This page is an archive of the discussion of an article. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's current talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.

Contents 1 Unknown Captain 2 Fast track 3 History needs improvement 4 Length 5 Articles in front of ship names? 6 Quote 7 All star destroyers having the same bridge 8 Pronounciation 9 Captain Venka 10 Omg 11 Admiral Okins 12 Length 13 Did "Executor" escort Palpatine to Endor? 14 Executor's shields 15 pre-Yavin 16 This article is a load of crap. 17 Mammoth Star Destroyer 18 Talk messages merged from deleted "Star Dreadnought (pre-Yavin)" article 18.1 Summing up 19 proton torpedo? 20 Length

Unknown CaptainEdit

• When the Millennium Falcon escapes into hyperspace at the end of the movie and Piett reacts with terror, an officer can be seen behind Piett. He is also visable when Vader is walking past the terrified Piett and the officer turns his head when Vader walks by. This officer has the insignia of a star captain, and would then presumebly be in command of the ship under Piett's supervision.

Does anyone know if this officer is named in any sources? Darthdyas 13:55, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Fast trackEdit

Does any one else rember how being assigned to the Executor was considered the fast track to promotion? We really should find a way to fit that in here. -- SFH 00:31, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

• Is there a source for it? Admiral J. Nebulax ^(talk) 00:33, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
• The Essential Guide to Vehicles and Vessels. -- SFH 00:35, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Well, considering it was pratically the flagship of the Imperial Navy... Admiral J. Nebulax ^(talk) 00:36, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Yeah, and that high ranking officers tended to die very fast on it - hence more promotions for the lower ranking folks! Look at Piett. --Danik Kreldin 01:37, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
      • Good point. I guess Vader was considered a saint among the low-ranking officers onboard the ship. Admiral J. Nebulax ^(talk) 01:39, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
• Actually no, they didn't. In Shadows of the Empire, it was revealed that junior officers drew straws to see who would deliver messages. Vader liked the element of fear that it gave him. That's also a way I was thinking of putting it in to the article: "Assignment to the Executor was considered the fast track to an early promotion—as well as an early grave". -- SFH 01:53, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Well, that works. Admiral J. Nebulax ^(talk) 21:22, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

History needs improvementEdit

This is the most famous warship from the OT, and it's operational history coverage is dismal to say the least. This needs some major expansion in this section, seeing as the ship was involved in more than just the Battles of Hoth and Endor. Hell, even those engagements are poorly covered. SOTE and CSW stuff should be expanded on, as well as the details of the ship's construction and the admirals opposed to it. There's also a commander missing, the admiral who was in charge during SOTE, whose name escapes me right now.--Sharkey 17:46, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

LengthEdit

• The length stated in the article has been changed to 12,800 meters or 7.95 kilometers long? It should be 19,000 meters, correct?--Darth Oblivion 01:53, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
  • yeah, the canon length is 19,000m now --BaldFett 13:47, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
• It was changed by an anon.--Darth Oblivion 16:28, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Articles in front of ship names?Edit

According to the wookiee rules Manual of Style#Class and ship names, Shipnames should always be used with the definite article. In this article it's never used. Also I had a discussion recently about the usage of articles in front of shipnames. Maybe we should pay more attention to that policy. Pi8ch 09:10, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

QuoteEdit

• Can I put the "it looks like a battle cruiser" quote at the top, rather than the current one? In my opinion it says a lot more about the ship. I think it fits better. Chack Jadson 23:21, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
  • What was the previous one? Ozzel? I don't think I liked either one lalala_la

All star destroyers having the same bridgeEdit

I figure that the only reason the various star destroyer classes all have the same bridge was to control cost of filming. More guns means you need more stations to control those guns (unless you slave them all together -- and then you don't really have that many guns anymore). Will (Talk - contribs) 05:24, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

• Don't forget that the guns are only fired from gunnery stations. They don't have to be slaved to the bridge.--The All-knowing Sith'ari 20:24, 27 February 2007 (yeah this

yeah this isn't star trek, the Bridge is only where they co-ordinate the actions of the vessel and have some direct controls for primary systems like helm and tactical, but all these systems have direct controls at other areas of the ship, so you can't just take over the bridge, lock everyone else out and own the ship like in star trek, they can just turn the bridge into a brig if you try, by cutting the hardlines to make all the consoles and such on the bridge useless.

PronounciationEdit

In Rebel Strike, the name of the ship is pronounced 'ex-ecu-tor', like 'executive'. However, I tend to pronounce it simiar to execuation. Which is the correct way? I merely ask as I feel that it can be put int he article. Unit 8311 16:48, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

• The former. Unfortunately. .... 23:23, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Really? I've always pronounced it in the latter.--The All-knowing Sith'ari 17:08, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
    • It could be a regional difference. - TopAce 20:26, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
      • Wouldn't pronouncing it like Execution sound more Imperial and more frightening?--The All-knowing Sith'ari 12:46, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

From the official site's QA section:

The word "executor" means "one who carries out or performs something," and is pronounced ig-ZEK-yoo-tur. The confusion over pronunciation often stems from the word "executioner." Captain Yossarian 21:27, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

• Yep, Chee even confirmed it. Chack Jadson 21:29, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Captain VenkaEdit

• According to Galaxy Guide 3, Piett promoted Lieutenant Venka to captain just after The Empire Strikes Back. I believe Piett was captain of the Executor until his promotion. So, Venka should be considered the next captain. --JMM 21:17, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
  • If I may add to my post, the databank has this to say in Piett's entry:

Following Piett's promotion to Admiral, captainship of the Executor went to Lieutenant Venka, and later, Captain Kallic. Following the Hoth campaign, the Executor was recalled to Coruscant. Piett instead was stationed aboard the Accuser. He would return to the Executor in time for the Battle of Endor. If you read Kallic's entry here, Venka was apparently replaced by Kallic very soon after TESB. --JMM 21:44, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

OmgEdit

someone added starwars fans who have no lives im deleting it

Admiral OkinsEdit

Shouldn't some mention of Admiral Okins be made in the commanders section? He appeared in Shadows of the Empire as the commander while Piett stayed with Death Squadron. Redjetta 04:14, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

LengthEdit

In the New Essential Guide to Vehicles and Vessels, the Executor and all of its class were really 12,800m long. the Eclipse is the longer one at 17,500m long. just thought that another source would help. if you think theyll use it put it on.

Did "Executor" escort Palpatine to Endor?Edit

Clearly, the shuttle carrying Vader to the Death Star at the beginning of ROTJ departs from an ISD, and not the "Executor". So, where was the "Executor"? And why was Vader not leaving from there? As far as I am aware, the last sighting we have of the ship before ROTJ is under the command of Vader over Coruscant in the Battle of Falleen's Fist. From there, Vader is sent to Endor to await the arrival of the Emperor. This is probably just wishful thinking on my part, but I feel like I've read somewhere that the "Executor" did in fact escort the Emperor to Endor. Probably just my own speculation. But I would love to insert this, is true, under the "Endor" section. Perhaps someone can confirm, or answer why Vader was not coming from the "Executor"? Toprawa and Ralltiir 02:19, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Executor's shieldsEdit

Toprawa, your revert is unwarranted- the SWCL is quite clear. I shall quote it. "At Endor, pounded mercilessly by the capital ships of the Rebel Alliance flotilla, the ship's shields fail. At that moment, the Rebels are able to strafe the command tower - and with the Executor's navigation suite in ruins and defensive guns losing coordination, a careening A-Wing destroys the bridge." The Executor's domes are also clearly labelled - they contain long range scanners and hyperwave transceiver coils - shield projector vanes are located on the outside. The description of the globes, therefore, is also accurate. In short, you have no basis for asserting it is "conflicted"(especially not by the old Behind the Magic CD, of all things) heck, one of the footnotes for the old version is simply stated as being the movie, as if the movie somehow conflicts with what the SWCL says at all. Vymer 09:38, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for the edit bonanza, everyone. I'm out of practice (I added footnotes wrong, which is *bad* - my efforts to add a reference for the Complete Locations for some reason cause the page to cut off) and the preview button failed me for some reason. If anyone knows how to add it without breaking the page, please do. Vymer 10:10, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

• Fixed the footnote. -- I need a name (Complain here) 10:34, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
• I'd like to take the time to inform any would-be "revertionists" that the film clearly shows one globe being destroyed, while the other remains intact. How can the shield be gone, if one of the so-called "shield generators" was still up? The sequence in the film only makes sense if these globes are primarily sensor globes, like the ILM artists said in that old interview. The deflector shield generator is something else entirely. VT-16 15:34, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

pre-YavinEdit

Why was the Star Dreadnought (pre-Yavin) redirected into this? -MPK 20:41, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

• Turns out it's canon now that the unfinished Executor was flying around for years before Yavin, so there goes my argument that the appearance in X-wing is of another ship. VT-16 20:56, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

This article is a load of crap.Edit

This article describes Executor as the biggest waste of space ever. It claims that the ship is 19 Kilometers long and carries 144 fighters and 40 AT-ATs. A standard ISD carries 72 fighters and 20 AT-ATs. So a ship that is something like 11.875 times another ship only carries twice as many vehicles, yeah right. Take the Eclipse for another instance. It is now apparently shorter than Executor yet carries over 500 more fighters and even has a superlaser. I don't care what Lucas Arts says, all information not only about it, but related ships is based on the 8000 meter length. Lucas Arts said it was 8000 meters in the past, I don't care if they want to be gay and change their minds now. Executor and other Super Star Destroyers are 8 Kilometers long. Thanks. —Unsigned comment by DarthWii (talk • contribs).

• Uh, no. It's canonically 19 kilometers. Grand Moff Tranner 20px ^(Comlink) 21:15, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
• The stats are ridiculous, but some books mention thousands of fighters in the Executor-class's hold. Other than that, I can only say, tough luck. Super Star Destroyers are more than one class and the Executors are still 19km long. VT-16 22:00, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, the Executor should be able to conquer and hold a planet all on its own (the only explanation that makes sense for a ship that size (I don't wanna hear about the intimidation factor), so it makes sense that they had thousands of ships and thousands of ground vehicles. That being said, what ever the sources say goes. If you think numbers are two small, you can tell yourself that those are the number of fighters that were preloaded for flight at any time, and they had a lot more in storage...but you cant write that here. IthinkIwannaLeia 22:07, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Mammoth Star DestroyerEdit

Hello everyone. I just finished playing The Force Unleashed on the Xbox 360 and came across something that is not at all mentioned on Wookieepedia, but I was unsure how to go about creating it. During loading screens, random facts relating to characters, locations, etc. in the game are displayed. One of them mentions that Vader's ship, which is the Executor, is also referred to as the 'Mammoth Star Destroyer'. You can check me on that, I'm not sure when it will come up, but I know it should be there somewhere. So, since this starship obviously has a starship class already, what would the 'Mammoth' classification fall under? Simply a Star Destroyer type? Should we redirect 'Mammoth Star Destroyer' to this article? Just wondering and I thought I'd bring it to all of your attention. --Victor^talk 20:50, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

• Anyone? –Victor^talk 20:58, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
  • That'd be pointless, IMO. "Mammoth" isn't a classification at all. It's just an adjective used to describe a humongo vessel. Toprawa and Ralltiir 21:39, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Alright. Just asking because in the game they actually capitalized 'Mammoth', calling it the Mammoth Star Destroyer. –Victor^talk 00:44, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

• Maybe, since Super Star Destroyer is a slang term for all dagger-shaped warships bigger than a Star Destroyer, then Mammoth is for the biggest of them in turn? Or just means the same thing. VT-16 02:10, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Talk messages merged from deleted "Star Dreadnought (pre-Yavin)" articleEdit

Could this class actually be the Super-class Star Destroyer? I'd hate for the Super-class to suddenly become an actual ship, but it seems very likely that this class and the Super-class are one in the same. —Grand Admiral J. Nebulax ^{(Imperial Holovision)} 20px 14:40, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

• The profile of the ship is too similar to the Executor to be a Super-class vessel, and the ISD in front of it, is too small relative to the craft for it to be the 8 km long vessel. There are however other images that correspond to more similar craft, like the image in Starships of the Galaxy and the one in the CompNor portion of Imperial Sourcebook. VT-16 17:12, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Could it just be possible that the X-wing game screwed up the date/didn't know that the Executor-class wasn't in production until after Yavin instead of creating a whole new class of warship for the same ship with very slight design differences that are likely the artist just not being 100% exact? ;x --Danik Kreldin 17:38, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
    • Of course, this is the most likely explanation, in the real world. As long as there's no indication given that this is the Executor (despite the obvious copying of a promotional image of it for the game), it's a free reign. Even better was the comparison I did, that actually showed a small discrepency with its engines compared to the original picture, to provide more meat for the article. Continuity is preserved. :) VT-16 18:14, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
    • EDIT: To see the original film where I found this, click here. It's a video compilation of all the cut-scenes in the old X-wing game. VT-16 18:20, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
      • Hmm. It looks like LucasArts realized their mistake, because the ship has been removed from that scene in the Windows 95 version (it's just a bunch of ISDs). Having said that, it does still appear in the cutscene where you get captured, though that scene is obviously non-canon. Green Tentacle ^(Talk) 20:34, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
        • Well, for that situation to take effect, there must be a ship of that type present, in-universe, for it to be shown in the event that you are captured. Even if that scenario never plays out, according to continuity. :) VT-16 21:26, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
          • If this can't be a Super-class Star Destroyer, then, perhaps this is an Executor-class prototype. —Grand Admiral J. Nebulax ^{(Imperial Holovision)} 20px 21:39, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
            • That same ship recently came under debated at the TF.N Lit board here. My guess is that it's the Executor herself, undergoing a pre-commissioning shakedown cruise to test her spaceframe or engines, and after this, she went back into drydock for completion. jSarek 22:09, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
              • Okay, I got screenshots of the two relevant cutscenes. As you can see, they removed it from the fleet going to Tatooine one at the top. The ship is still in the bottom one, where you get captured, but is identified as the Executor. I'd say the whole thing is just a mistake. Green Tentacle ^(Talk) 22:18, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
                • So this article should be merged with and redirected to the Executor article. —Grand Admiral J. Nebulax ^{(Imperial Holovision)} 20px 00:05, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
                  • No. The ship is not identified as the Executor in the first version of the game and does not share its design. That is the point, the ship appearing in that version is literally a different ship. The Executor you showed in the frames doesn't even have the same dark coating on its hull. Also that ship actually looked like the Executor design and does not have any forward-facing bridge structure nor recessed engine banks like this one. But that's good though, as it reinforces the difference of the two. :) VT-16 06:32, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
                    • Since it's outright identified as Executor in the same scenes from a later version of the game, I think it's safer to call it "artistic license" and/or "limitations of the medium" than it is to call it "proof it's a different class." jSarek 07:07, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
                      • No. The ship is not the one present in the fleet heading to Tatooine (which could very well be off-screen in the second version of the game). Don't use a different scene and context and apply it to another. If it's not identified in the first version, and doesn't have exactly the same design, and the Executor in the second version only appears in another location and context, equating the two is not the correct way to handle this. If anything, only the later version has any bearing on an early appearance of the Executor and its article. VT-16 08:33, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
                        • The reason the ship doesn't look the same is just that they did the graphics up for the Windows 95 version. Here is a screenshot taken from the original DOS version, clearly showing the same ship as in the article, and clearly identifying it as the Executor. In the later version of the game, this scene was improved to make it look better, but it was removed from the other scene entirely, presumably because it was not supposed to be there. All this points to is an unexpectedly early appearance of the Executor. Green Tentacle ^(Talk) 20:11, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
                          • Aye! --Danik Kreldin 22:08, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
                          • Oh great, the Youtube uploader forgot that scene, then. I guess it's no use claiming that the Executor might be off-screen in that version with this being a similar vessel? The engines might not all be in place, but that thing with the bridge tower still stands out as a no-no as far as the Executor is concerned. You can't explain that away by using "it was unfinished" or an OOU explanation about graphics. In fact, a similar scene in the old ESB arcade game mentions the Executor but shows a completely different type of ship. VT-16 07:08, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
                            • I really don't think we should be creating our own canon based on very old video games with very dated graphics at a time when the video game creators were not taking great efforts to ensure every pixel aligned the way it should to create an exact replica of the Executor on very basic graphics. If someone even says that ship seen at the beginning of the 1980s ESB arcade game is a ship unto its own, I'm going to punch them - it isn't. It's a very old game. And yes, you can explain it away by saying it was unfinished, poor graphics, redone, or whatever. Not to mention, the game was updated and re-released for the Windows 95, as Tentacle said, with the SSD removed from that scene - it was retconned away. Just because the old version version had it does not make it canon - the old version of ANH has Han shooting first, but with its update in the Special Edition and beyond, it is not the case. Furthermore, to suggest it may be "off-screen" is your own opinion - you're trying to create your own version of canon to justify this obvious mistake that the development team even went to fix in their new version of the game. The ship is the Executor herself and should be merged with it. --Danik Kreldin 03:15, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
                              • Actually, that ship was based on an early concept art of the Executor and it has an article, too bad you can't punch anyone over the internet. ;P I would suggest keeping this article as well, since none of the more recent sources have contradicted the old comic strip story of the Executor being built after Yavin and not being completed until months later, and making this into an error seems unnecessary given the structural differences. Since the text doesn't point out any specific ship in the frame, regardless of OOU explanation, I'd say there is enough evidence to have this as a different vessel. VT-16 11:28, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
                                • The structural differences are clearly just because it's a bad drawing. It says it's the Executor so we have to merge it. Simple as that. Green Tentacle ^(Talk) 11:49, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
                                  • It doesn't say it's the Executor, it doesn't point to the ship in particular, that's where we have room to manouver. If the structures were similar, then you'd have a point, but since they are not, and since OOU explanations are not IU explanations, and the Executor is not built until after Yavin, according to canon, this is another ship altogether. We know the Republic fielded large command ships, we know the Empire had Star Dreadnoughts and other large warships, this would be one of those. VT-16 12:06, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
• Damn indenting. This one does say it's the Executor. Even if the one that appeared in the other scene is not the exact same ship, since its appearance is identical, it's the same class. Both are badly drawn Executor-class Star Dreadnaughts. In the Windows 95 version, the one that went to Tatooine has been retconned out of existence, the other was drawn again to look nicer. You can't argue this is a different class, and if you're saying it is another Executor-class, then that's the exact same problem as if it's the Executor itself. Green Tentacle ^(Talk) 12:17, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Thanks for not paying any attention to my last post and for showing me the same picture over again. Like I said: Unless it actually points to the ship in the picture, we cannot be 100% certain that that particular vessel is the Executor herself any more than showing a picture of Coruscant while talking about Palpatine means that he's temporarily turned into a giant planet. Since the established history of the Executor is still valid and it was nowhere near being finished at this point in time, unlike the ship seen here, this vessel cannot be the Executor, or Lusenkya for that matter. Taking a prisoner to the Executor can be valid enough, if it was used as a prison during its construction, similar to the Death Star in BFII. In that context, this vessel could be part of a security fleet surrounding the Fondor shipyards and be an earlier Star Dreadnought model. VT-16 10:51, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
    • I did pay attention to your last post. Clearly you didn't pay attention to mine. It might not be the Executor. That's a ridiculous assumption but we'll ignore that for now. It is, however, Executor-class. We have visual evidence that shows it to be Executor-class which you are choosing to ignore for some unknown reason. Furthermore, since the ship on its way to Tatooine was retconned out of existence, it may as well have never existed. We have two ships which may or may not be the same. One was Executor-class and heading to Tatooine, though now it's been removed from canon. The other was the Executor itself appearing in a non-canon scene. Both were flying around before the class existed. There is just no other way of looking at this. Green Tentacle ^(Talk) 13:18, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
      • What's he's trying to say is that the ship just never existed in canon, VT. The one scene where this ship was approaching Tatooine was retconned to remove this ship from existence, and the one scene that does show this vessel (with the subtitles stating it is the Executor - after all, it says approaching the Executor, referring to the Lambda-class shuttle that is on its way to deliver its occupants to the Executor, not just randomly saying Executor) is a non-canon scene. It doesn't exist in the Star Wars canon. It's like playing as the Empire in Empire at War and leading the Empire to victory - sure, it's in the game, with the files and what-not that display Imperial victory. But it's an alternate, non-canon scenario that doesn't happen. This ship is the Executor. Its canon-appearance approaching Tatooine was retconned so that it wasn't there after all to stay in line with canon, and it only makes a non-canonical appearance in an alternate ending where it is clearly identified as the Executor by the on-screen text and the game itself. The point you're trying to make is very moot and silly - I mean, the text says "APPROACHING THE EXECUTOR" and there's an Executor-like ship on the screen, with a Lambda'-class shuttle on fast track towards it preparing to land on it. So where can you get that idea from? --Danik Kreldin 16:24, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
• That's a ridiculous assumption but we'll ignore that for now.

Ridiculous only when using an out-of-universe explanation. Sadly, that does not cover in-universe reasons.

It is, however, Executor-class. We have visual evidence that shows it to be Executor-class which you are choosing to ignore for some unknown reason.

No, the ship in the original version is not an Executor-class vessel for the reasons stated in the article.

Furthermore, since the ship on its way to Tatooine was retconned out of existence, it may as well have never existed.

Since space is a large place and there is an entire fleet headed to Tatooine, there is no reason to assume we're seeing anything except different parts of the same fleet in the different versions.

The other was the Executor itself appearing in a non-canon scene.

That is true for the 95 version, but it is the only point I agree on.

Both were flying around before the class existed. There is just no other way of looking at this.

Since the other vessel is not an Executor-class vessel as I've already stated, the only real continuity error is in regards to the written text and the depiction in the 95 version of the game. VT-16 10:07, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

• This is starting to feel like talking to a brick wall, but here we go again:
  • Ridiculous only when using an out-of-universe explanation. Sadly, that does not cover in-universe reasons.

    I'll concede the point that there is nothing to explicitly state that the one going to Tatooine was the Executor. Hence the, "we'll ignore that for now" part.

  • No, the ship in the original version is not an Executor-class vessel for the reasons stated in the article.

    You could not be more wrong. It is identical in every way to a ship which is not only identified as Executor-class, but as the Executor itself. Therefore, this ship is just an off-model Executor-class.

  • Since space is a large place and there is an entire fleet headed to Tatooine, there is no reason to assume we're seeing anything except different parts of the same fleet in the different versions.

    By that logic, Jar Jar Binks was in the Emperor's throne room on the Death Star II, he was just off-screen. And since when are we allowed to just ignore retcons? If we can, then Han shot first.

  • That is true for the 95 version, but it is the only point I agree on.

    Actually, the Keyan gets captured scene was equally non-canon in both versions of the game, since he never got captured.

  • Since the other vessel is not an Executor-class vessel as I've already stated, the only real continuity error is in regards to the written text and the depiction in the 95 version of the game.

    Nope. Text beats pictures every time. We have to follow the facts. I'm stating facts. You're spouting original research, verging on fanon. It's that simple. Green Tentacle ^(Talk) 13:01, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

    • Verging on fanon? It IS fanon. That he's continuing to argue this nonsense with such clear proof to the contrary is ridiculous - doubly so when he regularly attacks other users for alleged fanon and claims "BS is not tolerated by yours truly" on his userpage. jSarek 13:12, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
      • So, should the article just be deleted? —Grand Admiral J. Nebulax ^{(Imperial Holovision)} 20px 20:47, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
        • Someone more familiar with the trash compactor policies/setup than me slap up a vfd and let it go through the usual process, with info pointing to this talk page for evidence as to why it should be deleted. --Danik Kreldin 21:46, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
          • To add another tidbit to the issue... http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/File:FOCexecutor.jpg. That is an image of the Executor as seen in Forces of Corruption. Now we know it is the Executor. It's very much featured in the game. However, it is designed differently than the Executor as seen in the movies. Compare it to any image of the Executor in ESB or RotJ. Looks different... so are we to say that it's a completely different ship and defy canon, all because of a difference in appearance in a video game? It's the same issue here that you are so defending, VT. It may have a slightly different appearance, but the game describes it as the Executor nonetheless. --Danik Kreldin 01:08, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
            • So, will someone be setting up the trash compactor for this article? —Grand Admiral J. Nebulax ^{(Imperial Holovision)} 20px 13:54, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Summing upEdit

Alright, let me again clarify this issue, since all of you are so presistent in straw-manning it:

• The Executor's very inclusion in either version is a continuity error, one that is not supported by newer canonical sources. On top of that, the scene in which appears in either game is a non-canon situation (the arrest).
• The ship which appears in a storyline setting is not identified as the Executor and, despite being based on a real promotional picture of the Executor in real life, has some design details that are shared with the non-canon Executor and are different from the canonical Executor-class.

Saying that something does not exist in canon anymore, because it does not feature in a remake, is not treated as valid when it comes to SW sourcebooks. There are plenty of examples where trivia is used in an older source and not included in a recent version of said source, yet it is never said nor assumed that it is no longer part of SW canon. See where I'm going with this? We know there are plenty of Star Dreadnoughts, Star Cruisers and other Super Star Destroyers in SW canon. Pointing out this vessel as a pre-Executor Star Dreadnought (or SSD, which I can revert it to, despite the name not being used until the Executor) does not contradict anything any more than a fact from older WEG sourcebooks that is no longer included with newer sources is used in articles on this site. And this article has the benefit of recent sources affirming its existence does not contradict anything.

• Verging on fanon? It IS fanon.

I'm not aware that I was once a member of LucasArts. :)

• However, it is designed differently than the Executor as seen in the movies.

Yes, but it is identified as the Executor when clicked on, so there's no similar excuse. Same with the horrible rendering of the Executor in the SW:Rebellion comic, it is where Sunber is brought, despite the art being "off".

• By that logic, Jar Jar Binks was in the Emperor's throne room on the Death Star II, he was just off-screen.

He appeared in the original version of the film? That's going to be tough to explain! ;P I know you will insist on continuing the process, regardless of its validity, but consider what I have just said and why your logic is not consistent in this case. You are the ones that have to facilitate the proof that not only is it the Executor herself, but that the Enroute to Tatooine scene is also a non-canonical scene, without using Out-Of-Universe arguments like "The drawing was sloppy" and "It's not in the new version!" and without referring to what you yourself said was a non-canonical scene featuring the Executor, both in the game and outside the game. I hope you won't continue to use OOU explanations and justifications, but I will laugh if the very first post after this does exactly that. ;) VT-16 09:54, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

proton torpedo?Edit

It is written, two A-Wings destroyed a Shield-Dome, using a salvo of proton torpedos. This cannot be right. An A-Wings carries only rockets, no torpedos. Am I right? 137.193.113.42 18:29, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

• No. You're not. We use a system of referencing for a reason. Toprawa and Ralltiir 21:16, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

LengthEdit

In several sources including the CCG game cards and the essential guide's the Executor and her sister ships were suppose to be 12,800 meters long. I'm not going to change whats up here but someone should —Unsigned comment by 157.130.117.142 (talk • contribs).

• That's a shame, since it would involve you reading the article, particularly the section in the BTS dealing with this issue. -- I need a name (Complain here) 22:46, 11 July 2009 (UTC)