Talk:Death Star II

115,240pages on
this wiki

Back to page


This is the talk page for the article "Death Star II."

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

This talk page has archives.


Death Star II 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 join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.

Article milestones
Date Process Result
25 June 2007 Featured article candidate Failure
24 August 2007 Failed featured article candidate
Current status: Failed featured article candidate

Death Star Owners Workshop Manual informationEdit

The new book Death Star Owners Workshop Manual (published October 2013) uses the 120km figure for the DS1, and the 160km figure for the DS2- does this qualify as a retcon- and if so, should the relevant pages be updated to reflect the new information?-- 19:11, October 27, 2013 (UTC)

Size Edit

Calculating the surface area from the diameter of 160km, and looking at the armament, Looks like about 1 gun per 2 square kilometers or so. It's a lot of guns, but they'd have to be spread out pretty far... 23:04, November 17, 2014 (UTC)KM

Wasn't the Death Star II smaller than the Death Star one???? 23:22, November 7, 2013 (UTC)

  • If you look at the articles, you'll notice that the second Death Star is larger than the original Death Star. Sources are included in the article as well. JangFett (Talk) 23:38, November 7, 2013 (UTC)
    • They are outdated though. The new Haynes guide reverted the size of DS II back to 160 km in diameter. --LelalMekha (talk) 23:39, November 7, 2013 (UTC)
      • Does that make Death Star 1 larger. 23:42, November 7, 2013 (UTC)

If there is a retcon someone should make a massive edit. But I did always think Death Star 1 looked bigger. But maybe that's because the Death Star 2 was not fully built. 23:46, November 7, 2013 (UTC)

I have temporarily reverted this change until we find out whether this is a deliberate retcon or an error on the author's part. I find it hard to believe that they would abruptly go back to the old figures after all this time, so I'm thinking that it's more likely to be an error. Someone needs to ask Leland Chee to find out for sure. He does not seem to be paying attention to his Facebook page anymore, so someone will need to ask him on Twitter. I'll leave that to someone else as I'm not sure how to compress the question into 124 characters (what's left after "@HolocronKeeper "). —MJ— Holocomm 21:21, November 8, 2013 (UTC)
Scratch that, I figured out how to squeeze it into a tweet. Now we just have to wait for a reply. —MJ— Jedi Council Chambers 21:32, November 8, 2013 (UTC)

Awesome75.34.166.87 21:35, November 8, 2013 (UTC)

Chee just confirmed that this is a retcon (or an "unretcon" as he called it). I have thus reverted to the revision showing the 160 km figure and unprotected the page. —MJ— War Room 06:11, November 9, 2013 (UTC)

If worst comes to worst and we don't get a full response, we can always just take a NPOV and simply insert both findings and add them to Notes/References sections as opposed to making note of what is perceived to be accurate or inaccurate.--Gunman6 (talk) 07:51, November 9, 2013 (UTC)

We did get a full response, and even more information than I asked for. See the link in my previous post immediately above. —MJ— Jedi Council Chambers 15:22, November 9, 2013 (UTC)

Given that it's been edited- how about editing the DS1 page, and the Death Star pages, as well? -- 09:32, November 9, 2013 (UTC)

Feel free to be bold and update them yourself. :) —MJ— Jedi Council Chambers 15:22, November 9, 2013 (UTC)

Been bold. The generic "Death Stars" page is still locked, but since the DS1 page is not, I've revised it, as little as possible, retaining the Technical Commentaries size as "suggested" by the writers -- 08:18, November 17, 2013 (UTC)

The second Death Star is bigger than the first, as it says in the article. User:Leonardo Sunstriker

The owners manual contradicts its selfEdit

Why did the makers of the owners manual bug Chee to unretcon the size of the Death Star 2? I would ignore this change based on previous material, Including Star Wars guide to Warefare.

MOST IMPORTANT OF ALL IN THE OWNERS MANUAL IT SELF IT STATES THE 2ND DEATH STAR HAS OVER TWICE THE VOLUME THE FIRST DEATH STAR HAS. Since the first Death Star is listed as 77+ mile diameter and Death Star 2 is listed as 99+ mile diameter the statement that it has over twice the volume is flat out wrong.

Going by blue prints of both Death Stars we see that the 1st one also had way less acsses paths for ships than the 2nd. Ergo the 1st is much more compacted ergo it cant have more than twice the volume because of a compacted superstructure.

Further more it states the reactor output is = to around 100s of giant stars. I agree with this it is much more powerful than DS1s reactor which is = too a couple mainseq stars. HOWEVER in the guide to warefair it says DS2 has THREE reactors,TWO FOR THE MK 2 SUPERLASER AND ONE FORE THE REST OF THE STATION. So should I conclude that the three tottal are equal too hundreds of giants OR just one of the three is equal to hundreds of giants and all together it would be equal to thousands of giant stars?

My concern is that size changes where made possible because a diffrence of intrest on the writers part. After all they make trek books too and this is the same fear I have about ep VII and beyond, what if they are making changes to give trek the edge in Wars vs Trek Battles? Like I said its the same fear I have with the new movies since the new writer director is a trekki he made screwup things on purpose only hardcore fans would catch on to.

Please forgive me I am using a Xbox 360 to write things down I cant sign my sig AND I cant fix my grammer errors because the screen is bouncing up and down rapidly.Unsigned comment by (talk • contribs).

"I would ignore this change based on previous material" First, newer material generally overrides older material. Second, Leland Chee, the Lucasfilm official in charge of maintaining continuity, explicitly confirmed via Twitter that the new (old) numbers are canon, and thus we are stuck with that. We do not make decisions on what is canon; Lucasfilm does, and we abide by what they decide.
As for the volume issue, it's basic geometry that a small increase in the diameter will create a large increase in volume. A sphere with a 120 km diameter has a volume of approximately 905,000 km3. A sphere with a diameter of 160 km has a volume of over 2.1 million km3. So the book is correct on that. If you don't believe me, you can do the calculations yourself here (remember to input the radius and not the diameter). And the amount of superstructure is irrelevant to the volume. Volume is calculated based on the outer hull (or what would have been the outer hull on the second one if it had been completed) and would be the same regardless of whether the Death Stars were a solid ball of metal or completely hollow balls with nothing inside. —MJ— Holocomm 07:41, November 25, 2013 (UTC)

I would still ignore the size change on grounds that it is a conflicts of intrest AND the only reason the keeper agreed to the change was because he was harrassed by the people who made this book. If that is all it takes to make canon changes then I WILL make a Death Star 2 tech/history book and I wmake Chee chabge his mind back to the correct size, which I might add, is supported by the movie and guide too warefare. Ware is still a pretty newgbook that adas detail about the DS2 that has never been talked about and for the most part still hasnt been talked about. It seems foolish to label info from a book that is ether not even a year to barely more than a year old noncanon if that is indeed what yiu are sayng.

As for the lecture on basic volume thanks... I was going only by the numbers and size comp in the back of the book which doesnt look more twice the volume. I know internal structures do not really contribute to Volume, I was asuming that the writers who wrote the book do not OR are purposily writing wrong info.

You are wanting us to make our own decision on what is canon, which we simply do not do. Chee made his decision and that's final. How or why he made that decision is completely and totally irrelevant. Once Chee makes a decision, we must abide by it, with no ifs, ands, or buts. That's the end of this discussion, because your proposed change will never be made to the article. Any further attempt to continue this discussion constitutes general discussion of the article's subject, which is off-topic on Wookieepedia as talk pages are for the sole purpose of discussing changes to the article. If you really, really, wish to continue this discussion, take it here. —MJ— Holocomm 18:44, November 25, 2013 (UTC)

Well then how many reactors does the 2nd Death Star have three or one? Guide to warefare says three, which is what I wrote in the death star 2 page. Take in mind whatever anyone says is the answer is effectihg the information written in the DS2 article so this is not just a converstation.

I don't have to write done that size written in this new book is wiong an edditor was allowed to wryte that already on the DS2 page.

I am not expecting a reply for the thiegs I am typing here below this commet.

As for the other things Chees word is not finale in the since that he can AND HAS changed his mind in the past about things including the size of both DS multi times. The new book is nice but I am ignoring the size change, any debates including VS debates I will use the correct size 900+km if anyone has a prob with that I will point out he was harassed into doing which is on the lines as mentally tourchering people to get confessions out of them.

Thanks for the like but I am ignored by other Wars people asd they would just ban me for resurrecting a dead topic.

You have inspired me to wrte a DS2 tech book, not with a xbox natural I cant see what I am writting now, which when approved will have to have parts written on this article that will overide what the Star Twek people wrote in this new DS book.

Your book will not get approved. For legal reasons, they can't even glance at unsolicited submissions. Also, including one small question that affects article content does not change the fact that the majority of your post is still off-topic. Further attempts to discuss portions of this subject, or any other subject, that do not have a direct impact on the content of the article will result in official warnings and/or blocks if it continues. —MJ— Council Chambers 06:37, November 26, 2013 (UTC)

Construction Time Edit

The Star Wars comic fairly well torpedoes the 2-4 year construction time mentioned in the article, doesn't it? Since we now have a canon showing of it a very good ways under construction 4 years before Endor. ZeroSD (talk) 12:42, September 23, 2014 (UTC)

Around Wikia's network

Random Wiki