StarDestroyer.Net BBS

I've been using Wookiepedia as a source for a Star Wars story debate on SB for a while, and I am wondering-- since this site came up and has garnered attention, how do people here feel about its accuracy and reliability? Has anyone here taken a hand in building/altering entries?

One thing that got me wondering, for example, was the entry for theAllegiance-class Star Destroyer. In the definition, the Wookiepedia "sets it straight" by calling the "Allegiance" the name of an individual ship of the "Gauntlet-class Star Destroyer" series.

When you track the name to the page provided for the Gauntlet-class Star Destroyer, you get a note at the bottom in the "Behind the Scenes" section that says that the name of the ship is in dispute due to some confusion about use of the terms "Allegiance" and "Gauntlet". See for yourself, but at the bottom of the section it says that...

Wookiepedia wrote:This class of Star Destroyer was analyzed by Curtis Saxton at his Star Wars Technical Commentaries website. Saxton adopted the provisional label of "Allegiance-class" after its only named representative. This provisional name has come into widespread usage among the online Star Wars community, and is sometimes mistakenly believed to be official.

Does Wookiepedia need a bunch of us to sign on and start scouring? Or is this good to go? This was the one part of Wookiepedia that did not ring entirely kosher with me, and it would be foolish to bag the whole thing because of one (possible?) mistake.

It's a wiki. As a result, it is *not* reliable upon any items that have not been enshrined at any canonical level. The books are a better source. However, if anything's available from literature, Wookieepeda is probably reliable enough there, as long as the quotes are accurate. There is somewhat of a contingent of EU-wanker minimalists there, though, notably one 'Thrawn McEwok' of rather unpleasant infamy here...

Study the arguments on the discussion page carefully and judge for yourself before using information from Wookiepedia is my advice. By my reckoning about half the ship pages are disputed to some degree or another because of a lack of information, conflicting sources or feuding between two different ideaological sects so the discussion pages can be a good source of information on just where the content for the article comes from and the nature of any disputed content.

Allegiance-class has never been the canon name. To be honest, although I feel the reasoning behind it is flawed, the term Gauntlet-class still has more weight than the former. Personally I think it'd be best to call it a "Hangerless Super Star Destroyer" or something of the like and give it a "this name is speculation" tag.

000 wrote:Allegiance-class has never been the canon name. To be honest, although I feel the reasoning behind it is flawed, the term Gauntlet-class still has more weight than the former. Personally I think it'd be best to call it a "Hangerless Super Star Destroyer" or something of the like and give it a "this name is speculation" tag.

I'd not call it a Super Star Destroyer myself. The SSD of the Movies was... well, now it's like 15 times as long or so as the ISD. This one is barely two. I'm all in favor of calling it just a plain Star Destroyer.

Either or. I added in the Super mostly to differentiate it from smaller hangerless types like the Tector. Also IIRC in the comic it's called an SSD-- which, granted, is a really loose use of even a slang-y term like that, but it's still there.

See, in my own little world (which I realize does not count much in the greater battle for Star Wars canonity) I christened the Allegiance/Gauntlet class a "Heavy Star Destroyer" rather than a "Super-" series.

And is it truly "hangarless"? I was always under the impression that it had starfighter squadrons but it had a "small amount" given its size-- a mere six squadrons. This was explained by the vessel's primary role as a command & control ship rather than a frontline combat vessel; the fighters were for individual defense only and not intended as a deploying attack force.

But then, I've never been able to find reliable, consistent game info from a canon source on the Allegiance; my stats reflect fan designs that I have tried to average out with a wary eye towards avoiding minimalism (one site had the Allegiance with a "staggering" 70 turbolasers. Oooohhh.. )

Hahahaha, the Gauntlet-class! That was a rare occasion of collaboration between me and McEwok. Of course, he protested me naming it a "Star Cruiser" (my reasoning was that it was the smallest SSD ever documented, but if a smaller were to be found, it would gain the name instead, due to uncertainties surrounding "canon scales" with the "Star ---" types).

Still, it wasn't half-bad, and like I pointed out in the Bts, the Imperial-class got named for a similar stupid reason, so... :P

By all means, let the Wookiepedia be a starting point, not an end in and of itself. And if you see something you know is wrong, do an anonymous edit if you have time and state your reasoning. Better than just leaving it like it is. :D

The evidence for the "Gauntlet" designation seems very, very sketchy. While "Allegiance-class" seems an unlikely designation, it's at least a possible one, as we know that there is a representative of the class named "Allegiance."

Frankly, if either name enters the canon, my money is on "Allegiance." Of course, I'd prefer to see a different name entirely.

I'm all for calling them Allegiance-class, the 'evidence' for Gauntlet-class is a quote something along the lines of '...past the gauntlet star destroyers...'. To me this doesn't suggest class, it suggests role and positioning, ie a 'gauntlet' of star destroyers, not a group of Gauntlet Star Destroyers.

The evidence for the "Gauntlet" designation seems very, very sketchy

Of course it is, but no less logical than Imperial-class. Still, I'm hoping for something else as well. Like out of a Latin dictionary. >P

I actually think I'm the one who put the disclaimer on the bottom about Allegiance not being the canon class name. There is no evidence whatsoever that the Allegiance was the first ship of its class. Saxton didn't claim it was the class name either; he just used it as a provisional name. I don't 100% agree with "Gauntlet-class" either, and feel that naming the article that way was not the most conservative thing to do (although I do agree with the Star Cruiser part). However, that name at least has some basis in canon.

I do think a bunch of us should be scouring SW Wiki to keep the WEG fanwhores in check. Just recently, I checked back on the ISD articles which I had worked on before, to find that some retard had edited the ship's G-canon armament back to WEG's retarded "60 turbolasers and 60 ion cannons." I was also casually reading the Torpedo Sphere article that I wrote, when I found Ewok droppings in one of the articles it linked to, putting down Saxton's Procurator and Mandator-class ships. Who knows how much more bullshit McEwok and his ilk have put into Wookieepedia.

I'm would also appreciate some help in the discussion page for the Super-class Star Destroyer article, a dishonest attempt to portray the incorrect and retconned-away 8 km length as a distinct warship.

Another question is wookiepedia realted to wikipedia.org? I have noticed that they both contain a lot of the same info on Star Wars material. (Wikipedia just contains non-Star Wars material as well). Is there any relation between them, or is it just coincidence?

"The Gauntlet" refers to the iron ring around Byss. The name has precisely zero connection to the Allegiance and other ships of her class.

I posted there, and the only thing I agreed with, was the assumption that the 8km bug ships in Swarm War were similar in scale to a Super-class SD (otherwise known as SSD). Because that listed the size of the bug ship, according to another poster, instead of the SSD. But that's the only consession I plan to make. And the SSD controversy bullshit article has GOT to go.

The name has precisely zero connection to the Allegiance and other ships of her class.

True, but it could be taken at face-value from an actual source, hence why it was used in the first place. Feel free to get rid of it and its bts explanation.

Wookiepedia was made to stop Wikipedia admins from whining about SW fans. :P

VT-16, why did you agree to that anonymous baby's "compromise" about ISD weapons? If the axial defense cannons and hangar defenses (both large enough to be visible from a distance) are medium cannons, then the smaller guns that aren't visible would logically be light cannons (or, as the ICS say, point-defense guns). The info boxes currently in that article are wrong, but now this fucktard has your agreement to hide behind now.

I didn't know how many types were shown on the model! :X

I usually only work on Clone Wars or other battles pages. I've been starting to expand on as many CW battles as I can in order to emphasise the scale of the conflict. Just the other day I redid the Battle of Cato Neimoidia, Battle of Praesitlyn, and Battle of Xagobah pages. There's still a lot more to do around the Outer Rim Sieges.

Note, McEwok has begun to work on Imperial military formations now, watch out for what he's doing.

Know the best thing about Wookieepedia? Karen Traviss doesn't like us.

+http://karentraviss.livejournal.com/242079.html

"Wikis, as I've rant-observed before, are unaccountable"

Translation: "How do I track someone down if I'm in a suing mood?"

"He (or she) who shouts loudest or deletes and edits the most gets to write history."

Translation: "There's no way to make sure I get my way all the time."

"The fact that he or she might be right is irrelevant: there's no process to test it or ensure it."

Translation: "Oh noes! There are people DISAGREEING with me! Make it stop!"


Notice that normal people like Dan Wallace and Abel G. Pena like us just fine.

The only ones I really trust are the ones I created, which are listed in my user page. Beyond that, I try to verify but if I can't, I'll use as is or cross-reference.

A little off topic, but you guys will find this Hi-Laaaaaaaaarious

Wookiepedia article on Darksaber wrote: According to the back cover of Darksaber, Starlog claimed that "Anderson has all but assumed the title of chancellor of the Star Wars University."

Not a knock against Wookiepedia, but still a fairly gut wrenching thing to have to read nevertheless.

Darth Fanboy wrote:A little off topic, but you guys will find this Hi-Laaaaaaaaarious

Wookiepedia article on Darksaber wrote: According to the back cover of Darksaber, Starlog claimed that "Anderson has all but assumed the title of chancellor of the Star Wars University."

Not a knock against Wookiepedia, but still a fairly gut wrenching thing to have to read nevertheless.

That deserves some kind of rating.

R: not intended for those with weak stomachs or a penchant for laughing hysterically in a library. Must be of decent mental capacity.

Darth Fanboy wrote:A little off topic, but you guys will find this Hi-Laaaaaaaaarious

Wookiepedia article on Darksaber wrote: According to the back cover of Darksaber, Starlog claimed that "Anderson has all but assumed the title of chancellor of the Star Wars University."

Not a knock against Wookiepedia, but still a fairly gut wrenching thing to have to read nevertheless.

Robert Brown had an excellent response to that, in my opinion. It went a little something like this:

Robert Brown wrote:Anderson has gone on to be a prolific writer of `young' fiction, comics, `source-documentaries' and short stories and has been hailed as "The Chancellor of STAR WARS University". If this is so, then he is the Chancellor of a two-bit carpet-bagging college that occupies no more than three rented rooms in a tenement - and posts out roneoed testamurs to anyone that fills out an application from the back of a packet of no-name breakfast cereal.

From his "Myth of Star Wars" page, archived here.

OT: Wow, welcome to the boards, Darth Culator! Nice to see more wookiepedians here! 8D

Notice that normal people like Dan Wallace and Abel G. Pena like us just fine.

Yeah, I read that tirade about the Wiki. Ahh, so infuriating to see sources that don't agree with her getting highlighted. Not to mention the ever-growing number of battles in the CW section. 8)
The 3D CW series is gonna be brutal in that respect.