got fed up with his bullshit and wented here and there.

[Kazuaki Shimazaki]

Sigh... I actually wanted the one where Chee verified Star Dreadnaught as the term if it exists. The length is sealed no matter what, so I don't care about that so much.

As for Thrawn McEwok (Arkady Hodge), he doesn't deserve the oxygen to keep him alive. So much for his various defender's claims that he spews bullshit in TFN only to arouse controversy. Wiki is supposed to be an encyclopedia, not a debating ground!

[Jim Raynor]

I've been debating this "someone" as well (you don't have to keep acting like we don't know who this fool is ) and shot him down at both SW Wiki and TF.net. He has provided absolutely NO reason to show the superiority of his "quantity over quality" belief, and he's erected a wall of ignorance as well. Despite all the analysis I've done on the wording (I hate arguing semantics, but this asswipe uses any perceived loophole he can find) and intention of the ITW quote to show that it does indeed support Saxton's ideas (you know, the guy who fucking served as a consultant on the book, and was likely the one who put it in ) he always comes back with the same lame cop-out like "well, that's only ONE possible interpretation, you can't really be sure." He makes no attempt to refute my arguments, and no attempt to provide a better, equally valid interpretation.

[VT-16]

Yeah, I might as well just use his nickname from now on. And he´s taking to childish tantrums recently:

http://starwars.wikicities.com/wiki/Tal ... readnought

(Further down, on his entry for yesterday. Talk about missing the point.)