Talk: Venator-class Star Destroyer

Add back content

Due to some person being stupid and deleting everything on the page I can't add it back and it says 'VisualEditor derpage', can someone do it please? --Lewisr (talk) 22:09, November 22, 2016 (UTC)

Sanity check for fighter compliment?

Could somebody do a sanity check for the fighter compliment numbers in the info-box? It seems rather strange that a Venator would have 192 Jedi Starfighters, not to mention the comparatively tiny number of ARC Fighters. Jorlem (talk) 10:34, September 13, 2017 (UTC)

The numbers here are the same that are used in Legends for years, and I can confirm that they are correct there, at least. You have to consider that so-called "Jedi" starfighter models are not only flown by Jedi and that ARC-170s are much bigger. Also they serve a different role that doesn't have them to be present in such huge numbers like lighter superiority fighters. Onicle (talk) 17:50, July 31, 2019 (UTC)

AV-7 Anti-vehicle Artillery Cannon battery in the Venetor?

In both (star wars revenge of the sith) and (star wars the clone wars:Point of No Return) It was the scene where M5-BZ was destroyed. From the clone wars. So should add it to the armament list? And how many? RC-0407

You're right, I included them. In TCW you can see three at one side of the ship, so there are at least six in total. Onicle (talk) 17:50, July 31, 2019 (UTC)

Weak hull?

Why the low hull rating on the Venator? It's current hull makes it basically as strong as a Nebulon B frigate yet in the Clone Wars tv show we see it repeatedly taking a pounding. If it does get raised by how much should it be raised? Ryutaro18 04:49, June 18, 2019 (UTC)

The rating that was on the Legends page wasn't in RU (like the Nebulon-B's) but part of a different game mechanik. Unlike the RU system it was non-canon (because based on dice) and is removed now. Onicle (talk) 17:50, July 31, 2019 (UTC)

Only One Model

There never was a new version of the Venator late in the Clone Wars. The red hangar doors still open all the way through their crimson paintjob, and the two aft hangars were never made accessible through the main hangar either; that was just an animation error on EA's part in Battlefront II. Plus, this surely must be evident in the 2018 reprint of Complete Vehicles. Ghost of LucasArts (talk) 11:05 AM; August 27, 2019

I agree. That there was only this small door opening in E3 doesn't mean that it is the only one possible now. It still is part of the big dorsal door section that wasn't necessary to open to launch Obi-Wan's interceptor. I know, sometimes in TCW the whole long door section was opened to start one fighter, but most of the time the simple explaination for the difference between the movie and TCW usage is the number of craft startet: In E3 it was only the one fighter, so the small door was used; in TCW whole squadrons started through the big doors. This doesn't mean the Venator-class isn't capable of opening the big doors in E3.

What would fit to two different models are the two different lengths: 1137m was introduced (EU) in context of E3, the 1155m for TCW. Onicle (talk) 21:00, August 27, 2019 (UTC)

Missing deck cannons

I noticed on the wiki that the deck cannons are included in the armament, but when i get around to the offensive and defensive section, they aren't listed, could that be fixed please? Also, it says 6+ but we see more 5 in a bay in Episode 3, and that couldn't have only been 1 bay —Unsigned comment by Ryutaro18 (talk • contribs)

Did we see 5? I thought we saw 3, which led to at least 6 considering there's a port counterpart to this bay. 62.216.209.149 15:19, April 6, 2020 (UTC)

In revenge of the sith, during the broadside exchange between the Guarlara and Invisible Hand, we see 5 port holes for the cannons. Ryutaro18 02:46, April 7, 2020 (UTC)

Venator page right template suddenly gone

WTF happened to the template on the right concerning the characteristics of the Venator ?! (lenght, armament, all that stuff) —Unsigned comment by Piilego (talk • contribs)

• There are two separate models of Venator. That information is now on those pages. Also, the infobox is not gone, it is just reduced in size. VergenceScatter (talk) 20:27, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
  • That is interesting. However due to the lack of info (or because the Venator I and II pages aren't up to speed yet) the summary table for the Venator characteristics doesn't appear anywhere now, unless you check the Legends page. Surely we can still put this summary table somewhere for easy reader accessibility. Loqiical (talk) 10:34, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

We're Doomed! Additions

What are some important things that currently need to be done in regards to the We're Doomed header?

Also, is there some way the old infobox for the Venator can be put up, in some form? Right now there isn't much on the Venator I and II pages, so readers cannot easily access the Canon info for Venator technical specifications. Loqiical (talk) 10:44, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

• With respect to the latter point, the information could probably be put in the BTS section if it is noted that it is unclear to which class of Venator that information applies. VergenceScatter (talk) 16:12, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
• Then put it back without specifying the exact model of Venator. Pilego (talk) 14:00, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
  • We will not be putting the information that was in the infobox back since we'd be using the wrong infobox. The information that was included can be found in the page's history and included in the Characteristics section as it already should have been. If you need some help, look at Executor-class Star Dreadnought for tips. Erebus Chronus ^(Talk) 12:49, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
    • Not putting it back at all or putting it in BTS? Anyways, I pasted the old one on my account profile for reference. Loqiical (talk) 00:39, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
      • That kind of info wouldn't go in the BTS anyways. Everything from Production information to Technical specifications would go in the Characteristics, like I said. Feel free to add what hasn't been added. Erebus Chronus ^(Talk) 00:57, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
        • And no, it will not be coming back to the infobox. Erebus Chronus ^(Talk) 00:58, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Most of that info is now in the characteristics section... will write up some more stuff as we go Loqiical (talk) 23:31, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

Symmetry

In the cross-section, if something is depicted on one side of the ship (e.g. the subsidiary reactor), am I allowed to assume that it is present symmetrically on the other side of the ship? Cheers Loqiical (talk) 00:40, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

• Unless its stated somewhere, its best to not assume Lewisr (talk) 00:57, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Infobox image

Just noticed that the main image was changed. Is the current Venator image from the Databank more suitable, or the last image (Imperial version)? Cheers. Loqiical (talk) 11:27, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

"Malevolence Campaign" section requires rewrite or correction

The paragraph in question (quoted below) is a massive run-on sentence that appears to be missing substantial information. Specifically, a description of the event(s) leading to the outcome quoted in bold letters (starting with "leading to the loss...") is missing.

-- quote -- However, after receiving information of the destruction of a Republic medical convoy of three Pelta-class frigates escorted by a lone Venator-class Star Destroyer at the hands of the Malevolence in the Ryndellia system, which was close to Naboo and the Kaliida Shoals Medical Center, the Republic's secret Haven-class medical station, which was tending to over 60,000 wounded clone troopers, and would become Grievous' next target, leading to the loss of both of the Malevolence's ion cannons and the deactivation of the ship's hyperdrive.[38] —Unsigned comment by 173.64.109.131 (talk • contribs)

• Feel free to add that information. Like most missing things on the site, it's just not something that anyone has gotten to yet. VergenceScatter (talk) 14:07, 6 August 2021 (UTC)