Forum:TC:Star Destroyer (Emperor's fleet)

Forums > Trash compactor archive > TC:Star Destroyer (Emperor's fleet)

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Graestan(Talk) 16:34, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Star Destroyer (Emperor's fleet) (talk - history - links - logs)

This article was created based on the assumption that a slight variance in illustration means a ship is a completely new starship class, as this article's creator was accustomed to doing during his time here. This isn't a new starship class, it's called artistic license. This is intended to be the standard Imperial-class Star Destroyer, which is confirmed by the TFU video game. All of the Star Destroyers in the comic look completely ridiculous. Darth Vader's armor looks wacky and different, but that doesn't mean we create an article for Vader's alternative wardrobe. Delete. Toprawa and Ralltiir 04:56, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Delete

  1. Toprawa and Ralltiir 04:56, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
  2. Per Tope. Grunny (Talk) 05:00, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
  3. Any bets on how long before the creator of this article shows up on this thread with a sockpuppet? Master JonathanJedi Council Chambers 05:38, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
  4. Double-checked the graphic novel. The Raxus Prime Star Destroyer looks this way as well, and we know for sure that one was an Imperial. Given the fact that those two pages were drawn by an artist new to SW, I say it's an artistic license. MauserComlink 12:41, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
  5. Per Tope and Mauser. Grand Moff Tranner Imperial Department of Military Research (Comlink) 13:29, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
  6. Per Mauser. Green Tentacle (Talk) 14:38, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
  7. Comic overruled by video game. Also, the proxy servers VT used to create his most recent similar "conjecture" articles are now blocked. Keep 'em coming, VT. -- Darth Culator (Talk) 15:03, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
    Am I to understand the 360/PS3 version of the game is higher canon than the comic? Incidentally, how does the novel fit into the rest of this hierarchy? -MPK 15:32, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
  8. Jonjedigrandmaster (Jujiggum) 20:19, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
  9. --Darth tom Imperial Emblem (Imperial Intelligence) 20:25, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
  10. Per Master Jonathan. :P Chack Jadson (Talk) 20:49, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
  11. — Fiolli {Alpheridies University ComNet} 20:54, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
  12. IFYLOFD (You will pay the price for your lack of vision!) 21:26, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
  13. It's just a normal Star Destroyer...--Golden Monkey 12:53, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
  14. SoresuMakashi(Everything I tell you is the truth) 12:55, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
  15. JorrelWiki-shrinkableFraajic 18:38, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
  16. Cylka-talk- 23:17, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
  17. I hate it when people create these articles...Just because they have an extra turret or their bridge is bigger doesn't mean they get their own article. MecenarylordEnter if you dare 00:51, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Keep

  1. I don't think it's artistic license. This particular vessel is clearly not an ISD. The significant differences in the shape alone are outlined in the article itself. I see no evidence that it was "intended" to be an ISD. I also do not see what the game has to do with it. The game and the comic depict two different versions of the same events. The game allegedly has only ISDs here. The comic has these vessels present. -MPK 12:30, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
    Does the comic have regular ISDs as well as non-ISD looking vessels in this scene? —Silly Dan (talk) 12:42, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
    This image shows a bridge tower which might be intended to be that of an ISD, though I'm not sure if it belongs to an ISD or to the Executor itself. Otherwise, all of the vessels shown in the comic's representation of the Emperor's fleet seem to be of the Executor-like design. -MPK (MPK's Talk Page) 13:18, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Comments