Talk: World Devastator

This is the talk page for the article "World Devastator."

This space is used for discussion relating to changes to the article, not for discussing the topic in question. For general questions about the article's topic, please visit Wookieepedia Discussions. Please remember to stay civil and sign all of your comments with four tildes (~~~~). Click here to start a new topic.

"We do not require glory, only status articles for our Emperor."

World Devastator is within the scope of WookieeProject Ambition, an attempt to build comprehensive and detailed articles relating to the Galactic Empire.
If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this notice, or visit the project page, where you can find out more about our mission, or even join yourself!

Did anyone else notice the World Devastator over Da Soocha V in Star Wars: Dark Empire II? -- SFH 00:57, 2 Nov 2005 (UTC)

Yes. I at first thought the fleet was over Mon Calamari. It seemed to be devouring a ship. If it was Da Soocha V, then that ship must have escaped destruction. Cmdr. J. Nebulax 20:27, 2 Nov 2005 (UTC)
- Nice example of the Rebels utilizing all available resources, that they even captured WDs. VT-16 21:31, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  - I wonder what they ended up doing with it, I mean the one in Dark Empire II is clearly repairing itself by eating up the hulks of other ships so it's not like it was unusable. I mean the World Devastators seem like a perfect weapon to use against Vong-formed planets. Maybe they later hid the thing like they did with the Lusankya and in some future story it will show up again. Here's hoping. 14:43, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
    - Good point. Perhaps the New Republic could just have been feeding it some ships to make new starfighters. Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax ^{(Imperial Holovision)} 20:01, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Exaggerating?

Does anyone else think Ackbar is.. exaggerating a bit in that quote? A Death Star was simply massive, and could destroy an entire planet in one shot. That's somehow less powerful than a World Devastator? I think not! -Danik Kreldin 21:15, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

While he may have been exaggerating, it is a quote about the World Devastators that should remain. Admiral J. Nebulax 21:26, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
- The Devastators could destroy a planet over a period of months, and use the resources to upgrade themselves or make even more weapons of destruction. Thus, they're deadlier from a certain point of view.-LtNOWIS 21:29, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  - With the Death Stars and their design siblings, you only get destruction. The World Devastators provide this as well as utilize what they destroy at the same time. More efficient that way. VT-16 21:32, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
- That's what made them so dangerous. They were self-sustaining seige machines. Also, wouldn't you exaggerate if your home planet was sigled out for destruction? -- SFH 21:38, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  - I know I sure would. Admiral J. Nebulax 00:54, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

They are far more effecient than the Death star, and more versitile. They can actually turn a planet into an army. Also, they don't have to completly comsume the planet, so they can overrun it and conquer it. While the death star is also capable of doing this, the death star would not increase it's power with each new planet is destroys. The world devastators can create more world devastators,so the power of the devastator fleet would grow each time they consume a planet.—Unsigned comment by Darth destruction (talk • contribs)

Yes, they might be more effecient than the Death Stars, but that's a point-of-view. But you are correct on how the World Devastators benefit from wreaking havoc upon a planet. Admiral J. Nebulax ^(talk) 00:14, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Do World Devastators have any ability to defeat a planetary shield? As this was the reason they built the Death Star. Darth Tanner

Mon Calamari or Dac?

Shouldn't all references to Mon Calamari be called Dac, due to its "renaming"? Doran 06:28, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
- Dac was also called Mon Calamari. It's fine. Admiral J. Nebulax ^(talk) 20:39, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Droids

Shouldn't the World Devestators be considered droids? They have droid brains, not human commanders, that control their operations. Red XIV 08:28, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

No, because Humans command World Devastators. It shows that pretty clearly in Dark Empire. Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax ^{(Imperial Holovision)} 11:04, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
- Lando Calrissian commanded an X-1 Viper from within a "cockpit" area...but it was still a droid. EVS Construction Droids also have biological crews. The fact that some large droids have provisions for biological crews who can override their actions doesn't make them just manned vehicles; they're still droids. Likewise, World Devastators are, as stated in this article, run by droid brains. Red XIV 03:18, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
  - As far as I can tell, only their factories are. Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax ^{(Imperial Holovision)} 11:14, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
    - According to the DE Sourcebook, they're droids. I quote, "The World Devastators are enormous droids". - Lord Hydronium 11:45, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
      - Yes, and no. The World Devastators are commanded by living beings. Operations of World Devastators are commanded by a droid brain, yes, but if it were truly a droid, would it need a crew to supervise everything? No. Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax ^{(Imperial Holovision)} 22:30, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
        Refer back to my X-1 Viper and EVS Construction Droid examples. They both have human crews. Red XIV 23:04, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
        The X-1 Viper was a droid. It was not made to be controlled by beings, but the Alliance did anyway. That's not a good example. Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax ^{(Imperial Holovision)} 23:05, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
        Quoting from The Essential Guide to Droids entry on the X-1 Viper: "the droids were designed for supervised combat–and thus had manual override controls in their heads". It was in fact designed to have humans the head "cockpit", as opposed to the Rebels merely finding some empty space in the droids and using it to carry troops. We have examples to establish that a droid can have a living crew inside. Thus, the fact that the Devastators have humans onboard doesn't disqualify them as droids. Especially since a canon source, the Dark Empire Sourcebook, explicitly identifies them as such. Red XIV 04:10, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
        Still, it seems awefully wierd for this large superweapon, if it is indeed a droid, to require a Human crew. If a droid brain can operate the large factories onboard, why can't it fly itself? Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax ^{(Imperial Holovision)} 12:55, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
        From the DESB: "The World Devastators are enormous droids; the crew, technicians and slaves live in special compartments inside. They perform the programming and feed information to the central brains, but once this is done, the Devastators operate freely within their designated parameters." So, apparently, the crew didn't have a very big role in the Devastators' operation. jSarek 23:19, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Size?

I know they vary, but what's the average? Aren't they all bigger than, 500 meters? 1000 meters? 2 km? I don't think they vary that much. — Aiddat ^{(Holonet) (Contribs Log)} 17:33, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I'd say maybe a bit smaller than an Imperial-class Star Destroyer. Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax ^{(Imperial Holovision)} 21:04, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
- The largest one, the Silencer-7, was 3,200 meters long and 1,500 meters tall, far larger than an ImpStar. -LtNOWIS 21:27, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
  - True, but Silencer-7 was the command World Devastator, which would probably have been the biggest. We'll need the standard size, if any. Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax ^{(Imperial Holovision)} 21:34, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
    - I'd say there isn't any. They more than just varied in size, they actually *changed* in size, as they build more components for themselves as they went. Their inventor didn't even know if they had an upper growth limit. The Inquisitor-4, at 1,700 meters long at 900 meters tall, was said to be typical of Devastators just old enough to enter combat, but they spent at least a few weeks before that growing themselves under controlled conditions. jSarek 23:16, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
      - Good point. Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax ^{(Imperial Holovision)} 23:44, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
        So they do vary a lot. From like Corvette size to SSD size. Wow, I thought they only had small size differences. — Aiddat ^{(Holonet) (Contribs Log)} 16:09, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
        Same here. Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax ^{(Imperial Holovision)} 16:12, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

go boom

you may not notice but in the movie one world devostator has a little explosion!

And the point of that was... ? Grand Admiral J. Nebulax ^{(Imperial Holovision)} 20:47, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
- Do not post this twice. -- I need a name (Complain here) 20:49, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
  - And certainly do not post nonsense. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax ^{(Imperial Holovision)} 20:51, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
Which movie had a WD in it??!!DarthMRN 20:27, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism?

The momma devastator listed in the "behind the scenes" section sounds dubious. Was this really going to be included, or is it vandalism? Serendipitousus 06:36, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

The user who added it certainly isn't a vandal. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax ^{(Imperial Holovision)} 12:07, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
- Probably just a nickname.--Lord Oblivion^{Sith holocron} 12:47, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
  - That's what I was thinking. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax ^{(Imperial Holovision)} 21:27, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
    - In my comic book of Dark Empire, there is a section in the back with behind the scenes stuff, and the "Mother World Devastator" is mentioned in it. Just a drawing from what i remember. --Eggzavier 03:44, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Darksaber

About this statement At least two World Devastators were used in the construction of the Hutt superweapon Darksaber, but they devoured each other. Afterwards, it is unclear whether or not more were employed.. The craft used in the building Darksaber were called Mineral Exploiter. There were four MEs built for Darksaber. I didn't think there was any connection. What's the deal? -Fnlayson 00:12, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I checked the history and found that the statement was added by an Anon. I have not read this anywhere, so I suspect it's fanon.--Lord Oblivion^{Sith holocron} 00:27, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks. I doubt there would be 4 WDs to make the Mineral Exploiters. Anybody know anything more on this? -Fnlayson 00:40, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
  - I have yet to purchase Darksaber, so I wasn't sure when the anon added it. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax ^{(Imperial Holovision)} 00:53, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
  - The me's basically eat asteroids to get the minerals in them. Alpha and Beta had a programing bug that made them eat each other. Delta and Gamma were reprogramed to stop that. No connection to the world devastators.81.108.237.26 13:16, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

How?

How could the Davastators be worse if they can only make enough weapons for planetary defense while *the Death Star only needs it's Super Laser to destroy a planet?--Herbsewell 23:52, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Because the World Devastators can strip worlds of their resources and then use their onboard factories to create other weapons. In the end, the World Devastators were not only more dangerous but better than Death Stars because of this ability. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax ^{(Imperial Holovision)} 01:39, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
- Well yes but they can only make enough to destroy the world itself, or protect it from planetary bombardment.--Herbsewell 02:15, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
  - So? Grand Admiral J. Nebulax ^{(Imperial Holovision)} 02:17, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
    - As in a Death Star can blow up any ship on the planet it is protecting. The World Devastator can't bring it's destructive forces with them like the Death Star can. Any planet protected with a shield and laser batteries can withstand Devastators but not a Death Star.--Herbsewell 02:19, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
      - That may be true, but for the planets World Devastators could attack, the effects were lethal. In the end, the Death Star was able to get the job done faster, but the World Devastators could produce more benefits from it. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax ^{(Imperial Holovision)} 02:23, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
      - No...the benefits only went as far as taking over the planet.--Herbsewell 02:25, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
        Not true. The benefits were more weapons. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax ^{(Imperial Holovision)} 02:26, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
        Yes, weapons that could only defend a planet from invasion.--Herbsewell 02:27, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
        World Devastators are worse. I'm trying to figure out what Herbsewell is saying. Who's defending what planet from invasion?--Lord Oblivion^{Sith holocron} 03:19, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
        
        The weapons a WD makes could be used for whatever. -Fnlayson 04:15, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
        I don't think the Empire was interested in protecting the planet, anyway.--Lord Oblivion^{Sith holocron} 04:17, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
        Well I mean what would you do with the weapons?--Herbsewell 14:38, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
        Anything. That's what we're trying to say. The weapons don't have to be used only in an invasion of a planet. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax ^{(Imperial Holovision)} 15:09, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
        Well you can't bring the weapons with you off world.--Herbsewell 15:11, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
        Yeah, you can. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax ^{(Imperial Holovision)} 15:12, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
        With what?--Herbsewell 15:13, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
        The World Devastators, or other transports, would bring them off. That's common sense. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax ^{(Imperial Holovision)} 15:15, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
        That's resources you need from other planets. The World Devastators would not be able to produce as efficiently as mines would. And for worlds that the World Devastators can attack can always fight back or call for reinforcements. Worlds that would be the most costly to the enemy would have shields and a fleet. While the Devastators can not attack these planets, the Death Star can. Destroying assets of the enemy can often be more costly than improving your own.--Herbsewell 15:22, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
        Herbsewell, you seem to have no clue what we're talking about. The World Devastators have onboard factories that produce vehicles and weapons. After construction, then can be transported to anywhere in the Galaxy. Plus, the World Devastators could just stay at a certain planet and gather more resources to create more weapons of war. And if there were planets protected by shields, they could simply call in a fleet to bombard the shields until they weren't fuctioning. And the Imperial fleet would also attack the fleet protecting the planet. The World Devastator's main purpose wasn't to attack fleets or assault planetary shields. They had warships to do that. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax ^{(Imperial Holovision)} 15:32, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
        I'm just saying that the Death Star was a more valuable tool in war. And Jack there is a limit to what they can carry with them. Those weapons of war can only be created if the planet has the proper materials.--Herbsewell 15:35, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
        While the planet's amount of resources can be a problem, that's besides the point. The World Devastator could produce a more positive Imperial effect for the devastation of a world than the Death Star could for the destruction of a world. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax ^{(Imperial Holovision)} 15:38, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
        How bout if it was the capital world of the enemy? It would be armed to the teeth with ships, so Devastators (unless they had a fleet with them), would not be able to attack. Even if they did have a fleet it would only ships that the Navy would support. Destroying a world valuable to the enemy is helps the common good better than making weapons out of materials that the planet gives.--Herbsewell 15:42, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
        For Coruscant, yes, a Death Star would be more practical. But for a common planet, a World Devastator would be the better option. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax ^{(Imperial Holovision)} 15:44, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
It's all from a certain point of view. While the Death Stars are better for brute force, the WDs are usefull too. Alderaan, for example, would not have required a WD, because they only wished to create a demonstartion of the Empires power, they didn't need resources. Death Stars could fail too. Remember Yavin? Chack Jadson 15:45, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
- Exactly. There were many good and bad things for World Devastators and Death Stars. In the end, it depended on the target world. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax ^{(Imperial Holovision)} 15:46, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
  - There is no planet where the Death Star can not use it's superweapon. You are assuming that a common planet always has the resources to create weapons. If you take Earth for example, you can see how few locations have an abundance of materials that can be used to make goods. The same should be the same for most common planets. World Devastators are pretty much transportable mines/factories fitted with laser cannons.--Herbsewell 17:10, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
    - They can use the Galaxy Gun to destroy planets with poor resources. "It would be armed to the teeth with ships, so Devastators (unless they had a fleet with them), would not be able to attack." I don't know. Those things are pretty hard to destroy, and they "eat" enemy ships.--Lord Oblivion^{Sith holocron} 18:06, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
      - Well suppose we substitute the Death Star for the Galaxy Gun. Anyway a Death Star would be even harder. They can only eat ships when they come closer than point blank range.--Herbsewell 18:19, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
        Here's another reason why the World Devastators are more lethal than the Death Stars: They can strip planets of their resources, and those resources could later be used in the construction of a Death Star or a Galaxy Gun. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax ^{(Imperial Holovision)} 20:07, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
        And more World Devastators I believe.--Lord Oblivion^{Sith holocron} 20:08, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
        That only works on planets with resources. You also need the technology to actually build Death Stars or Warships. Besides, mines can do the same thing, they just aren't transportable or have factories.--Herbsewell 20:11, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
        Herbsewell, every planet has some form of resource unless that planet had been mined to the grave. And Death Stars couldn't built Death Stars. The World Devastators were more lethal than Death Stars. I didn't like it much, either, but I learned to deal with it. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax ^{(Imperial Holovision)} 20:16, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
        Death Star don't need to build Death Stars and never say that I implied that because I didn't. Just because you pick a spot doesn't mean there are going to be materials to use for building. You can't just go anywhere on a planet and get the materials needed to actually build something, that's commonsense. No machine is made from materials found in just one area.--Herbsewell 20:20, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
        Dark Empire proves that last statement wrong. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax ^{(Imperial Holovision)} 20:22, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
        Somehow the Devastators were able to utilize whatever resources were at hand.--Lord Oblivion^{Sith holocron} 20:23, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
        Fine then. That biggest things you can make are automotive TIEs without hyperdrives, and skimmers.--Herbsewell 20:24, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
        <sigh> They could probably make other things as well. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax ^{(Imperial Holovision)} 20:25, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
        According to the text here, they could produce medium-sized cruiser, possibly with hyperdrives.--Lord Oblivion^{Sith holocron} 20:27, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
        Text where?--Herbsewell 20:29, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
        In the article. And seeing as this is accomplishing nothing, let's just end it now. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax ^{(Imperial Holovision)} 20:29, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
        It also states that they could make more World Devastators.--Lord Oblivion^{Sith holocron} 20:31, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
        Where is the source?--Herbsewell 20:33, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
        Herbsewell, I think you need to actually read articles before starting a topic. Here's something straight from the text: "While assertions that the World Devastators were deadlier than the Death Star were debatable, they were undoubtedly more efficient." We had this whole discussion for nothing. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax ^{(Imperial Holovision)} 20:35, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
        Jack I could care less what you think. And by efficient you mean what? Of course their more efficient but I'm arguing which is a better asset.--Herbsewell 20:36, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
        "Jack I could care less what you think". Watch your step, Herbsewell. Don't start giving out personal attacks. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax ^{(Imperial Holovision)} 20:38, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
        It's not a personal attack. You told me what you thought and I told you I didn't care.--Herbsewell 20:39, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
        
        And so we had this argument for nothing.--Lord Oblivion^{Sith holocron} 20:39, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
        Exactly. Now, let's end this already. Nothing's been accomplished. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax ^{(Imperial Holovision)} 20:40, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
        Can you tell me the source then?--Herbsewell 20:41, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
        For what? Grand Admiral J. Nebulax ^{(Imperial Holovision)} 20:42, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
        The capabilities of a Devastator.--Herbsewell 20:43, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
        Most likely the Dark Empire Sourcebook, specifically Chapter Seven, which starts on page 107. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax ^{(Imperial Holovision)} 20:44, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
        I was going to say, it does mention it. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax ^{(Imperial Holovision)} 00:32, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
I assume with their ability to grow and expand, they would be able to expand their factories or pool their resources to put together capital ships as well. With designs implanted into their databanks, they might even be capable of constructing superlaser-parts. VT-16 16:58, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
- That's what I think. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax ^{(Imperial Holovision)} 18:43, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
  - If their's no source for that then logically we can assume that's not true. You need technology and materials, both you can't find all in one place.--Herbsewell 18:45, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
    - Just because there's no source doesn't mean it's not true. We can still assume it's possible. And the technology would be onboard the World Devastators while the materials would be on the planet. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax ^{(Imperial Holovision)} 18:47, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
      - That's not what I mean by technology. You can't go outside, dig for a few hours and find the materials for an ipod. You need hardware that can only be available in certain areas.--Herbsewell 18:50, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

And Jack I never said it was not possible. Next time actually read my posts.--Herbsewell 18:50, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

I did, Herbsewell. I was just stating something, not disagreeing with you. But the technology would likely have been brought onboard the Devastators. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax ^{(Imperial Holovision)} 18:53, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
- Well see the cargo space would be limited and the weapons that you make would be limited to the technology you have.--Herbsewell 18:56, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
  - Yes, but remember there were different sizes of World Devastators. The largest would have plenty of cargo space. And it would depend on the technology being used, too. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax ^{(Imperial Holovision)} 18:58, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
    - The cargo space wouldn't be big enough for a Death Star size Super laser. You would need hundreds.--Herbsewell 19:00, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
      - We're not talking about the whole superlaser. Just superlaser parts. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax ^{(Imperial Holovision)} 19:03, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
  - The Dark Empire sourcebook makes it clear. "The amount of time it takes to lay waste to a planet may be quite long compared to the instantaneous destruction of a planet with the superlaser, but the World Devastator wastes nothing." The next paragraph goes on to say that "Subsidiary computers hold design specifications for dozens of different robot fighters, battlespeeders, and automated tanks." The last line about them says "They combine the horrors of modern weaponary with the efficiency of mass production, giving the Empire almost unlimited potential for weapons manufacture." AdmiralNick22 19:04, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
    - Thanks for the quotes. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax ^{(Imperial Holovision)} 19:05, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
      - No planet would have enough materials to produce anything nearly large enough as a Death Star. Devastators could not make Devastators because their would not be enough technology in the Cargo Hold to produce another one. That principle is described in the law of "Equivalent Exchange", another version of Antoine Lavoisier's law of conservation of matter. The Death Star would also waste nothing because it's destroying assets that are not yours. The only way you would be wasting resources is that the Death Star would be destroying assets that will be your own. In war, hit and run tactics have been proven to be some of the most deadliest means of combat. This ability to destroy a planet swiftly when it is costly to the enemy is more valuable then taking resources that may or may not be used.--Herbsewell 19:12, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
        It depends. Herbsewell, it depends on the situation. For Yavin, or Alderaan, a Death Star would suffice. Later, in the Reborn Empire, Palpatine needed more ships and weapons, so WDs were better. Chack Jadson 19:34, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
        Well I can't remember when he actually made ships and he certaily had enough SSDs. Can you give me a source when he actually made these ships?--Herbsewell 19:53, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
        You mean Dark Empire? Or when he made the World Devastators? Chack Jadson 20:01, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
        When they made anything other than TIE/D automated fighters or wavewalkers.--Herbsewell 20:08, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
        Herbsewell, again you're not listening. World Devastators can not make whole Death Stars, but they can make parts of it that could later be added to a Death Star under construction. The same reason goes for World Devastators making other World Devastators. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax ^{(Imperial Holovision)} 21:20, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
        I am listening. And for efficiency, you're not going to get any more efficient than just mining materials and using to build the parts so in that area they are rather obsolete.--Herbsewell 21:28, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
        No. Instead of wasting time and manpower building such parts elsewhere, the World Devastators can gather the material from planets and have their onboard factories make whatever they are assigned to using the materials. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax ^{(Imperial Holovision)} 21:31, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
        But they are not more efficient than mines.--Herbsewell 21:33, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
        Yes, they are, because mines can't build things. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax ^{(Imperial Holovision)} 21:33, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
The fact remains, WDs are hyperspace-capable, continue to "grow" as they consume and convert materials and can in turn manufacture war materials. In case of super-heavy artillery like a superlaser, if they can't manufacture all the appropriate pieces, surely they would be able to build some of the superstructure. As their hulls are added to, it's logical that their internal factories would grow and expand as well.VT-16 21:35, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
- Exactly. Therefore, they are far better than mines. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax ^{(Imperial Holovision)} 21:36, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
  - How are devastators more efficient?--Herbsewell 21:37, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
    - In purely logistical terms, the World Devastator is most efficent. For example, if you were using mining ships on a world, you would have to transport those raw materials to a factory world (say, Balmorra) to be processed into parts, weapons, machines, etc. This would require fleets of transport vessel, some escorts, large droid/being workforce, factories, depots, and numerous other things. What a World Devastator does (albeit on a smaller scale) is combine all those things (or eliminate) into one package. Materials are taken from the planet, broken down to basic moleules, reassmebled into raw materials, and used on assmbly lines to produce numerous valuable things. Droid fighters, attack ships, tanks, extra weapon harpoints for the Devastator itself, etc. AdmiralNick22 21:38, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
      - And Herbsewell, VT-16 just explained how they are more efficient. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax ^{(Imperial Holovision)} 21:38, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
        No he didn't. The only advantage of Devastators is the fact that they can perform alchemy.--Herbsewell 21:41, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
  - And as a matter of fact, according to ITW:OT, both Death Stars (and presumably other such constructions) utilized self-replicating construction droids, sort of miniature pre-World Devastators. VT-16 21:42, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
    - Interesting. Anyway, how long is this thing going to continue? Grand Admiral J. Nebulax ^{(Imperial Holovision)} 21:43, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
      - What's the source for this?--Herbsewell 21:43, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
        Do you mean what VT-16 just said? Grand Admiral J. Nebulax ^{(Imperial Holovision)} 21:44, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
      - Well, in terms of firepower, superlasers like on the DS can't be matched, but the WDs carrying capabilities could eventually match and possibly exceed them, given enough time to replicate and expand sections. VT-16 21:45, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
        Good point. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax ^{(Imperial Holovision)} 21:46, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
        During a war you normally don't have the time for that.--Herbsewell 21:47, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
        Which explains the building of a 160 km Death Star, a 900 km Death Star II, a Tarkin battle station with only the superlaser-infrastructure made, and two smaller Death Stars built in orbit of Coruscant. Oh wait.... VT-16 21:51, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
        Well it's still debatable whether World Devastators were deadlier than the Death Star.--Herbsewell 22:23, 1 January 2007 (UTC) debatable
        Their slow and methodical operations would give people more than enough time to escape, if not properly back up by an escorting fleet. So I'd say "no" on deadlyness. VT-16 22:26, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
        Well at least you agree with me. Maybe the Devastators are more efficient but the Death Star was a more efficient killer.--Herbsewell 22:27, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
        That I can agree with. VT-16 22:34, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
        As can I. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax ^{(Imperial Holovision)} 23:49, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
        So the Death Star is worse?--Herbsewell 00:07, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
        In some ways.--Lord Oblivion^{Sith holocron} 00:08, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
        How about overall?--Herbsewell 00:09, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
        I'd have to say no. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax ^{(Imperial Holovision)} 00:10, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
        This is turning into a discussion more suited for forums.--Lord Oblivion^{Sith holocron} 00:12, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
        Then let's end it.--Herbsewell 00:12, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
The Death Star design is good as a heavy artillery and WMD platform, it can carry entire armies and fighter fleets and even has enough room for capital ship repair bays. The World Devastators have the ability to harvest resources while functioning as WMDs and grow exponentially in size, as well as manufacture conventional war materials in internal factories. The DSs win out in direct threats but the WDs have much greater potential, given enough time. VT-16 19:31, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
- Well in war, when I know the weakpoint in an enemy (a capital planet) taking it out would be much quicker and cheaper. To actually build a super laser would take hundreds of planets and thousands of devastators.--Herbsewell 19:44, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
  - Well, like I said for Alderaan and Yavin (planned) a Death Star would be better. Now let's please drop this. It's all been explained above. Chack Jadson 19:57, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
    - Yeah. We're just repeating ourselves over and over again. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax ^{(Imperial Holovision)} 20:58, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
      - Before this debate ends, I just want to make a conclusion. Because we seem to be repeating the same information over and over again, I do not believe the answer can come from factual evidence. Because all participating in this conversation seem to be intelligent and competent enough to understand both sides of the issue, the answer may simply be a matter of opinion.--Herbsewell 21:44, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
        If you mean the original question, it comes down to what is being compared. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax ^{(Imperial Holovision)} 21:45, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
        There is canon evidence though. Ackbar's quote. Chack Jadson 21:47, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
        Well see that may be an opinion. Maybe he was swayed because his home planet was being devastated, just as if you had asked Princess Leia she would have said something different because her home planet was destroyed by the Death Star.--Herbsewell 21:49, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
        If you want to be that strict almost everything is an opinion. Chack Jadson 21:50, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
        Not so. The adjective worse is conjecturable. Something like red, perpendicular, and ion (in ion drive), is much more specific and can be taken into canon easier.--Herbsewell 21:56, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
        The fact is, he said it. Opinion or not, it's canon. Now drop it. Chack Jadson 21:59, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
        You brought it up. If you don't want people discussing topics than don't bring it up in the first place. Also it's only canon that he if fact said that.--Herbsewell 22:04, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
        
        Ok, sorry I brought it up. He did say it, if that's what you were trying to dispute. Chack Jadson 22:06, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
        I'm not. It was just an arbitrary opinion of him that he made at the time his home planet was being attacked.--Herbsewell 22:08, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
        Well, while it is his opinion, if you want to go that way, almost any quote can be an opinion. However, it is canon. Chack Jadson 22:11, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
        What's canon exactly?--Herbsewell 22:13, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
        What do you mean? If it's what I think, it's S-canon, and that's because it's in an officialy licensed source. Chack Jadson 22:15, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
        I'm sorry if I worded that wrong. What part of the quote is exactly canon?--Herbsewell 22:16, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
        Herbsewell's right; it's just an opinion. However, Ackbar's opinion has been proved to be correct in a way. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax ^{(Imperial Holovision)} 23:17, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
        What's interesting is that when he said it he did not know the efficiency that they were capable of. He was just comparing their scourge of his home planet to the Death Star destroying an entire world.--Herbsewell 23:57, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
        We don't know that Ackbar didn't know their efficiency. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax ^{(Imperial Holovision)} 01:13, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
        Actually, Ackbar probably did know their efficiency. According to the DESB, the NR had been recieving reports from a world in the Boarderland Regions that the Empire tested their World Devastators on. AdmiralNick22 01:22, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
        Then his statement may be more than an opinion. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax ^{(Imperial Holovision)} 01:23, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
        Actually now that I actually look at the comic, I read that Ackbar actually did know that they did have factories that produced weapons. Anyway, he was not commenting on the Devastators per say, he was more commenting on their scourge.--Herbsewell 01:25, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
        True. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax ^{(Imperial Holovision)} 01:26, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
        Which makes no sense because the Death Star would have blown the planet to bits if it comes to destruction which Ackbar was commenting on.--Herbsewell 01:28, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
        But the World Devastators left great destruction that could be said to have been more of a scourge because the Mon Calamari and Quarren actually survived (well, some were killed, but not my point) the disaster, instead of being blown away by a superlaser. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax ^{(Imperial Holovision)} 12:08, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
        I don't really comprehend. A few stripped lands vs. Whole Planet destroyed. He said it was worse, not that it was more of a scourge.--Herbsewell 13:38, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
        World Devastators can destroy entire planets, but it takes a long time, I think a few months. So it takes a lot longer than the Death Star, but you get a lot of weapons from it. That doesn't neccesarily make them better than the Death Star, but that's the reason why some people think they are. -LtNOWIS 14:28, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
        He was commenting on the scourge, not their efficiency or productiveness. Anyway Devastators have not been known to have ever destroyed a planet, and their function is to create weapons.--Herbsewell 14:34, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
        No, their function is to destroy planets by ripping them apart, layer by layer. That's why they were sent to civilized worlds rather than desolate rocks. This combined with an actual use of the destroyed material. VT-16 14:42, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
        Hmm, I had never thought of that. Is their an appearance where they fulfilled their function?--Herbsewell 14:46, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
I don't think so. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax ^{(Imperial Holovision)} 20:39, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
- Where does it say that their function is destroying planets?--Herbsewell 20:42, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
  - Well, the name of the superweapon alone (World Devastator) would probably be enough. But I'm sure it's stated elsewhere. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax ^{(Imperial Holovision)} 20:49, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
    - Well that's not really evidence. That's like saying the Death Star bring "death" to stars, or somewhat. Even if it was proof, Devastation is not the same thing as Annihilation, as they may devastate the world but not destroy it.--Herbsewell 21:29, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
      - "Devastate" and "destroy" can be easily interchanged. One could say a bomb destroyed a building; another could say it devastated the same building. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax ^{(Imperial Holovision)} 01:12, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
      - I believe every single source that's ever detailed them said they were meant to destroy planets, and be the Death Stars successors. VT-16 01:18, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
        After all, a superweapon is a superweapon. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax ^{(Imperial Holovision)} 01:19, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
        Can you give me one?--Herbsewell 01:27, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
        Here's something from the Dark Empire Sourcebook, page 111, that points towards what VT-16 said: "While both Death Stars were destroyed, this in no way invalidates the Tarkin Doctrine that spawned them. The World Devastator actually improves its effectiveness by virtue of its self-contained nature." Grand Admiral J. Nebulax ^{(Imperial Holovision)} 01:36, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
        That doesn't say they were used to destroy planets.--Herbsewell 01:42, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
        But it shows they were successors of the Death Stars. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax ^{(Imperial Holovision)} 01:43, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
        So what?--Herbsewell 01:45, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
        So, it shows that they were meant to destroy planets. When someone (or something) succeeds another, they take up their role. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax ^{(Imperial Holovision)} 01:46, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
        Not necessarily. They could be succeeding it in the sense that they are a new superweapon used to carry out the Tarkin Doctrine. Also it just says it "improves its effectiveness" which could go either way.--Herbsewell 01:51, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
        Actually, Herbsewell, the World Devastators succeeded the Death Star to implement the Tarkin Doctrine. Therefore, their primary role would be the same of the Death Stars'. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax ^{(Imperial Holovision)} 12:16, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
        Well the primary role of the Death Star was to instate fear. Anyway since were interpreting that we don't really know that it meant.--Herbsewell 14:58, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
        I thought every factbook that mentioned WDs had them capable of destroying planets. Not as thoroughly or quick as the DS, but by chewing up the ground like lawnmovers. VT-16 16:07, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
        Well can I have one that says that their primary function is destroying planets?--Herbsewell 16:14, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
        Herbsewell, the Death Stars' primary roles were to destroy planets. They just happened to spread fear throughout the Galaxy. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax ^{(Imperial Holovision)} 22:00, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
        Well it had two primary roles. It was going to be used to spread fear and destroy planets. Besides this is off topic.--Herbsewell 22:02, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
        Actually, no it's not. Since the World Devastator was the successor of the Death Star, it would have those same primary roles. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax ^{(Imperial Holovision)} 22:04, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
        The way we were talking about it and not at the same time mentioning the World Devastator did hint that we might have been going off topic. Where does it say they were successors?--Herbsewell 22:15, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
        Basically the paragraph I provided above. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax ^{(Imperial Holovision)} 01:07, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
        Nowhere does it say the word "successors".--Herbsewell 01:13, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
        It doesn't have to say that to mean it. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax ^{(Imperial Holovision)} 01:15, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
        That an interpretation. What phrase do you interpret to say the the devastators were successors in that sense.--Herbsewell 01:18, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
        The entire thing. The destruction of the Death Stars did not invalidate the Tarkin Doctrine, so the World Devastators were produced to fulfill the role left vacant by the Death Stars' destructions. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax ^{(Imperial Holovision)} 01:20, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
        You can still instill fear without blowing up planets.--Herbsewell 01:24, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
        That's not what I'm talking about. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax ^{(Imperial Holovision)} 01:29, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
        
        You can also destroy a planet without blowing it up. ;) VT-16 10:52, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
power enough to shatter planets. Ripping them apart is shattering them in way, but that does not say that it was their primary purpose.--Herbsewell 01:30, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
- And again, I'll say that when someone or something succeeds someone or something else, they have the same main role. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax ^{(Imperial Holovision)} 01:33, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
  - How are they successors?--Herbsewell 01:36, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
    - Because they succeeded the Death Stars in implementing the Tarkin Doctrine. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax ^{(Imperial Holovision)} 01:38, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
      - Where does it say that in the quote that you gave?--Herbsewell 01:40, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
        I'm summarizing it. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax ^{(Imperial Holovision)} 01:42, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
        Oh well then I can't use it. If I summarized something based on what I thought was relevant, than the whole summarization would arbitrary.--Herbsewell 01:46, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
        Can we just drop this? Herbsewell, you seem to be being difficult on purpose. I know you have had issues with Jack, but can we please give this up. What you guys are saying seems to make perfect sense. I'm not to trying to insult anyone, so I apologize if I did. Chack Jadson 02:29, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
        You're right. It's better to leave this discussion saying that's it's just a matter of opinion.--Herbsewell 02:36, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
        Is this thing finally over, then? Grand Admiral J. Nebulax ^{(Imperial Holovision)} 12:06, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
        Yes Jack. Whether I have to tell you myself or you want to have the last word, it's over.--Herbsewell 12:48, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
        Finally... This has been one of the longest discussions I've ever participated in. I'm extremely glad that we ended it. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax ^{(Imperial Holovision)} 20:42, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
        I'm glad it's over. Again, sorry if I offended anyone. Chack Jadson 23:07, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
        You didn't by the way, at least not me.--Herbsewell 23:12, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
        Hopefully no one got offended. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax ^{(Imperial Holovision)} 00:12, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
        And probably no one did.--Herbsewell 12:32, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Planet link.

Herbsewell, if it's only linked in an image caption, it can still be linked in the text itself. Stop reverting it. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax ^{(Imperial Holovision)} 00:14, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Most articles have articles linked once. If it's in the caption it's text as it is in most articles.--Herbsewell 00:15, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
- Yeah, but it should still be linked in the main text even if it's linked in the image. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax ^{(Imperial Holovision)} 00:16, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
  - Give me a rule that states this.--Herbsewell 00:17, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
    - Herbsewell, it's always been like that. Why can't you just accept it? Grand Admiral J. Nebulax ^{(Imperial Holovision)} 00:18, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
      - Actually since the title has the word world in it than that should be linked.--Herbsewell 00:21, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
        Actually, no. Usually, the bolded name of the article doesn't have any links in it. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax ^{(Imperial Holovision)} 00:55, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
        Well sometimes it is.--Herbsewell 01:07, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
        Only when such an article link is not present elsewhere in the article. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax ^{(Imperial Holovision)} 01:10, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
        We link it as it comes.--Herbsewell 01:10, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
        Except when it's bolded because it's the name of the article. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax ^{(Imperial Holovision)} 01:12, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
        No...there are many articles in which the bolded are highlighted.--Herbsewell 01:15, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
        Well, that only means I haven't found them yet. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax ^{(Imperial Holovision)} 01:16, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
        That's your problem.--Herbsewell 01:18, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
        Knock it off. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax ^{(Imperial Holovision)} 01:18, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Quote from Dark Empire Sourcebook

"A persistent question for New Republic strategists has been the seemingly endless Imperial obsession with super weapons. From Super Star Destroyers to torpedo spheres, it has been nearly impossible to overestimate the amount of destructive force available to the average Moff or Sector Group Commander. The Imperial Star Fleet has thousands of capital ships with enough firepower to raze civilizations and sterilize worlds. Even at their mightiest, at the Battle of Endor, the combined fleets of the Rebel Alliance always relied on superior intelligence, guerrilla tactics and faith in the Force for victory. The military planners of the New Order have an insatiable appetite for newer and deadlier weapons... ...Against all odds, this new version of 'the ultimate weapon in the galaxy' was destroyed by Alliance warriors. Logically, that should have destroyed all faith in the Tarkin Doctrine. And yet we can see this is not so. Shortly before the attack on Calamari, the Rebellion received reports of fringe worlds in the Borderland Regions whose surfaces had been burned away by monstrous things the survivors called 'city-smashers.' Of course, we eventually learned the truth of these stories. The horrible World Devastators were simply the latest of the Empire's super weapons."

―Arhul Hextrophon

So, yes, they did destroy worlds prior to Operation Shadow Hand and were super weapons like the DS and DSII. I also like how the "average" Moff or Sector Group commander can be expected to have heavy vessels like SSDs. :) VT-16 12:20, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Boy, Dark Empire really screwed up star wars canon.--Herbsewell 12:28, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
- Are you being genuinely surprised or ironic? ;) VT-16 12:34, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
  - Surprised. I mean they're just governors, most moffs just controlled small parts of a planet. How you feel if your mayor owned Naval Dreadnoughts, and torpedoes?--Herbsewell 12:40, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
    - Mayors can call upon the National Guard, etc, in troubled times. Not much difference here.174.25.34.44 07:10, May 27, 2010 (UTC)A REDDSON
    - Actually, this is from the Dark Empire Sourcebook . . . and believe me, that book does an incredible job of *salvaging* (and enriching) canon in the wake of Dark Empire. That one sentence is flawed, of course, but I wouldn't say it reflects on the rest of the work. jSarek 12:54, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
      - I'm was talking more about the comic, Dark Empire and that fact that so much salvaging had to be done.--Herbsewell 12:57, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
      - I wouldn't say it was flawed, actually it is one of several sources that make it possible for Super Star Destroyers to be subdivided into Star Cruisers/Battlecruisers/Dreadnoughts and not contradict older sources. If an average Moff or Sector Force Commander has access to bigger ships than Star Destroyers, making the majority of them smaller SSDs (i.e Star Cruisers) is a good retcon, since we never see more than a few Star Dreadnoughts anyway. :) VT-16 13:12, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
        Yeah, maybe your opinion of Dark Empire is that it's flawed, but I sure don't view it as such. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax ^{(Imperial Holovision)} 15:27, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
        Who are you talking to?--Herbsewell 17:54, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
        I think he added one * too many. :P EDIT: Cracken's Threat Dossier also mentions that SSDs provided Sector-level command bases, so there's another source for the prevailence of SSDs in the galaxy. With the relative scarcity of Executor-size ships, that opens it up for smaller vessels, the Imperial Star Cruisers and some of the smaller Star Battlecruisers. So, instead of just retcons, we have actually complimentary materials. VT-16 21:36, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
        I added "one * too many" only because I prefer not to have a list of bullets one exactly under another. And I was talking to Herbsewell. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax ^{(Imperial Holovision)} 23:49, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
        Well I never said it was flawed. Next time say who you are talking to.--Herbsewell 00:15, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
        You said it screwed up canon, to which VT later replied "I wouldn't say it was flawed". I was merely using what VT said. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax ^{(Imperial Holovision)} 00:17, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
        He was talking about that one sentence, which I never said was flawed.--Herbsewell 00:18, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
        But you still said it screwed up canon. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax ^{(Imperial Holovision)} 00:19, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
        Well for the sake of argument yes. But don't quote me on something I never said.--Herbsewell 00:40, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
        
        Jack, it was jSarek who said "that one line was flawed" for no reason. At least talk to the right person. VT-16 10:43, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
        Er, I believe he is. "Boy, Dark Empire really screwed up star wars canon" - Herbsewell - \\Captain Kwenn// ^{— Ahoy!} 10:44, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
        Ah, conceeded. As for Moffs, they do not control "small parts of a planet", they usually control a galactic sector. (And warships were employed even by city-states centuries ago, actually, but that's beside the point ;)). VT-16 12:35, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
        VT: "I wouldn't say it was flawed..." I thought you were talking to Herbsewell, but I guess you were talking to jSarek. Sorry about that. Anyway, I was still talking to Herbsewell. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax ^{(Imperial Holovision)} 14:58, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
        Well when I say it screwed up canon, I meant many reconciliations had to have been done to fix what that comic did.--Herbsewell 15:13, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
        Still just your opinion. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax ^{(Imperial Holovision)} 15:14, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
        
        I just don't understand what those "fixes" would have to be. Even WEG took time to say that most of the "standard" military organization was for "relatively calm" sectors or systems, thus keeping the door open for additions and changes. VT-16 15:22, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
        That's why I said it's just his opinion. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax ^{(Imperial Holovision)} 15:23, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
        Which I am entitled to, and there was no reason to point that out if it was apparent to everybody.--Herbsewell 22:38, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
        You're entitled to your opinion, but don't make it seem as if it's the general opinion. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax ^{(Imperial Holovision)} 23:11, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
        I did not. If you felt that and that was your assumption. It was just a comment and there was no reason for it to be taken seriously.--Herbsewell 23:50, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
        Then at least add "IMO" to your opinions from now on. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax ^{(Imperial Holovision)} 00:00, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
        Well that's redundant when it's obvious that the statement is an opinion.--Herbsewell 01:27, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
        It's the same reason I should address someone when I'm talking to them: to avoid confusion. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax ^{(Imperial Holovision)} 12:21, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
        Well most people can differentiate.--Herbsewell 21:44, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
        You couldn't when I said something to someone. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax ^{(Imperial Holovision)} 21:45, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
        No, most people can differentiate between fact and opinion.--Herbsewell 23:57, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
        That's not my point. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax ^{(Imperial Holovision)} 00:41, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Possible canon contradiction

As we all know, canon has it that Umak Leth designed the Devastators. But in Jedi Search, they're suddenly designed at the Maw Installation. Which version is the more reliable one? Evir Daal 07:22, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

WDs mentioned in Death Star

Where and in what context? Please add to the article. :) VT-16 14:56, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Silencer 7 survival

I forget where but I once heard that silencer 7 was the captured world devistator. can any one prove or disprove that?--Grand Moff Wilhuff Tarkin 14:45, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

It isn't. Silencer-7 crashed into the oceans of Mon Calamari. There were no survivors. Grand Moff Tranner ^(Comlink) 20:40, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Length Stats

Since I got a nastygram, I'll just leave this here: According to galactic-voyage dot commercial site/Dark%20Side-Capital%20Ships-World%20Devastator.htm, the WORLD DEVESTATOR-Class Factory Ships start at 1 mile 5,218 feet, 8¼ inches (3,200 Meters).174.25.34.44 22:19, May 26, 2010 (UTC)A REDDSON