Wookieepedia > Wookieepedia:Inquisitorius > Inq/Executor/Legends (second review)
Executor/Legends
Things to do
- Missing many date refs. Ones that I know require further citation are ref 147-1, ref 100, ref number 36 in the "droid pool" and "bridge officers and crew" sections. I'm not that familiar with legends source material, but I'm pretty sure ref 13-2, ref 31-1, ref 32-1 require a date ref. I'm pretty sure this list is a massive understatement, as it appears almost all the dates are uncited, exept for a few that I put in." As in the past, these sorts of things went unaddressed for just being put on the wrong meeting page, pasting here. Hanzo Hasashi (talk) 17:22, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
- Looked through it again, ref numbers 15-38, 99, 114-1 and 177 also require more detailed references. -ThrawnChiss7 (talk) 02:31, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
- Note that with this edit, while not being exposed to the source material, the Fondor shipyard assault article has a note about how it could only be before the Terror was destroyed, and evidently The Essential Guide to Warfare says this was in 3 ABY. As I can't exactly tell how, granted only from reading the articles alone, that needs to be the case, I wrote a vague time of after the Battle of Hoth. Anyone who knows more can feel free to edit if anything different is known. Hanzo Hasashi (talk) 14:23, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
- With this edit, I couldn't tell exactly IU year, other than between 2 ABY (Rebels are in Echo Base) and 3 ABY (preceding Battle of Hoth) for The Final Trap. If anyone else has a better understanding of IU date, perhaps related to other things, then can be edited. As is, got all the dates. Hanzo Hasashi (talk) 17:36, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
- It looks like the page Mission to Talay provides an explanation of the date of Star Wars: Dark Forces. I saw in one of your edits you added a less specific date. Could you possibily revise and use the explanation to more accuratly date the events of Dark Forces. -ThrawnChiss7 (talk) 17:58, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
- With this edit, I couldn't tell exactly IU year, other than between 2 ABY (Rebels are in Echo Base) and 3 ABY (preceding Battle of Hoth) for The Final Trap. If anyone else has a better understanding of IU date, perhaps related to other things, then can be edited. As is, got all the dates. Hanzo Hasashi (talk) 17:36, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
- Note that with this edit, while not being exposed to the source material, the Fondor shipyard assault article has a note about how it could only be before the Terror was destroyed, and evidently The Essential Guide to Warfare says this was in 3 ABY. As I can't exactly tell how, granted only from reading the articles alone, that needs to be the case, I wrote a vague time of after the Battle of Hoth. Anyone who knows more can feel free to edit if anything different is known. Hanzo Hasashi (talk) 14:23, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
- Looked through it again, ref numbers 15-38, 99, 114-1 and 177 also require more detailed references. -ThrawnChiss7 (talk) 02:31, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
- BTS issues -ThrawnChiss7 (talk) 17:58, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
Can the release date of The Empire Strikes Back really be sourced to the film itself?-ThrawnChiss7 (talk) 17:58, 4 January 2023 (UTC)- Fixed. Hanzo Hasashi (talk) 18:31, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
The first paragraph under "Non-canon history" and "Technical specification" needs some kind of sourcing-ThrawnChiss7 (talk) 17:58, 4 January 2023 (UTC)- It seems almost as if the nominator had written that paragraph and treated like an intro. As he had decisively long made all behind the scenes for his status articles have citations, I believe he left it that way because it's treated as an intro?
- That is indeed the intent, but unfortunatly that is not allowed per policy. All information outside of the actual intro and "this article assumes X to be correct" need to be sourced. -ThrawnChiss7 (talk) 19:30, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
- Deleted. Not sure if that was best approach, but still... Hanzo Hasashi (talk) 20:02, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
- Hmm, that snippet of text seems pretty important in tying all those chunks of info together. In the same vein of "this article assumes X to be correct" not needing to be sourced, it isn't against the attribution policy to clarify the assumptions made in the writing of the article itself. OOM 224 21:51, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
- Restored. Hanzo Hasashi (talk) 21:57, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
- Hmm, that snippet of text seems pretty important in tying all those chunks of info together. In the same vein of "this article assumes X to be correct" not needing to be sourced, it isn't against the attribution policy to clarify the assumptions made in the writing of the article itself. OOM 224 21:51, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
- Deleted. Not sure if that was best approach, but still... Hanzo Hasashi (talk) 20:02, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
- That is indeed the intent, but unfortunatly that is not allowed per policy. All information outside of the actual intro and "this article assumes X to be correct" need to be sourced. -ThrawnChiss7 (talk) 19:30, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
- It seems almost as if the nominator had written that paragraph and treated like an intro. As he had decisively long made all behind the scenes for his status articles have citations, I believe he left it that way because it's treated as an intro?
I'm pretty sure Star Wars Technical Commentaries is not good source of information as it is just a fansite, so a better source for the facts "The Executor model seen in the films sports thirteen engine banks" and "The eight-kilometer length, however, while firmly cemented as Star Wars canon by the year 1995, did not accurately reflect the Executor model seen in the films in relation to the smaller, 1.6-kilometer Imperial-class Star Destroyer." -ThrawnChiss7 (talk) 17:58, 4 January 2023 (UTC)- Hopefully this rewording is alright. Hanzo Hasashi (talk) 21:22, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
"In Chapter 37 of the 2005 novel Dark Lord: The Rise of Darth Vader," I'm pretty sure we don't do chapter numbers any more, but I'm not positive-ThrawnChiss7 (talk) 17:58, 4 January 2023 (UTC)- This is removed. Hanzo Hasashi (talk) 18:49, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
"Similar to the 1985 Atari graphic, the personal flagship of Imperial Admiral Mils Giel in the 1982 Marvel comic Star Wars (1977) 60 is remarkably similar to another early Executor concept illustration, from September 1978. Marvel artist Walter Simonson likely used the Executor concept art as inspiration for his starship design. A comparison of the Executor concept drawing and Giel's flagship can be seen here." This pharagraph is entirly sourced to Star Wars (1977) 60, it needs to be better sourced. -ThrawnChiss7 (talk) 17:58, 4 January 2023 (UTC)- Changed the wording. Also seems speculative to make those confident assertions of inspiration, but noted the visual similarity still. Hanzo Hasashi (talk) 18:56, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
During a transition scene between levels in the 1985 Atari arcade game The Empire Strikes Back, a starship moves across screen with the accompanying caption, "Darth Vader's Executor is searching for the Rebel hideout." This starship that appears on-screen does not resemble the Executor model as seen in the films. Instead, the Atari graphic is very similar in appearance to an original Executor concept sketch from December 1978, on which it was likely based.[217] Needs sourcing for the early concept sketch -ThrawnChiss7 (talk) 19:30, 4 January 2023 (UTC)- Reworded, picture too.
subjective POV: "The obscure Shadows of the Empire Ertl minicomic" -ThrawnChiss7 (talk) 19:30, 4 January 2023 (UTC)- Changed wording. Hanzo Hasashi (talk) 20:02, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
Ref 136 is sourced to 1996 Topps Star Wars: Shadows of the Empire. I'm pretty sure this needs to be sourced to the individual cards. -ThrawnChiss7 (talk) 18:04, 4 January 2023 (UTC)- Done. JediMasterMacaroni(Talk) 18:34, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
Infobox exlusive information: Class 10 backup hyperdrive. -ThrawnChiss7 (talk) 18:46, 4 January 2023 (UTC)- Done. Hanzo Hasashi (talk) 21:27, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
Taking another look, there is a lot of infobox exclusive information: "Navigation computer", "Supplies for 300,000 individuals", "50,000 minumum crew"- Done. JediMasterMacaroni(Talk) 18:34, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
- Done. Hanzo Hasashi (talk) 21:27, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
- A note about a fact tag. Hanzo Hasashi (talk) 19:08, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
- As I have personally verified that nothing listed for Lost Reef says the meeting in question was on the Executor, I removed the information. Hanzo Hasashi (talk) 01:55, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
"Like all Imperial-class and Super-class Star Destroyers," The Super-class was a fake class invented to hide the Executor-class' true purpose, as stated in the article, so it is not really accurate to say that Super-class's where "constructed with a special throne room " -ThrawnChiss7 (talk) 22:27, 4 January 2023 (UTC)- Not just does source material directly mention Super-class, but Databank entry for Super Star Destroyer mentions that IU tha class of ships was also called such as an unofficial name. So, while its IU origins are made up, the name is a very much real IU descriptor. Hanzo Hasashi (talk) 23:34, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
- In-universe mention in The New Essential Chronology (in-universe). -ThrawnChiss7
Assembly Cupola 21:45, 13 January 2023 (UTC) The last two sources need links and backup links. -ThrawnChiss7 Assembly Cupola 18:37, 21 January 2023 (UTC)- Have been fixed. Hanzo Hasashi (talk) 02:09, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
LEGO Star Wars (Set: 10221 Super Star Destroyer) should be added. I'm not sure if its counts as non-canon or not; WP:LEGO says "LEGO media is typically treated as non-canon unless explicitly stated", but articles such as Behold-Urwar Droid Concepts violate that, so I'm unsure on the canon status of LEGO sets. Brickpedia also says that the little ship in 
LEGO Star Wars (Set: 10143 Death Star II) is the Executor, I'm not sure if thats right. In addition I think this may need to be noted in the bts. -ThrawnChiss7 Assembly Cupola 02:23, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
- A note that with Brickipedia, for one, the page in question for the Death Star II set doesn't say the pictured ship is the Executor, and for the other, you're right that if the wiki page is the only thing saying it, it's not a source as it's fan edited. Actual objection pending. Hanzo Hasashi (talk) 02:01, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
Removal of FA status
- Placed on probation at Meeting 143. Commander Code-8 Hello There! 11:39, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
- Status extended at Meeting 144. Imperators II(Talk) 14:22, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
- Review moved to new system.—spookywillowwtalk 03:42, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
Comments
- Does anybody know what the mention in Mirror, Mirror is and if it needs to be documented? -ThrawnChiss7 (talk) 18:16, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
- Whatever was its mention, listed already as an appearance before the article passed its nomination. Not an answer, only saying the nominator knew about it, and didn't have anything beyond a listed appearance. I can't talk about if there's any information not already in the article, however. Hanzo Hasashi (talk) 19:19, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
- I checked, and the only information is related to authors discussing a fanmade set of crossover cards for Star Wars and Star Trek. The authors analyzed a Picard fanmade card, saying Enterprise is a juggernaut second only to the Executor. This is entirely fan analysis of a crossover set of cards and their gameplay statistics. Hanzo Hasashi (talk) 21:40, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
- Whatever was its mention, listed already as an appearance before the article passed its nomination. Not an answer, only saying the nominator knew about it, and didn't have anything beyond a listed appearance. I can't talk about if there's any information not already in the article, however. Hanzo Hasashi (talk) 19:19, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
- Is there a reason for all the double-reffing in the infobox? ThrawnChiss7 (talk)-22:33, 4 January 2023 (UTC)