StarDestroyer.Net BBS

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AOTC:ICS

I drafted this so the length of the ICS section in the STvsSW page in Wiki can be reduced (some people apparently think it is too long), but there are probably more qualified people (like Mad or Ender) than me to expand this. I tried to keep it as NPOV as I possibly can.

Thank you.

Wiki Intro wrote:The 'Attack of the Clones:Incredible Cross Sections' is the third instalment of DK's "definitive" Star Wars Incredible Cross Sections series. It is non-fiction by Curtis John Saxton.

HUH

Did you write that?

I think I wanted to point out it is not a story or something like that. It is deleted. How is it otherwise?

Kazuaki Shimazaki wrote:I think I wanted to point out it is not a story or something like that. It is deleted. How is it otherwise?

I like it, but I'm a bit too much of a n00b on it to accurately comment.

Crown wrote:

Wiki Intro wrote:The 'Attack of the Clones:Incredible Cross Sections' is the third instalment of DK's "definitive" Star Wars Incredible Cross Sections series. It is non-fiction by Curtis John Saxton.

HUH

Did you write that?

Within SW continuity, it is a true statement. Adding link to SWTC and changing the coauthored bit. how quick until Revpez vandalizes it do you think?

Can just anyone browse in and edit that? Seems kind of non secure, and I could certainly see some Rabid fans jumping at that. (Revprez has been doing something like that already if I'm ot mistaken...)

Ender wrote:Within SW continuity, it is a true statement.

That's what I was shooting for, but I deleted it to avoid confusion.

Adding link to SWTC and changing the coauthored bit.

Done the latter. Maybe do the former tomorrow. EDIT: Just went and did the former.

how quick until Revpez vandalizes it do you think?

He has no excuse. I did provide criticisms, and all I did was describe the book very briefly and what it contained. As for the value ... well, to Star Wars fandom, the AOTC:ICS definitely rates as more important than the NJO Force Heretic series, and they had stubs for that!

Ender wrote:

Crown wrote:

Wiki Intro wrote:The 'Attack of the Clones:Incredible Cross Sections' is the third instalment of DK's "definitive" Star Wars Incredible Cross Sections series. It is non-fiction by Curtis John Saxton.

HUH

Did you write that?

Within SW continuity, it is a true statement.

That does makes sense, but taking it on the end like that would lead me to believe (if I had no idea about this book) that it was like the book 'The Physics of Star Trek' (or whatever it was called). You know the one where the guy just rips what's show on screen apart. Know what I mean?

Ender wrote:Adding link to SWTC and changing the coauthored bit. how quick until Revpez vandalizes it do you think?

I don't know, what's a turd's response time?

Robert Walper wrote:Can just anyone browse in and edit that? Seems kind of non secure, and I could certainly see some Rabid fans jumping at that. (Revprez has been doing something like that already if I'm ot mistaken...)

Yeah, its one fo the problems with the wiki idea - it ignores that large segments of the population are jerks.

Which is why the Wookiepedia is a safe Wiki-haven.

Ender wrote:

Robert Walper wrote:Can just anyone browse in and edit that? Seems kind of non secure, and I could certainly see some Rabid fans jumping at that. (Revprez has been doing something like that already if I'm ot mistaken...)

Yeah, its one fo the problems with the wiki idea - it ignores that large segments of the population are jerks.

Couldn't they have a more intelligent system in place? For example, you need to sign up (binded to your IP) and your behavior can be commented/rated on by other users.

Coming up over 24 hours since it first aired, and only improvements so far! Even AlistairMcMillan (refer to his fight with Alyeska) came up to make somewhat useful corrections! Have I done it? Created an article that even jerks can't complain about?

Robert Walper wrote:

Ender wrote:

Robert Walper wrote:Can just anyone browse in and edit that? Seems kind of non secure, and I could certainly see some Rabid fans jumping at that. (Revprez has been doing something like that already if I'm ot mistaken...)

Yeah, its one fo the problems with the wiki idea - it ignores that large segments of the population are jerks.

Couldn't they have a more intelligent system in place? For example, you need to sign up (binded to your IP) and your behavior can be commented/rated on by other users.

You actually can sign up and be tracked, but unfortunately the system still allows for any shmoe to anonymously edit stuff.

Non-fiction basically just means 'not a novel'. If you go into a library and look at the non-fiction section, you're going to find plays and poetry, for example. It's basically the result of the novel becoming so popular that libraries had to separate a big chunk of the 800s in the Dewey decimal system from the rest of the collection as a matter of practicality.

My mom's a librarian, can't you tell?

A third common criticism is the introduction of the terms "Star Dreadnaught" and "Star Battlecruiser". This is seen by some as Saxton's attempt to pervert Star Wars into his own vision. Supporters argue that this can be rationalized as a more formal designation scheme. They also argue that the term "Super Star Destroyer", which is used to denote every ship of above the Allegiance-class, is too broad and thus useless.

What back-biting little asshole put that in there? This has nothing to do with AOTC:ICS

I would rephrase these:

"The most common criticism of the AOTC:ICS is the enormity of the figures, which on a superficial glance exceed some observations on screen. Supporters of the book generally show that the two can be reconciled, and argue that the existing evidence (e.g. calorimetry of vaporised asteroids) actually requires such high power levels to be available for Star Wars vessels.

The second most common criticism is its proposed mechanism for turbolasers, most of all the statement that the damaging portion of the weapon moves at lightspeed and is invisible. Supporters argue that sublight theories of turbolasers (like plasma) have their own problems, and rationalize the apparent inconsistency."

into:

"The most common criticism of the AOTC:ICS is the enormity of the figures, which on a superficial glance exceed some observations on screen. Supporters of the book generally claim that the two can be reconciled, and argue that the existing evidence (e.g. calorimetry of vaporised asteroids) actually requires such high power levels to be available for Star Wars vessels.

The second most common criticism is its proposed mechanism for turbolasers, most of all the statement that the damaging portion of the weapon moves at lightspeed and is invisible. Supporters argue that sublight theories of turbolasers (like plasma) have their own problems, and try to rationalize the apparent inconsistency."

For added neutrality, I am not sure "apparent" should be there either, maybe it should be just inconsistency.

Yes that last part should be removed.

His Divine Shadow wrote:Yes that last part should be removed.

I did. Let's see how long it lasts.

anyone mind if I do the changes?

If changes were made, I don't see them.

Well I didn't, nobody said anything so I just forgot it.

His Divine Shadow wrote:"The most common criticism of the AOTC:ICS is the enormity of the figures, which on a superficial glance exceed some observations on screen. Supporters of the book generally claim that the two can be reconciled, and argue that the existing evidence (e.g. calorimetry of vaporised asteroids) actually requires such high power levels to be available for Star Wars vessels.

Actually, I chose "show" deliberately. A claim looks like this:
"It really isn't an inconsistency."

Show involves both the claim and an explanation with supporting evidence, which was what took place.

Bias IMO might be to use the word "prove".

For added neutrality, I am not sure "apparent" should be there either, maybe it should be just inconsistency.

An inconsistency that could be rationalized is only "apparent". It is only an "apparent" inconsistency until a thorough search has found no plausible way to rationalize it. Then it becomes a "real" inconsistency, and only until someone finds a way.

What back-biting little asshole put that in there? This has nothing to do with AOTC:ICS

I, not EH_Hand or Mickey put that in, and so it is definitely not any kind of deliberately back-biting or anything. But an uproar IIRC did occur over the point on TFN, and even a minority on SDN (like Painrack) weren't happy. Therefore, to meet that board's stringent NPOV requirements, I am obliged to put something on the point in. That's all.

As for people saying Saxton is trying to pervert Star Wars to his own ends, sadly that's real slander, not something I made up. For the the first criticism, some Trekkies have been on it - I'm sure you remember those. And to today, a small minority of TFN (most notably Mickey) still think that and blab it. I just saw that turd blab it within the past week.

On the other hand, after backchecking, I might have messed up that third uproar with the one caused by the ITW:OT