MGLT
Like probably everyone you'll have this conversation with, I know that maximum acceleration, not "maximum speed", is the important factor when comparing space propulsion. However, our MGLT article gives me the impression that (a) the MGLT ratings are canonical information, and (b) though they are often interpreted as something similar to the maximum air speed of an air vehicle, and were used by the filmmakers to say which spacecraft are "faster", it's really a measurement of acceleration. So, MGLT is canonical, I don't see the need to delete the MGLT ratings just because we're given a maximum acceleration in m/s^2 in another source. (Of course, if it's non-canon, then we shouldn't have it on any of our articles.) —Silly Dan (talk) 02:49, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
- IMO, if it's a measure of acceleration, then it's redundant- but my main problem with it is the "maximum speed in space" part. Is there a way to alter the coding or some such to get rid of that? From a technical view it just bugs me no end.Vymer 02:55, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
- You could ask Sentry to change the relevant caption on Template:Individual_ship and Template:Individual ship infobox to "acceleration in MGLT", "MGLT rating", or something similar. That would fix it for every ship article with an MGLT field in the infobox, including the ones where an MGLT rating is known but a more conventional acceleration measurement isn't. —Silly Dan (talk) 03:01, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
- Done.Vymer 08:47, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
- I was thinking that the field for MGLT should be changed from "maximum speed (space)" so that instead of "maximum speed (space)" the actual field reads MGLT and we can just put in the number in the field alone. That way we can still have the canonical rating while not guessing at what it means (it being a very weird number). As it is, the actual entry for MGLT contradicts the "maximum speed (space)" thing (as it should, since MGLT is an acceleration measurement of some sort). Thanks!Vymer 05:19, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
- Fantastic, thanks for that.Vymer 11:41, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
- IMO, if it's a measure of acceleration, then it's redundant- but my main problem with it is the "maximum speed in space" part. Is there a way to alter the coding or some such to get rid of that? From a technical view it just bugs me no end.Vymer 02:55, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
Executor
- My revert of your edits to the Executor article was warranted simply on the fact that the information you present was and appears to remain unsourced. My revert is not my way of saying your informatuon is wrong, simply that it lacks verification. When editing information, always remember: source, source, source! Now, as far as where I'm coming from, I'm simply basing my information on descriptions that come from both the ROTJ movie, novelization, and Behind the Magic, as little credit as you give that program, as old as it is. As soon as the two A-wings destroy the globe, one of the officers immediately informs Piett that they've lost the bridge's main deflector shields. The globe that they destroy is the Deflector-Shield Generator Dome (please see, among many sources, I'm sure, The Essential Guide to Vehicles and Vessels). As far as I see this, the SWCL seems to contrast with the movie. Now, while I'm certainly not one to say definitively which case is correct (my argument or yours), as policy around here, I've come to see that when a matter like this arises, when three sources are in conflict with one, for ex, it is generally best to go with the three. Additionally, when the movie seems to contrast with another source, it is best to go with the movie. Also, I'm afraid you may be confusing the globes with the actual communications tower, the horizontal "line" that runs between the two globes. Toprawa and Ralltiir 18:28, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
- Forgive me if I keep posting bullets into this section, just new posts as I have time to sit and think about this. (By the way, this is all in response to your post on the Executor's talk page. It would be best if you posted those sorts of things on my talk page, for ex) Trying to kind of piece everything together, from what you wrote, it seems that the Rebel fleet reduced the shields on the Executor as a whole, opening up the way for the fighters to target the bridge's shields. Star Destroyers did have two sets of shields, mind you, an additional one for the bridge. It would make sense if what you say comes from the SWCL happened first, and then the A-wings destroyed the deflector shield globes, taking down the bridge's shields. Toprawa and Ralltiir 19:15, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
- Just a bit more on the deflector shield generator domes, to try and show you that they are indeed that, besides numerous PC games and other sources that I can think of that indeed confirm this as such, I will quote The Essential Guide to Vehicles and Vessels, "The command tower is topped by a pair of deflector-shield generator domes." I'm not exactly sure where your confusion is coming frmo on this matter, but that is what they have always been. That's the premise we are meant to understand in their destruction in the ROTJ. That is not to say they may not have additional functions as you claim the SWCL says. Toprawa and Ralltiir 22:20, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
- Forgive me if I keep posting bullets into this section, just new posts as I have time to sit and think about this. (By the way, this is all in response to your post on the Executor's talk page. It would be best if you posted those sorts of things on my talk page, for ex) Trying to kind of piece everything together, from what you wrote, it seems that the Rebel fleet reduced the shields on the Executor as a whole, opening up the way for the fighters to target the bridge's shields. Star Destroyers did have two sets of shields, mind you, an additional one for the bridge. It would make sense if what you say comes from the SWCL happened first, and then the A-wings destroyed the deflector shield globes, taking down the bridge's shields. Toprawa and Ralltiir 19:15, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
First point - soon as the two A-wings destroy the globe, one of the officers immediately informs Piett that they've lost the bridge's main deflector shields. False cause fallacy. Just because A followed B doesn't mean A caused B. The fighters managing to destroy the globes can also be interpreted as demonstrating that the shields are down. That sources simply saw a dome blowing up and assumed "hey, that must be the shield!" is unfortunate and has infested the EU for quite some time (why is it that only those Star Destroyers have pointlessly vulnerable, big obvious deflector shield generators as targets, and no other capital ships do? Because they were never intended to be shield generators, that's why - there are quotes from ILM to that effect as well) - but at least in terms of Executor, we have a clearly labelled cross-section that makes it quite obvious they are not primarily shield generators at all.
Trying to kind of piece everything together, from what you wrote, it seems that the Rebel fleet reduced the shields on the Executor as a whole, opening up the way for the fighters to target the bridge's shields. Star Destroyers did have two sets of shields, mind you, an additional one for the bridge. It would make sense if what you say comes from the SWCL happened first, and then the A-wings destroyed the deflector shield globes, taking down the bridge's shields.
Not what the relevant source says (there's also no evidence or reason to believe the Executor has "main shields" that overlap the bridge shields -it has distinct arcs of shields - ie port, starboard, bridge, etc). It's quite clear that fighters strafed the bridge only after the shields dropped, not before, which contrary to numerous video games (which are quite worthless anyway - they stroke the player's ego with the ease of destroying capital ships and base everything around that - take for example Rogue Squadron turning ISD reactor bulbs into shield generators) makes sense. We're to believe a simple barrage of puny concussion missiles from a pair of A-Wings is enough to drop the bridge shields of an Executor-class Star Dreadnought (which has shielding capacity equivalent to the output of a medium star, according to the same source?). That's the biggest glass jaw in history. That's the reason the SWCL describes it that way (ie the entire flotilla concentrating on the ship) - wouldn't you think the globes themselves would be protected by the shield they're supposed to be generating? Even if we were to ignore the SWCL (for no reason) and say the globes are shield generators, the notion that the A-Wings dropped the shields by destroying the generator proposes that Executor's bridge shields are the weakest capital ship shields in existence (compared to say, the shields of the TF Battleship in TPM, which withstood all fighter attack until Anakin snuck in through the hangar as a wing of Vulture fighters was leaving).
The globe that they destroy is the Deflector-Shield Generator Dome
Irrespective of what the sources call the domes, the SWCL shows a very clear, labeled, cross-section of the domes on Executor, and they are not shield generators- they're packed with scanning equipment, and are connected directly to massive comm-scan equipment deep in the bridge tower's structure. The only thing related to shields on those domes are the local projector vanes on the outside. (and also, the "line" you refer to which you think I have confused - and I assure you that isn't the case - is the tractor beam targeting array) Vymer
- Nevertheless, you fail to present your material in a properly sourced fashion. Source it, or it will be removed. Toprawa and Ralltiir 18:27, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
It has been sourced. The foot note is there- and was there even before you claimed that it "was and remained unsourced". Check the relevant paragraph. I fail to see what else is required- also, since you know the source, why threaten removal of something solely on the basis that you don't think it's in a "properly sourced fashion" - it's quite open to you (or anyone else) to source it in a fashion you think proper, if you think the additional SWCL footnote (which covers all relevant issues) is for some reason inadequate. But I see no difference between it's sourcing and any other on the page. Vymer 14:21, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Talk pages
Thanks for contributing to Wookieepedia! Before posting talk page comments, please familiarize yourself with the disclaimer at the top of talk pages, {{Talkheader}}. Talk pages are for discussion relating to changes to the article, not for a discussion about the topic in question. Thank you. Trip391 (talk) 06:13, November 13, 2013 (UTC)