"Rendili Battleship"
- I'm removing this reference, as fanon.
- ... the largest battleships and special weapons platforms were built at other, more sophisticated space construction centers in other systems, notably the Kuat Drive Yards and the Rendili and Loronar space construction facilities The Illustrated Star Wars Universe
- Loronar, KDY and Rendili together build "battleships and special weapons platforms" bigger than ISDs. No guarantee that Rendili build battleships, rather than large "weapons platforms", which we know they did: see under "space stations", and compare the Loronar torpedo sphere. --McEwok 13:47, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
- The quote says they built battleships and special weapons platforms at these three sites, among others. The quote does not say that each site built one type or the other, that is fanon. I'm reverting your vandalism and encourage you to keep it up, so I can have you banned. VT-16 16:20, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
- I wouldn't call it vandalism, I'd call it a disagreement over content. In this case, however, I think VT-16 is correct. I'd advise you to leave it basically as is. —Silly Dan (talk) 16:23, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
- Ok, ok, the definitions of what constitutes "vandalism" may vary, but the fact remains that we have an actual canonical source for battleships and special weapons platforms being built by all three companies (and probably more given the qoute listing them as "notable"), rather than having it say one or the other. Just because it's not mentioned in more than one source, doesn't discount the source when there's nothing that speaks against it, in canon. VT-16 16:35, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
- The case isn't as airtight as you seem to think: we only have a source indicating that three or more companies were responsible for battleships bigger than ISDs and special weapons platforms. We also know that KDY built SSDs, Rendili built various armed space stations, and Loronar made torpedo spheres. Your interpretation and McEwok's could both be valid, absent any other evidence. The possibility of Rendili and Loronar battleships (and KDY weapons platforms, for that matter) should be kept as more than just a redirect in keeping with our generally inclusionist policies, but a disclaimer should probably be added to those articles indicating that the exact class names are unknown and their existence is possible/probable/arguable unless other sources can be found. —Silly Dan (talk) 16:53, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
- Actually, it is. If the author meant to seperate between the companies, he should have written it differently than "the largest battleships and special weapons platforms were built at other, more sophisticated space construction centers in other systems, notably the Kuat Drive Yards and the Rendili and Loronar space construction facilities". None of that gives us any indication that Kuat only builds battleships, while Rendili and Loronar only build weapons platforms. I've seen this person and others, particularly posters on TFN, complain that some authors only trump up KDY as getting all the big designs attached to them, and now it's suddenly bad to point out that this isn't the case? Who cares if it's just one source? There are plenty of articles in this encyclopedia with only one source affixed to them. That's no reason to ignore them or claim they don't exist, which is what I see being done by that user, time and time again. The Imperial Navy isn't as clean-cut as "corvettes, frigates, cruisers, SDs, SSDs only". Even WEG in their time didn't always follow this principle. And now that you mention it, I'd better make an article for KDY weapons platforms, unless some are already named. VT-16 18:09, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
- The case isn't as airtight as you seem to think: we only have a source indicating that three or more companies were responsible for battleships bigger than ISDs and special weapons platforms. We also know that KDY built SSDs, Rendili built various armed space stations, and Loronar made torpedo spheres. Your interpretation and McEwok's could both be valid, absent any other evidence. The possibility of Rendili and Loronar battleships (and KDY weapons platforms, for that matter) should be kept as more than just a redirect in keeping with our generally inclusionist policies, but a disclaimer should probably be added to those articles indicating that the exact class names are unknown and their existence is possible/probable/arguable unless other sources can be found. —Silly Dan (talk) 16:53, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
- Ok, ok, the definitions of what constitutes "vandalism" may vary, but the fact remains that we have an actual canonical source for battleships and special weapons platforms being built by all three companies (and probably more given the qoute listing them as "notable"), rather than having it say one or the other. Just because it's not mentioned in more than one source, doesn't discount the source when there's nothing that speaks against it, in canon. VT-16 16:35, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
- I wouldn't call it vandalism, I'd call it a disagreement over content. In this case, however, I think VT-16 is correct. I'd advise you to leave it basically as is. —Silly Dan (talk) 16:23, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
- The quote says they built battleships and special weapons platforms at these three sites, among others. The quote does not say that each site built one type or the other, that is fanon. I'm reverting your vandalism and encourage you to keep it up, so I can have you banned. VT-16 16:20, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
- Silly Dan: with reflection, I do take your point on the possibility, but here are my thoughts.
- 1.) Even if they did build battleships at Rendili and Loronar, we don't know if they were actually Rendili and Loronar designs. The sentence begins by mentioning ISDs—a KDY design—being built at Coruscant, so any big ships built at Rendili or Loronar could just be more SSDs!!
- 2.) I certainly think that the links and references elsewhere on the site should be removed, or at least repositioned somehow. I don't think we should give too much proiminence to the idea of "Rendili battleship" and "Loronar battleship" designations: compare the lack of a reference to "the big Corellian ships" on the Corellian Engineering Corporation page, where we know they actually exist.
- 3.) Perhaps we could merge Rendili battleship and Loronar battleship into a single page, although I'm not sure what a fully neutral title for it would be?
- Any suggestions --McEwok 18:42, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
- VT-16, the statement is ambiguous. It falls somewhere between the largest battleships were built at other, more sophisticated space construction centers in other systems, notably the Kuat Drive Yards. Special weapons platforms were built at the Rendili and Loronar space construction facilities. and other, more sophisticated space construction centers in other systems, notably the Kuat Drive Yards and the Rendili and Loronar space construction facilities, built large battleships. All three facilities also built special weapons platforms. It is closer to the latter than the former, which is why I think all three articles are valid (since we tend towards inclusiveness when creating in-universe articles.) However, there is reasonable uncertainty, which is why I'd prefer some behind-the-scenes information explaining the situation, allowing the reader to make up their own mind about the existence of such ships or stations.
- McEwok, we do mention the big Corellian ships: see Imperial Corellian ship. These may be identical to some CEC design described elsewhere, though. The Rendili and Loronar battleships, if they exist, would be quite different designs (and probably, it seems to me, distinct classes from any KDY designs too) so I don't think a merge would be helpful. —Silly Dan (talk) 18:55, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
1. There is nothing to suggest only KDY ever built SSDs nor that there is only ever one type. What is known is that some large capital ships were known as SSDs, even different ship types. I've never seen any source that suggests only Kuat ever built large warships or had a monopoly, nor how big anyone other than this company could make their warships.
2. This is patently ridiculous. The sentence says that large battleships and weapons platforms were built by companies, including Kuat, Rendili and Loronar. Nowhere does it say that one company built one thing and the other two the other thing. That is your fanon idea.
3. What a joke. I don't give a damn about West End Games influenced minimalism. LFL has not cared about maintaining only one type of classifications nor that RPG derived ideas are the one whole truth, but I've seen your edits be influenced by this particular line of thought throughout your time on this encyclopedia.
It is my opinion that you cannot be trusted with ship articles, because you always feel the need to put your own ideas into them. You do the same predictable pattern over and over again. Several months go by each time, and then you go back to the same nonsense over and over again. And since I've heard that your behaviour has been going on since years before you even got here, I can't say I'm surprised at this need to assert your ideas. That not what an encyclopedia is for.
VT-16, the statement is ambiguous. It's not ambigious. It would have been if LFL had deemed only Executor-class ships to exist beyond the ISD. They didn't, and last I checked KDY did not have full monopoly on designing big warships. No source has ever said this. We do have sources that have individual sectors and firms building their own fleets and designing their own warships. Even if the Loronar and Rendili facilities were only used to produce designs made by others, there would still be slight variations, since different engineering teams and different cultures will have their own ideas on how to make the designs better. VT-16 19:08, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
- That has nothing to do with whether or not the single sentence in question is ambiguous or not. —Silly Dan (talk) 19:16, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
- It has everything to do with it. Especially since the point of contention was a non-existent part of this quote which said Kuat only did one thing while Rendili and Loronar did something else. Battleships and weapons platforms were built by Kuat, Rendili and Loronar, that's it. Nothing else can be "inferred" by the source. The only thing that can be added is that it's unknown if the designs came from each of the companies. VT-16 19:43, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, there's no source saying that only KDY built big ships. But there's also no source beyond this one sentence saying Rendili specifically built battleships, and it can be interpreted in more than one way. Your interpretation is the most probable, as I've been saying from the start, but please at least recognize that it can be understood in more than one way. —Silly Dan (talk) 19:52, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
- I already wrote that above. And, like I have said on more than one occasion, only one source is ever needed for a particular subject. Unless Wookieepedia suddenly changed its rules. VT-16 19:55, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
- OK, thanks for recognizing the ambiguity. As for the "one source" question, no one's ever said articles with only one source are invalid: but articles whose only source is a single sentence with multiple interpretations have to be treated carefully (see Portuguese man-o'-war). —Silly Dan (talk) 19:58, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, I remember that dispute. I also remember asking people who were for deleting it, to provide an actual quote from that book that made it clear it was an OOU statement, and the only thing I got was variations on "But is has to be, it's so obvious!", which is something I doubt L. Neil Smith wrote in the book. ;P As for the two articles here, they can have BtS notes on how it's not clear if the battleships were local designs or from other companies. VT-16 20:26, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
- Which is why the inclusion of the quote, possibly with a "maybe it's just OOU narration" note, turned out to be the most sensible route to take. As for the BTS note for Rendili battleship, Loronar battleship, and the putative KDY weapons platform article, the question I have isn't so much "were they unique designs or the same classes produced elsewhere?" but "can we say if battleships of any kind were produced at those facilities?" The answer there, I think, is "probably, but include the quote and a bit of explanation just in case." As for the first question, I don't think we don't have enough information to bother speculating. —Silly Dan (talk) 20:33, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
- If the text says they were, then they were. VT-16 21:21, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
- Which is why the inclusion of the quote, possibly with a "maybe it's just OOU narration" note, turned out to be the most sensible route to take. As for the BTS note for Rendili battleship, Loronar battleship, and the putative KDY weapons platform article, the question I have isn't so much "were they unique designs or the same classes produced elsewhere?" but "can we say if battleships of any kind were produced at those facilities?" The answer there, I think, is "probably, but include the quote and a bit of explanation just in case." As for the first question, I don't think we don't have enough information to bother speculating. —Silly Dan (talk) 20:33, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, I remember that dispute. I also remember asking people who were for deleting it, to provide an actual quote from that book that made it clear it was an OOU statement, and the only thing I got was variations on "But is has to be, it's so obvious!", which is something I doubt L. Neil Smith wrote in the book. ;P As for the two articles here, they can have BtS notes on how it's not clear if the battleships were local designs or from other companies. VT-16 20:26, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
- OK, thanks for recognizing the ambiguity. As for the "one source" question, no one's ever said articles with only one source are invalid: but articles whose only source is a single sentence with multiple interpretations have to be treated carefully (see Portuguese man-o'-war). —Silly Dan (talk) 19:58, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
- I already wrote that above. And, like I have said on more than one occasion, only one source is ever needed for a particular subject. Unless Wookieepedia suddenly changed its rules. VT-16 19:55, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, there's no source saying that only KDY built big ships. But there's also no source beyond this one sentence saying Rendili specifically built battleships, and it can be interpreted in more than one way. Your interpretation is the most probable, as I've been saying from the start, but please at least recognize that it can be understood in more than one way. —Silly Dan (talk) 19:52, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
- It has everything to do with it. Especially since the point of contention was a non-existent part of this quote which said Kuat only did one thing while Rendili and Loronar did something else. Battleships and weapons platforms were built by Kuat, Rendili and Loronar, that's it. Nothing else can be "inferred" by the source. The only thing that can be added is that it's unknown if the designs came from each of the companies. VT-16 19:43, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
- Dan: my point wasn't that the "big Corellian ships" didn't have a page (they do, and they should!), it was that Corellian Engineering Corporation didn't have a link to them. I'm putting my weight behind the idea that the links to the Rendili battleship and Loronar battleship pages should be removed from the Rendili StarDrive and Loronar Corporation pages, and the two ship-class templates.
- I'm also cautious about the idea of seperate designs: the source is talking primarily about Loronar and Rendili as shipyards. I'd prefer a unified page, as it seems to me that all three topics are essentially the same, but I agree that a unified header would be problematic.
- How about something like:
- ----
- "... the largest battleships and special weapons platforms were built at other, more sophisticated space construction centers in other systems, notably the Kuat Drive Yards and the Rendili and Loronar space construction facilities"
- ―Pollux Hax
- It is possible that, as well as their well-known designs for the Imperial Navy, the Loronar Corporation and Rendili StarDrive constructed additonal large capital ships, and Kuat Drive Yards were responsible for military space stations. All these putative projects would have been bigger than Imperial-class Star Destroyers.
- The only direct evidence for this, however, comes from a passage in an Imperial propaganda text, which describes Loronar, Rendili and Kuat together constructing "battleships and special weapons platforms". This does not quite make it clear that all three were responsible for both types of project: Kuat are known to have designed Super Star Destroyers, while Loronar and Rendili were responsible for large battlestations such as the torpedo sphere and the Derilyn Space Defense Platform, and these alone could adequately satisfy the meaning of the text.
- Additionally, the source is referring primarily to construction facilities, not specifically to design capabilities, and it is possible that if Kuat did build battlestations and Rendili and Loronar built battleships, they were in fact constructing each other's known designs. Rendili's R/M Facility Number Four was certainly designed to accomodate Loronar's torpedo spheres, but this deepdock was designed primarily for repair-and-maintainance rather than construction.
- ==Source==
- ----
- Does that work? It could as easily be duplicated between three parallel articles with a slimmer, clearer first paragraph. --McEwok 16:16, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
- I'd prefer it be much shorter and in the BTS section, but including the quote is a good idea. —Silly Dan (talk) 22:50, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
- I kinda liked the "in-universe" text, because I felt that added to the content. We're talking about something unambiguously canon (and in-universe) now, namely the passage in TISWU. I can certainly see a few edits that would improve clarity and neutrality, and I'm happy to listen to what you have to suggest in terms of slimming it down overall. I probably won't make any edits without your feedback, anyway. --McEwok 14:31, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
- This is unbelievable. McEwok has no interest in anything other than his own personal ideas, that much is clear. How many times can it be said, the quote says "battleships and special weapons platforms", it does not say "battleships or special weapons platforms" nor "battleships at Kuat, special weapons platforms at Loronar and Rendili". I also don't see "together" anywhere, so that's yet another self-invention of yours. VT-16 07:10, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
Please see the initial version of Kuat Drive Yards weapons platform for my suggestion on phrasing. (I'll note that, at least on page 71 on my copy, the exact passage in the book is not quite what we've been quoting here, but not in a way that changes the meaning.) Personally, I don't like articles here to question the veracity of a source in the in-universe section: I think it usually reads better and can be explained more clearly as a BTS note in most cases. As for the idea of KDY producing Loronar designs or something like that, I can't think of a specific example of similar practices which could be mentioned as a parallel. —Silly Dan (talk) 03:35, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks, Dan. I only have two very minor suggestions: '''Kuat Drive Yards weapons platforms''' were large military [[Space station/Legends|space station]]s... at the start, as "class" seems too suggestive of a single design; and Loronar and Rendili produced armed space stations larger than Imperial Star Destroyers (such as...) in the "Behind the scenes" section, to make clear the size of these canonical designs.
- To reply in passing to your specific comments:
- 1.) I try to keep as much in-universe as possible, and the source here is a piece of "in-universe" Imperial propaganda, which I think allows it to be talked about in the main section, but if you prefer it this way, I have no problem.
- 2.) I can think of several examples of designs being build at shipyards other than those of their designers—the ISDs at Coruscant in this very passage are one example, as are the ISDs built in non-KDY yards elsewhere in canon; the KDY-designed Executor is built at Fondor, which is apparently a nationalized Techno Union yard; and the Loronar torpedo spheres refitted at Tallaan and in Rendili deepdocks show that major work, if not actual hull construction, can be done in non-Loronar facilities. But that's secondary, too. Ultimately, I have no reason to disagree with the actual presentation, beyond the minor suggestions above.
- However, there's still my question about what to do with references elsewhere in the Wookieepedia to these designs. What's your POV on this? --McEwok 16:00, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
- (1) I prefer to discuss the validity of even IU documents in the BTS sections, since there's not always a good way to determine how accurate an IU document is. Plus, since this isn't a problem with the reliability or accuracy of the source, but a question of KJA using slightly ambiguous grammar, it seems to me to be a problem of OOU interpretation.
- (2) I suppose that could be added to the KDY article, and to the other two we're discussing. You could also change the phrasing of my article slightly as you suggest. At this point, we're probably better off discussing changes to those articles as they go on those talk pages, rather than on a talk page for a template which would only link to one of them.
- (3) If these articles are valid, I see no reason why they can't be included in templates, or linked to in the articles on the shipyards/shipbuilders. —Silly Dan (talk) 00:19, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
- Discussing articles on talk pages and behind the scenes sections is nice enough, I'm just curious about when enough is enough. How much fan-based second-guessing is going to fill up the pages? When a user has the following statement on his own page: "But that doesn't mean I've given up on things like trying to stem the encroachment of fanon "retconns" from SWTC", I start to wonder what this person is even doing on this encyclopedia, given that he's talking about a fansite and not an official source. Also, his obsession with singling out one particular author and any additional sources that might disagree with his own opinion regarding warship-design and trends, is getting rather tiresome, since it's resulted in several reinstatements of canon information that was removed by said user. I have no problem with sources that point out that smaller warships became the norm for particular time periods, as long as it's official information. However, I also have no problem when official sources point out the opposite happening in various eras as well, which many sources have done in the past and continue to do in the present (just see the KOTOR comics and the LOTF books for the most recent examples). Even the Dark Empire Sourcebook, working on the same basis as the RPG books that began the "standard classification system", mentioned larger warships being built throughout all ages of space fleets, when talking about the Eclipse and its predecessors. That's why it's strange to see debates about minimizing the number of large warships by deleting articles and removing official information, when this is a non-issue, canon-wise. VT-16 12:15, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
- "When a user has the following statement on his own page: 'But that doesn't mean I've given up on things like trying to stem the encroachment of fanon "retconns" from SWTC', I start to wonder what this person is even doing on this encyclopedia, given that he's talking about a fansite and not an official source." Umm, I fail to see why stemming the encroachment of fanon from a fansite should be seen as a bad thing. Isn't that where fanon typically comes from? Some of McEwok's edits have had to be reverted, yes, but just as many have needed to be *defended* from reversion by others; if he's to be painted a vandal, that paint will have to go on many of his detractors. I agree with both McEwok and Silly Dan that the above quote that started this all is not definitive in the least, and I think you're unjustifiably seeing Doom and Destruction everywhere McEwok makes an edit. jSarek 09:36, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
- Come on, jSarek, you know what I mean by that. This is a user who consistently tries to revert or change any references to official works by one particular author, as if he is the only one who's ever added original content to SW canon. Since he talks about a fansite related to this author, I must ask whether he is incapable of seperating between fan fiction and official material when he is editing. He's shown a consistent use of poor judgement whenever this author is involved in an official subject. I know he keeps asking for additional usage of a certain term or name or word, whenever he finds something written by the author in question, as if writing "Curtis Saxton made this up, this did not exist before Curtis Saxton made it up and made it canon" in a Behind the Scenes section will somehow make him seem different from all the other SW authors out there. There are several of his articles which are still in need of serious revision. I can't bother with the site too much any longer, due to work, but I hope there are people who are keeping an eye on him and make sure to demand official references, since he tends to fill all his articles with pure guess-work that, by the administrator's admission, should go into the bts section. I'm glad that the use of the reference-section is becoming more and more widespread, as it will be harder for him to simply fill up page after page with fanon guesses, hiding behind excuses like "It doesn't say A didn't happen..." or "This word/term might just mean anything...". Examples like denying the Empire might have many different SSDs in their fleet, and claiming all sources that mention this are either Imperial propaganda that was never realized or later on, New Republic misinformation/scare-mongering/ignorance or tying it in with a fansite pointing out where previous works either use this specifically or might have used it, therefore it is automatically unworthy of entry, or both opinions are equally valid and should be in the in-universe section of an article. That's just nonsense. If he's got guesses, put them in the bts section. VT-16 11:43, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
- "When a user has the following statement on his own page: 'But that doesn't mean I've given up on things like trying to stem the encroachment of fanon "retconns" from SWTC', I start to wonder what this person is even doing on this encyclopedia, given that he's talking about a fansite and not an official source." Umm, I fail to see why stemming the encroachment of fanon from a fansite should be seen as a bad thing. Isn't that where fanon typically comes from? Some of McEwok's edits have had to be reverted, yes, but just as many have needed to be *defended* from reversion by others; if he's to be painted a vandal, that paint will have to go on many of his detractors. I agree with both McEwok and Silly Dan that the above quote that started this all is not definitive in the least, and I think you're unjustifiably seeing Doom and Destruction everywhere McEwok makes an edit. jSarek 09:36, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
- Discussing articles on talk pages and behind the scenes sections is nice enough, I'm just curious about when enough is enough. How much fan-based second-guessing is going to fill up the pages? When a user has the following statement on his own page: "But that doesn't mean I've given up on things like trying to stem the encroachment of fanon "retconns" from SWTC", I start to wonder what this person is even doing on this encyclopedia, given that he's talking about a fansite and not an official source. Also, his obsession with singling out one particular author and any additional sources that might disagree with his own opinion regarding warship-design and trends, is getting rather tiresome, since it's resulted in several reinstatements of canon information that was removed by said user. I have no problem with sources that point out that smaller warships became the norm for particular time periods, as long as it's official information. However, I also have no problem when official sources point out the opposite happening in various eras as well, which many sources have done in the past and continue to do in the present (just see the KOTOR comics and the LOTF books for the most recent examples). Even the Dark Empire Sourcebook, working on the same basis as the RPG books that began the "standard classification system", mentioned larger warships being built throughout all ages of space fleets, when talking about the Eclipse and its predecessors. That's why it's strange to see debates about minimizing the number of large warships by deleting articles and removing official information, when this is a non-issue, canon-wise. VT-16 12:15, 5 June 2007 (UTC)