Forums > Trash compactor archive > TC:Star Destroyer (pre-Hoth)
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. Toprawa and Ralltiir 01:16, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
Star Destroyer (pre-Hoth) (talk - history - links - logs)
This article is little more than speculation and Original Research. Nothing here is presented as actual fact. This ship is intended to the Executor, as represented in the old 1985 ESB Atari game. The game even specifies this explicitly: "Darth Vader's Executor is searching for the Rebel hideout" while showing this ship on screen. The article's BTS tells us all we need to know: "Since the vessel looks nothing like Executor and many other ships were part of the search as well, this could be a legitimate representative of a separate, large ship class." It's not a separate ship class, it's just Atari.
Note that any relevant information therein is going to be included in the Executor BTS once finished. Toprawa and Ralltiir 22:02, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
Delete
- Toprawa and Ralltiir 22:02, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
- Grand Moff Tranner
(Comlink) 22:04, 3 March 2009 (UTC) - Consider this a vote for every single one of these "I found a Star Destroyer in a comic that looks slightly different to all the others, so it must be a new class" articles. -- I need a name (Complain here) 22:08, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
- Hey, you may want to help us merge Aquatic Terrain Armored Transport and Aquatic Terrain Armored Transport (Krayt's Sith Empire) then! Mauser 12:27, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
- Per INAN. —Silly Dan (talk) 22:11, 3 March 2009 (UTC) (maybe not all of them, but definitely this one.)
- Cylka-talk- 22:18, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
- Per the nameless one. Green Tentacle (Talk) 22:34, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
- KABOOM. Chack Jadson (Talk) 22:40, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
- As long as you keep the image in the Executor's BTS. It was annoying having to muck around getting MAME working well enough for a decent vector render. -- Darth Culator (Talk) 01:22, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
- Grunny (Talk) 01:28, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
- Given the text that was displayed, I think it's clear that it is an erroneous depiction of the Executor. Having this article is probably comparable to giving articles to the baggy-faced Bossk or the human Zuckuss, who were described as such in entries from the first edition of A Guide to the Star Wars Universe, which had been published well after The Empire Strikes Back. The Executor''s BTS section is a more appropriate place for the main pic, as well as some of the information that appears in this article's BTS section.--Muuuuuurgh 01:54, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
- Delete. But keep the image in Executor's BTS. Mauser 12:27, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
- You've got to be kidding. By this logic, we'd have twelve articles on Zayne Carrick. Per INAN completely. -- AdmirableAckbar (Talk) 17:27, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
- Per Muuuuuuuuuuuuuuurgh and INAN. No reason this content can't be salvaged. And if some comic artist decides to bring this back as a Whatever-class Star Destroyer sometime in the future, then we can always re-create the article. Gonk (Gonk!) 18:57, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
- For the last time, not every visual gaffe is a magic new ship class. Havac 22:24, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
- Graestan(Talk) 23:33, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
- MecenarylordEnter if you dare 20:55, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
Keep
- I thought it was significant enough to warrant its own article. VT-16 22:14, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
- This isn't a case of an article being created because an artist got the proportions or the number of engines wrong. This SD looks completely different from the Executor, and not just because of the limitations of the graphics either. It's confusing because the game says the Executor, but the depiction is nothing like the Executor, and it's definitely not a case of the game programmers not knowing what the final version of the Executor would be, because the game came out in 1985. I think the article should probably be re-written, but I think it's significant enough to warrant an article. DolukFurthermore I believe that lists must be destroyed. 00:46, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
Comments
- Given the text that was displayed, I think it's clear that it is an erroneous depiction of the Executor.
- As mentioned above, given that this game came out long after the two films with the Executor in them, this is a puzzling conclusion. Also puzzling is the statement about "little more than speculation and Original Research". I'd like to have these parts pointed out, other than your assumption of the obvious. VT-16 10:39, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
- There seem to me to be at least two possibilities: one is that the programmers intended the ship shown to be just one of the ships in Vader's fleet other than the Executor, but for some reason decided to refer only to the Executor rather than say "Darth Vader's fleet searches for..." Another is that they intended to show Vader's ship, did enough research to find out it was called the Executor, but drew it differently because of the graphics limitations of the game, the use of old concept art rather than stills from the movie as a guide, or for some other reason or combination of reasons. Only the first possibility would mean that we could say this is a different ship or class rather than the simpler explanation, that it's a misdrawn Executor. —Silly Dan (talk) 18:07, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
- I don't know, it's obvious that the programmers intentionally designed it to look like the old concept art for the Executor rather than the film version of the Executor, the only thing that is unknown is their reasons for doing this. If anyone thinks that it's just the limitations of the graphics, see this quick comparison I just did: vs. the concept art, and vs. the Executor. DolukFurthermore I believe that lists must be destroyed. 18:19, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
- Furthermore, the movie model should have been much easier to make, given the graphic limitations. A little stick tower instead of a whole arrow or cylinder... VT-16 18:54, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
- I think you're giving the game way too much credit here. Try to image, if you will: it's 1985 and it's Atari. There was little to no emphasis on making something accurate for the sake of canon continuity when this game was produced. It's safe to say that they designed the ship this way for the sake of graphical ease. To respond to your original question, with due respect, you created an article on the pure assumption that this "might be," to use your own wording in the BTS, a different ship, when the game clearly states this is intended to be the Executor. Toprawa and Ralltiir 19:00, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
- Did you look at the comparisons I made? I don't think it's safe to say that it was done that way for graphical ease at all. In fact, I think it's obvious that's not the case. That doesn't necessarily mean that the ship wasn't meant to be the Executor, but if it was meant to be the Executor, then there has to be another explanation for why it looks so completely different. I actually think it's more likely that the graphic programmers weren't working too closely with the people writing the text of the game - the graphic programmers probably intended it to be a different ship, and the people writing the text probably intended it to be the Executor. DolukFurthermore I believe that lists must be destroyed. 19:05, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
- "I actually think it's more likely that the graphic programmers weren't working too closely with the people writing the text of the game - the graphic programmers probably intended it to be a different ship, and the people writing the text probably intended it to be the Executor." Right, but you don't know that, which is the whole point. We don't really create articles on assumption and what "might be." Since this ship is named to be the Executor, the information properly goes into that article's BTS. Toprawa and Ralltiir 19:18, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
- Except that it doesn't explicitly name it as the Executor. The text implies it very very strongly, but doesn't flat-out say it. It's pretty obvious (but not definitive) that the text intends for the ship to be the Executor, just like it's pretty obvious (but not definitive) that the graphics intend for the ship to be the same as the concept art, which is very different from the Executor. Anyway, I think it's notable enough to have its own article, but the article probably needs a re-write. It seems like I'm in the minority here, though, so I guess it'll probably go in the BTS of the Executor. DolukFurthermore I believe that lists must be destroyed. 20:07, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
- The picture could also go into Admiral Giel's flagship, which looks like it's based on similar concept art. (My personal theory here would be that, since VHS tapes in 1985 were priced more for the rental market, and only serious cinemaphiles had laserdisks, the programmers were working from a book which had more concept art than screenshots. But I suppose that's as speculative as the "writers not talking to the graphics programmers" theory.) —Silly Dan (talk) 20:08, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
- And additionally, the Executor wasn't the only Imperial ship out searching, there was the entire Death Squadron, so it could simply be one of them. (And I realize I made a mistake by calling this a "pre-Hoth" ship, since the event takes place after Hoth.) VT-16 20:31, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
- "I actually think it's more likely that the graphic programmers weren't working too closely with the people writing the text of the game - the graphic programmers probably intended it to be a different ship, and the people writing the text probably intended it to be the Executor." Right, but you don't know that, which is the whole point. We don't really create articles on assumption and what "might be." Since this ship is named to be the Executor, the information properly goes into that article's BTS. Toprawa and Ralltiir 19:18, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
- Did you look at the comparisons I made? I don't think it's safe to say that it was done that way for graphical ease at all. In fact, I think it's obvious that's not the case. That doesn't necessarily mean that the ship wasn't meant to be the Executor, but if it was meant to be the Executor, then there has to be another explanation for why it looks so completely different. I actually think it's more likely that the graphic programmers weren't working too closely with the people writing the text of the game - the graphic programmers probably intended it to be a different ship, and the people writing the text probably intended it to be the Executor. DolukFurthermore I believe that lists must be destroyed. 19:05, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
- I think you're giving the game way too much credit here. Try to image, if you will: it's 1985 and it's Atari. There was little to no emphasis on making something accurate for the sake of canon continuity when this game was produced. It's safe to say that they designed the ship this way for the sake of graphical ease. To respond to your original question, with due respect, you created an article on the pure assumption that this "might be," to use your own wording in the BTS, a different ship, when the game clearly states this is intended to be the Executor. Toprawa and Ralltiir 19:00, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
- Furthermore, the movie model should have been much easier to make, given the graphic limitations. A little stick tower instead of a whole arrow or cylinder... VT-16 18:54, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
- I don't know, it's obvious that the programmers intentionally designed it to look like the old concept art for the Executor rather than the film version of the Executor, the only thing that is unknown is their reasons for doing this. If anyone thinks that it's just the limitations of the graphics, see this quick comparison I just did: vs. the concept art, and vs. the Executor. DolukFurthermore I believe that lists must be destroyed. 18:19, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
- There seem to me to be at least two possibilities: one is that the programmers intended the ship shown to be just one of the ships in Vader's fleet other than the Executor, but for some reason decided to refer only to the Executor rather than say "Darth Vader's fleet searches for..." Another is that they intended to show Vader's ship, did enough research to find out it was called the Executor, but drew it differently because of the graphics limitations of the game, the use of old concept art rather than stills from the movie as a guide, or for some other reason or combination of reasons. Only the first possibility would mean that we could say this is a different ship or class rather than the simpler explanation, that it's a misdrawn Executor. —Silly Dan (talk) 18:07, 4 March 2009 (UTC)