A couple of questionsEdit

A couple of things in the latest edit that I'd like more explanation of:

1. "asymmetrical openings"? Is that not putting a lot of weight on some sketched details? The "openings" could simply be flatter bits of hull texture, and this assumption alone seems to be the basis of the claim that this section is "most likely used for launch bays". With this in mind, should we not rename this without the "carrier" designation, and move it to the Catalogue of unnamed vehicles?
2. "the Corellian docking ring standard"? Where are the docking-rings? Do you mean the circular section at the back of the superstructure: what evidence is there that this is a docking ring? I'd suggest re-removing the speculation on a Corellian origin for the design, too, as it seems to be based purely on that assumption.

Thanks! --McEwok 14:14, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

• You do have a point. Renaming this (but not moving it to the "Catalogue of unnamed vehicles") and removing the bit on the Corellian docking rings would probably be a good idea. McEwok, what do you suggest renaming this? —Grand Admiral J. Nebulax ^{(Imperial Holovision)} 16:09, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
• No, it stays. Those openings are not fit for missiles (since they're not round nor square) and the only alternative is that they open up for hangars. But carrier could mean that it carries just about anything. And the docking rings correspond to the area of the Teezl cage on the other ship. Since they like all large ships have to dock somewhere to embark/disembark material, that would be the location. And it has a similar docking ring to the Core Ships, which are noted as following the Corellian docking ring standard. The picture in the AOTC:ICS book is damn near identical. Whether these ships are Corellian in origin or not. VT-16 18:32, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Dammit, VT, you made me switch sides! ;) —Grand Admiral J. Nebulax ^{(Imperial Holovision)} 19:04, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
    • The point isn't so much winning debates as it is keeping the encyclopedia correct. Maybe a move to "Large Imperial transport" would be better, since we don't know if it's a fighter carrier, an assault ship or a transport that dislodges smaller transports in turn. VT-16 19:31, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

• VT, you've not really answered my questions: does the surface texture between the mandibles represents "openings" at all; and even if the circular "cage" suggests a docking point, why does that mean that this ship follows "the Corellian docking ring standard"? Even if it did, that wouldn't imply a Corellian origin: if the Lucrehulk uses "Corellian" standard, surely anyone can?
• Also, on the new page name, why call this ship "large" (we have no secure scale), or a "transport", a term which suggests a non-combat ship? Imperial capital ship seems free, though, or perhaps Imperial ship (Giel's armada)... assuming that "armada" is a canon name for this fleet! --McEwok 20:15, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

• I put the speculation in the bts section, given that most vessels with a hammerhead feature come from Corellia, it's a reasonable question. And since I put the blurb about the core ships in the main article, that pretty much opens it up for whichever company LFL wants to write into it. Given its design similarity to Giel's ship, I don't see why we assume it is much smaller. Even if one tenth its size, it would still be a large ship. As for the openings, they are drawn as openings, with lines moving inwards and shadows indicating parts obscured by ceiling. Since "transport" is just conjecture, it's more neutral for now, since we can't say whether the ship is armed or not, even the Executor is technically a transport with all that war material it carries. VT-16 06:39, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

• Define "a hammerhead feature"? I'll admit that I can't think immediately of any ships with prominent circular docking features that aren't Corellian, but on the other hand, I can't think of any that are anything like the size of the one on Giel's ship, except the main arms on the Lucrehulk, and those aren't really "docking rings" in the same sense as Corellian-style airlocks.
• So, I ask again: how we can know what "the Corellian docking ring standard" is, and whether it applies here? That term sounds to me like it indicates specific sizes of docking-ring, not simply big circular ones. Is there some indicator that the term has to refer to the main arms aboard the Lucrehulk, rather than just airlocks? But even if it does, how does that apply here?
• Which specific bits of the drawing do you see as indicating deep recesses? I can see some details that might be recesses (depth unknown): but even that's reading a lot into Tom Palmer's inks for this picture.
• On the name, "[e]ven if it's one tenth its size" is pure speculation: it could be any size, and I'm not sure how reliable any scaling for Giel's ship can be, either. So. I still don't see any purpose in usuing the term "large": it's completely unnecessary. Also, something like "ship" would be more neutral than "transport": while the Executor may have a large cargo capacity, there's no guarantee that this ship does: "some big ships have a large cargo capacity" isn't the same as "all big ships can be vaguely called transports". --McEwok 11:10, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

• Trying to find an English language version of AOTC:ICS, but so far I can translate directly: "Space-docking ring follows Corellian standards for airlocks". The ring is much larger than the one found on CR70 and CR90 Corellian Corvettes and their YT-1300 freighters, and is found on the command tower of the core ship. Although I would like it to lead to Giel's vessel being CEC in origin, at least this passage shows the Corellian standard being used on different spaceships from various shipyards. Probably because Corellia is such an ancient and influential spacefaring world. As far as its use on Giel's ship, there is no other airlock seen on that part of the ship and the Teezl cage covers a large portion of this area. I also notice upon reading SW #61 again, that the internal area where the cage is stored has about one half of this air lock covering one wall. And as far as size is concerned, given that this design is virtually the same as Giel's ship, barring the area for docking bays (where I see the walls going inward in opening number two, and a darkened area in opening number three, number one and four could easily be covered by a blast door, available on most warships seen in the movies, even), I see no reason to speculate it being anything other than a sister ship that was converted to a transport or carrier. Since there's enough vague "Imperial transports" out there, I guess we can change it into something else. VT-16 17:46, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

• You've still not answered the question: just because the TFBB's airlock ring uses a Corellian standard, how does that mean that this ship necessarily does? I'd rather like these ships to be Corellian, too, but that's fan speculation right now, and I'd equally happy for them to be Rendili or Hoersch-Kessel. Similarly, unless there's more detail on another image, the lines and shading on those "openings" could just be surface detail, and possible blast-doors are complete speculation to fit the visual to the theory. In "Behind the scenes", though, I think we should mention that SWTC identifies this ship as a carrier, and that that has popularized the concept. As to the name, what do you suggest? I'd have called it Imperial captial ship (Giel's armada), although I'd wat to know for sure that the fleet in Marvel #61 is actually called an "armada" in canon. --McEwok 11:11, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

• "Surface detail" does not explain the fact that at least one of these artifacts open up into the ship itself. The armada is called that in the Marvel story itself, in fact, it's in the panel seen in the bts section on Giel's ship. The docking ring as drawn in AOTC:ICS is similar to the ones seen on Giel's ship. It is more similar than the ones seen on actual CEC ships, like the CR-series corvettes and the YT-series freighters, which are also a lot smaller, so size doesn't factor into it. And a large opening is needed to retrieve the large creature contained within Giel's ship. VT-16 12:21, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

• How does anything "opens up into the ship"? I don't think the image is detailed enough to make out for sure. What am I missing? And "similar" doesn't, I think, come close enough to certainty to allow a canon statement on "Corelian" docking rings: if Dr. Saxton has said somewhere that this was his intention, though, it definately deserves a "Behind the scenes", though. And thanks for the line on the armada. New name is good for me. --McEwok 00:51, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

• This is where your logic shoots itself in the foot. Why go through all the trouble making a ship with a big hole in the infrastructure which doesn't lead to anything but a solid wall covered with asymmetrical markings? They might as well have drawn it exactly the same as Giel's ship or an ISD if there wasn't any purpose to this area of the ship. Whether torpedo tubes or hangar openings, they're still openings. And an asymmetrical opening is useless for ordinance, since ordinance is circular in cross-section, whether launched from a rl weapon or a SW one. Even if there's only a wall corner seen going inwards on the drawing, that is still a wall corner going inwards on the ship itself. If it leads nowhere, then it serves no purpose and warships, especially Imperial ones, are not built to be non-practical. What would the "Corellian docking ring standard" mean, then? It doesn't mean size, since it comes in different sizes. And other ships are seen with different types of docking rings that look nothing like these ones, the Munificent-class has several on its sides that bulge outward, like a sphere and are not noted as following Corellian standard. Whereas the core ship, CR-series corvettes, YT-series freighters and Giel's ship all have the same kind of flat docking ring design. If a standard has nothing to do with as size, the only alternative is in its design. VT-16 08:26, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

• You're still not answering the question. 1.) what's your basis for even saying there's one "wall corner"? I don't see any details that are unambiguous enough. 2.) I'd have thought the "standard" would be a series of specific docking-fixtures that were compatible with each other. I'm not excluding the speculative possibility that this section may reflect that "standard" (although I doubt there are many ships with airlocks compatible with the circular section on this ship and Giel's flagship). I'm just asking what proof you have? It looks to me like that is speculation: not canon. --McEwok 10:26, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

• Then you need a pair of goddamn glasses. And I already provided the quote from AOTC:ICS and the fact that the cage as portrayed in Marvel SW 61 is too big to match a smaller exit. I assume you have neither AOTC:ICS nor SW issue 61. VT-16 10:59, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

• What specifically ought I to be seeing? What's different in the comic version from the image here? There's another version here at a bigger scale, and I see nothing that's unambiguously a deep recess. Please, point out to me what you're looking at, and explain why it you think your interpretation takes priority?
• The possibility of a big hatch at the rear is irrelevant: you've not produced any evidence that this is a "docking ring", as opposed to simply a hangar bay; and you've also not shown any reason to assume that it reflects a "Corellian" standard.
• As you seem to have no evidence to support either proposition, I'm editing the page. --McEwok 15:12, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

• Since you seem so content on remaining a liar and a poor one at that given the evidence being available for all other readers, this discussion is over, as far as I'm concerned. VT-16 10:13, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

• That is over the top VT-16. There was no need to call McEwok a liar. In fact, I am in the same position as him in that I cannot see this hole that you keep referring to. Do you have access to another picture of this ship? I suggest you upload another copy of this pic circling the region you mean, so that we are all on the same page. --Eyrezer 01:30, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

• photo bucket dot com )/albums/a242/CptK/openings.png The second hole from the left has a line seperating a floor section from a wall section, and hole no. 3 and 4 have shadows cast over the inwards portion of their floors. The bigger area to the left appears to have an opening as well. VT-16 15:24, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Broadcast Antennae?Edit

Not trying to re-open a can of worms, but I always thought those circular designs on the bridge of the ship were 'broadcast antennae' for the teezil's jamming signal.Tocneppil 20:43, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

• That's possible. I finally got hold of an English-language version of AOTC:ICS, and it says those kinds of rings are "Docking ring for Corellian-standard boarding tubes and airlocks", but this broadcast antennae for warships would work out as well. The only thing, at least for Giel's ship, is that the inside of that ring is seen to be the cage for the Teezl, and it doesn't appear to have any instruments or cables attached to the opening to provide a path to the antennae. :/ VT-16 18:38, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Well there are several 'energy tendrils' extending from the base of the teezil to various part of the room, which could be some kind of link-up, but there is also the base that the teezil is 'plugged' into, which could've been a socket of some sort.Tocneppil 05:03, 26 November 2007 (UTC)