Talk:DS-1 Orbital Battle Station/Archive1

 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.

Size on Official Site
Just a thought. The official site puts the first Death Star's diameter at 120km, and the second Death Star's diameter at 160km: --Beeurd 20:52, 10 May 2005 (UTC)
 * This is one of those scaling things that cause so much conflict between various groups of fans (try walking into a SW message board of some sort and ask the length of the Executor sometime ;-) ). I say cite both numbers and their sources/rationale and leave it to the reader to make up their mind. JSarek 22:15, 10 May 2005 (UTC)
 * I was thinking we should mention at the bottom of the article about the confusion. It seems silly to put a figure different to every official source without explaining why. But that's just me. And yeah, I do know about the Executor's length (I support the 17.5km length) but somehow I hadn't realised the discrepancy with the size of the Death Stars. --22:52, 10 May 2005 (UTC)
 * JSarek, the canonical diameters of the Death Star and Death Star II are 160 km and >800 km, respectively. This is proven by the films, which are the highest canon. The Death Star I's diameter was also stated to be 160 km in the original Incredible Cross Sections book, which has been said to represent the best research of the films. The issue concerning the size of the Death Stars is not open to debate to anyone who knows these things. The EU diameters of 120 km and 160 km must be pointed out to be incorrect, and probably in a separate "Behind the Scenes" section of the article.
 * The Inside the Worlds of the Original Trilogy factbook which came out last Autumn, uses the filmatic evidence and says 900 km for the DS II. So that´s it, really. But I agree on having the '160 km' reference in a separate "behind the scenes" note. VT-16 17:11, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Guys, I really think we need more pictures of the inside of the Death Star. It seems to be all pictures of the outside from far away.
 * If any good pictures could be found, we may use them. &mdash;Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) 20px 00:15, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Imperials Aboard
Besides Motti, Tagge, Yularen, Bast, Tarkin and Vader, who were the other imperials at the Death Star conference table?
 * They probably don't have names, or their names are on a Wizards of the Coast trading card. Cmdr. J. Nebulax 12:43, 13 Nov 2005 (UTC)
 * One of the officers seemed bald and slightly old. He partially resembles the description of the mysterious Romodi.Qui-Renx Jinn 10:37, 08 Dec 2005
 * And what does that have to do with anything? Admiral J. Nebulax 20:49, 8 Dec 2005 (UTC)
 * Wasn't General Cass also present? Or am I mistaken?--jerry 02:10, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Prototype
It was confirmed in Kevin J. Anderson's books that this was the prototype. And besides, I'm sure Lucas would accept that, seeing as he himself was trying to come up for an excuse in the commentary for why it would have taken 20 years. Adamwankenobi 13:02, 13 Nov 2005 (UTC) I've reworded it to reflect the different sources on the subject. Let's leave it at that. It's a compromise. Adamwankenobi 13:18, 13 Nov 2005 (UTC) You know, actually, Lucas' comments could very well combine with those ideas in Kevin Anderson's books for a satisfying explanation. Anderson's books could explain the whole prototype issue, while Lucas' could be taken as referring to the death star, after the prototype, and once the actual Death Star is actually beginning to be built. Adamwankenobi 15:07, 13 Nov 2005 (UTC)
 * Well, it was confirmed that it was the first Death Star in Episode III on the DVD. So, you're wrong. Official sources come before other books. Cmdr. J. Nebulax 13:05, 13 Nov 2005 (UTC)
 * He said that as an offhand comment. Anderson's idea makes MUCH more sense than Lucas' excuse. He would gladly accept it, I'm sure, if only he knew about it. One of the main reasons he through it in in the first place was to attemot to please all the fanboys. The explanation given by Anderson would be much more logical. Adamwankenobi 13:08, 13 Nov 2005 (UTC)
 * I don't care what Anderson said. He did not make Star Wars, he only wrote books. I have respect for Anderson because he has written many good books, but if George Lucas, the creator of Star Wars, says that it was the Death Star I, then it is the Death Star I. Cmdr. J. Nebulax 13:10, 13 Nov 2005 (UTC)
 * He doesn't know about Anderson's books, apparently. What Lucas said completely doesn't make sense. Just accept it. Lucas' opinion is not written down. Anderson's is. Adamwankenobi 13:12, 13 Nov 2005 (UTC)
 * Deal. Cmdr. J. Nebulax 13:19, 13 Nov 2005 (UTC)
 * Good. Adamwankenobi 13:20, 13 Nov 2005 (UTC)
 * Good peaceful solution after all :-) I think it's actually the best thing to either reflect both sources, or to mention in the 'Behind the Scenes' section that there are conflicting sources. I think that Lucas' statement on the ROTS-commentary does open up for some kind of retcon maneuver, KEJ 13:24, 13 Nov 2005 (UTC)
 * I'll get it into the "Behind the Scenes" section now. Cmdr. J. Nebulax 13:25, 13 Nov 2005 (UTC)
 * Well, in The New Essential Chronology, it says that the original design done by the Geonosians had a few design flaws, which is why they built the prototype Death Star in the first place. But this was not in 19 BBY. Therefore, the Death Star seen in Episode III is the first Death Star, considering the prototype Death Star wasn't built until a few years later. There. If you have the book, Adamwankenobi, you can see for yourself that what I'm saying is true. Therefore, that last part of the "Behind the Scenes" section could be removed, as well as the little sentence in the "Appearances" section. That solves the dispute. Cmdr. J. Nebulax 16:11, 13 Nov 2005 (UTC)
 * The upcoming book on the destruction of the Death Star may keep in line with Anderson's books, however, so we should keep the disputes section. Adamwankenobi 16:26, 13 Nov 2005 (UTC)
 * Well, it may also stay with what it says in The New Essential Chronology. Cmdr. J. Nebulax 17:36, 13 Nov 2005 (UTC)
 * I know. :( Adamwankenobi 18:18, 13 Nov 2005 (UTC)
 * Hey, we only want to get the facts here, no matter what the good source is. Cmdr. J. Nebulax 19:58, 13 Nov 2005 (UTC)

Hammertong?
Why does this page redirect from "Hammertong"? Anyone know what that is, if anything actually Star Wars related?--Knightfall 23:40, 30 Nov 2005 (UTC)
 * I believe Hammertong was not the death star per se, it was the main weapon of the Death Star. Geekmasterflash 23:49, 30 Nov 2005 (UTC)
 * Here we go: "501st were there to collect an experimental Mygeetan power source needed to power a top-secret tributary laser-stream project known only as "Hammertong." Geekmasterflash 23:53, 30 Nov 2005 (UTC)
 * Yet it does not say that it was for the Death Star's superlaser. Admiral J. Nebulax 23:55, 30 Nov 2005 (UTC)
 * Correct, however there is a book entiled Hammertong, and this could enlighten us if anyone has it. Geekmasterflash 23:57, 30 Nov 2005 (UTC)
 * http://www.theforce.net/swenc/entrydesc.asp?search=10891 CooperTFN 00:00, 1 Dec 2005 (UTC)
 * Thanks, but I would say Hammertong either should get its own entry or a section on this entry after reading that. Geekmasterflash 00:02, 1 Dec 2005 (UTC)
 * Well then, somebody remove the redirect, if possible.--Knightfall 00:04, 1 Dec 2005 (UTC)
 * Well, the information on that link is very poorly written, and, if anything, "Hammertong" should get its own page. Admiral J. Nebulax 00:08, 1 Dec 2005 (UTC)
 * I agree. I linked to that because they didn't seem to know what the name meant. Don't know what the quality of the writing has to do with anything either way. CooperTFN 00:19, 1 Dec 2005 (UTC)
 * Well, for a source, quality of writing is very important. Admiral J. Nebulax 00:21, 1 Dec 2005 (UTC)
 * Quality of writing matters for plagiarism. Accuracy matters for a source, and everything on that page is accurate. A Hammertong article would need to be rewritten and greatly expanded no matter what CUSWE had. CooperTFN 00:27, 1 Dec 2005 (UTC)
 * Quality, accuracy, and credibility of an article all count for being a good source. Admiral J. Nebulax 00:29, 1 Dec 2005 (UTC)
 * So go write a more eloquent version. CooperTFN 00:32, 1 Dec 2005 (UTC)
 * Oh, and credibility's still spelled wrong.=p CooperTFN 00:34, 1 Dec 2005 (UTC)
 * CooperTFN, shut up. Sources are supposed to be in good quality, no matter what. Admiral J. Nebulax 21:13, 1 Dec 2005 (UTC)
 * I do not believe quality is necessarily a prerequisite as a source; there are those who would use that prerequisite to argue that The Phantom Menace could therefore not be used as a source. Quality is a subjective, and therefore nonfactual.67.101.248.246 06:52, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Alternative lead quotation
I rather like, "Dangerous to your Starfleet, General Tagge; not to my battle station." --SparqMan 09:16, 8 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Emperor's Tower
The article says the first Death Star had a tower for Palpatine, similar to the one on Death Star 2. Is this accurate? Did the emperor have plans to go the Death Star?CptKenobi 03:12, 28 Dec 2005 (UTC)
 * As far as I know, there was no tower for the Emperor on the first Death Star. Admiral J. Nebulax 12:40, 28 Dec 2005 (UTC)
 * I *think*this is discussed in the Death Star Technical Companion, but I can't confirm it as I don't own that book. What I *can*confirm from that book (thanks to it being repeated in the second edition of A Guide to the Star Wars Universe) is that the first Death Star had a throne room dedicated solely to the Emperor's use, just like Death Star II and every Imperial-class Star Destroyer and Executor-class Star Dreadnought produced. jSarek 07:13, 29 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Wookies
Isn't the sentences about the wookies being enslaved to build the death star relevant?--Xilentshadow900 01:16, 29 Dec 2005 (UTC)
 * Is there a source for it? Admiral J. Nebulax 01:21, 29 Dec 2005 (UTC)
 * Dark Lord: The rise of Darth Vader --Xilentshadow900 01:22, 29 Dec 2005 (UTC)
 * I knew there was a battle; I just didn't know that's what it was for. Admiral J. Nebulax 01:23, 29 Dec 2005 (UTC)
 * Oh, did you read it?--Xilentshadow900 01:26, 29 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Alternate Name
Did the Death Star have a military designation like most ships and space stations? If it has shouldnt that be the name of the article with death star just redirecting to it? --Razzy1319 07:59, 29 Dec 2005 (UTC)
 * Are you kidding? That wouldn't make any sense, and "Death Star" is the most common name anyway. -- Riffsyphon1024 08:05, 29 Dec 2005 (UTC)
 * That was very stupid. The most common term, and the only one, is "Death Star". Admiral J. Nebulax 13:03, 29 Dec 2005 (UTC)
 * Vulture droids arent under the title Vulture droids, Star destroyer titles are under their class names, droids are under their series names. Encyclopedic names doesnt title their articles under the most common term, the articles are titled according to factual information. Anyways, was just asking if their was such a name. --Razzy1319 17:02, 29 Dec 2005 (UTC)
 * Well, there isn't. Admiral J. Nebulax 17:03, 29 Dec 2005 (UTC)
 * The Death Star was known as the "Expeditionary Battle Planetoid Development Initiative", until the Ministry of Propaganda coined the name "Death Star". Ajrand (Signal) 01:05, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
 * It's referred to as the "Deep-Space Mobile Imperial Battle Station" in A Death Star Is Born. --Andrew Nagy 06:01, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
 * That story isn't canon, though. Grand Moff Tranner 20px (Comlink) 11:19, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
 * In Star Wars Blueprints, they call it a Mk. I Deep Space Mobile something something. Someone should check it.

Genesis and stolen plans: a list?
Given the rather convoluted history of both the genesis of the Death Star project and the numerous stolen plans that seem to crop up in every EU source, should/could we have a more listlike section for of each of these for more clarity? Cutch 03:53, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I really don't think a list is needed. Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) 20px 11:13, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
 * So you're saying that you think the article is clear&mdash;even the section detailing the origins of the project? I certainly disagree. Cutch 12:55, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
 * With an expansion of the current info, it would become clear. A list is unneccessary when a well-written article can provide so much more information - Kwenn 12:58, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Okay, then: consider it a call for expansion, specifically focusing on its creation. Cutch 13:02, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
 * That's why I said "I really don't think a list is needed". It wouldn't look good. Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) 20px 21:43, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Number of plans
I'd like to clean up this part of the article, but have no idea where to begin, and am looking for help. Okay, so&hellip; how many plans were lost? First, Leia rescues a solider on Ralltiir who tells her about a new superweapon belonging to the Empire; then, according to Empire at War, Han Solo was hired to plant an EMP Grenade on a crate bound for one of Tarkin's research stations. Once detonated above Corulag, Raymus Antilles managed to acquire new intel regarding Tarkin's project, including its name.

In terms of stolen plans, I count : the set taken to Polis Massa, the set stolen in the Battle of Danuta by Kyle Katarn, and the vast majority of the set stolen in the Battle of Toprawa. Finally, there was the non-existant set on Kalakar VI. Simultaneously, the Rebel Alliance base on AX-235 learns of the Death Star. This base was attacked, while the main set from Toprawa, along with the other two sets, were beamed to Tantive IV by Bria Tharen via Operation Skyhook.

Is this right? If so, the section on it in the article is far from comprehensive. What I'm worried about is where all the EaW stuff fits in. Cutch 03:41, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I say we should disregard the EaW stuff. It has gone against canon already (for example: Wayland being discovered a lot earlier). Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) 20px 11:25, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I know you don't like games in the canon, Neb, but it has to be accepted. The NEC accepted the abduction of X-Wings from Fresia, after all. Cutch 16:39, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Yeah, but when it was mentioned in The New Essential Chronology, it definitely became canon. I have no problem with that. The fact is, gameplay has gone against canon in numerous games at numerous spots. Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) 20px 19:47, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, the Solo mission and Corulag raid don't really conflict&hellip; and, if I know Licensing, they'll do everything they can to reconcile EaW with the canon. That being said&hellip; anyone know of any addendums to the above? If not, I'll probably add this as an in-depth section in the History part. Cutch 21:10, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Let's just leave the EaW stuff out for the time being. Judging by the rest of canon, I don't think Solo had anything to do with the Alliance until he met Skywalker and Kenobi. Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) 20px 22:29, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Technically, he did have something to do with the Alliance before A New Hope: see Bria Tharen's raid on Ylesia. Cutch 22:34, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I forgot that. However, I still doubt the whole "Solo-planting-an-EMP-grenade-on-a-crate-headed-for-the-first-Death-Star" deal. Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) 20px 22:37, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Okay. The reason I'm so gung-ho about all this is that, while I'm sure it will clear up the complexities in the construction of the Death Star, I don't think the forthcoming novel will be as likely to address the missing plans. So, discounting the EaW stuff for now, does anyone else have any other info? Cutch 22:39, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I think that's about it. Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) 20px 22:40, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Why wouldn't the novel detail the plans? We don't know what timeline it will cover. Besides, I assume the Lucas marketing machine will churn out some kind of Insider tie-in article, which should hopefully clear things up - Kwenn 22:44, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
 * True. Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) 20px 23:48, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Another one might be the datacards Garm bel Iblis and Moranda Savich come across in Interlude at Darkknell, though I think those weren't plans so much as proof that a superweapon existed. &mdash;Silly Dan (talk) 23:51, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Do you know what exactly was on the datacards? Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) 20px 23:54, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
 * A Rebel agent named Aach says they are "inside information" about the location of "Tarkin's project", stolen by an Imperial defector. Ysanne Isard is told that they came from the Despayre system. They are heavily encrypted, so none of the characters find out precisely what's on them until the datacards are sent to the Alliance after the story is over. It appears that after getting the data, the Rebels learn for the first time exactly what Tarkin's project is supposed to do. &mdash;Silly Dan (talk) 00:09, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Oh. Thank you. Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) 20px 00:10, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Too&hellip;many&hellip;sets&hellip;of&hellip;plans&hellip;.Cutch 00:22, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree. Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) 20px 00:55, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Hoping to find some time to clean this up pretty soon&hellip; Cutch 04:06, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I could always do it for you, if you didn't have enough time. Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) 20px 11:14, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
 * All done!!! Whaddaya think??? Cutch 19:03, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
 * It looks good. Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) 20px 19:19, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I agree that it needs more info about the onboard battle prior to Yavin, but I didn't want to go into Summary Land. Cutch 19:26, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Another thing we could do is add the main articles (like Battle of Yavin and the battle onboard the Death Star once that information is added). Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) 20px 19:27, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I concur. Cutch 19:29, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Now, let's see if we can expand the article a little more. Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) 20px 19:29, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

New pics
Now that I've expanded so much of the article, methinks its time for more pics. Let the games begin!!! Cutch 00:01, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
 * How many more images are there of the Death Star I? Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) 20px 00:52, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Ordering
I suggest putting the specifications after the histroy section. Having those stats at the start doesn't seem as interesting as the actual story of it all. --Eyrezer 04:38, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I suppose most articles are like that, so we might as well. Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) 20px 11:23, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't mind&mdash;as long as Death Star II is arranged that way as well, for consistency's sake. Cutch 22:28, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Isn't it already like that? Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) 20px 23:22, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
 * No, specs come before History in both. Cutch 01:36, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Then it should be changed. Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) 20px 11:29, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Quote&hellip;
We should put: "The abilty to destroy a planet is insignificant, next to the power of The Force"."

- Darth Vader

It's an extremly good qoute that seems to have been forgotten. It should be used. I put it on earlier, but someone got rid of it. I'm sorry that I don't fully understand the rules of the Wiki, but I think that was a bad call in getting rid of the qoute. It fits the Death Star 1 & 2 perfectly!
 * It was removed because you blanked a large portion of the article along with adding the quote. Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) 20px 01:04, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
 * It is an extremely good quote, but do you really want the Death Star article to begin with a quote saying that the Death Star's power is insignificant? The current one fits better. -BaronGrackle 02:46, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
 * True, but may I suggest that we add it to the article anyhow? Just add a part saying that's what Vader said. In the middle area, I'd say? And the full quote is: "Do not be so proud of this technilogical terror you've constructed&hellip;" and you have the rest right.- Lord vader1414 05:31, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually, we really even shouldn't have it here. It's much better for The Force. I'm going to remove it and place it there. Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) 20px 14:12, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Good point. That is much better than here. -Lord vader1414 19:27, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Which is why I moved it. Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) 20px 19:29, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Effective construction time
The Star Wars Technical Journal provides a nice quote for the effective construction time used for the DS I:

"“&hellip;and the Emperor, pleased with the concept, ordered construction to begin. An unoccupied and isolated sector of space was chosen as the construction site. For nearly two years, every resource of the Empire was directed toward the completion of the project.”"

- p.100.

Since it really just mentions how the battlestation was completed, this could be added to the overall 19 years spent on the project without much difficulty. I've personally experienced design and construction work that's stalled and been delayed many times over, so this is actually realistic. Palps begins his pet project at the close of the CW, 17 years of bureaucratic and logistical stumbling go by. Finally, he funnels funds and resources from every available sector to get it finished. ;P VT-16 19:46, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
 * That fits. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) 20px 23:39, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Orbiting Yavin
When the Death Star was orbiting Yavin, why didn't it just destroy Yavin instead of wasting half an hour orbiting the planet and exposing itself to Rebel ships? Surely the moons would have been caught in the blast of a multi-gigaton explosion?--The All-knowing Sith&#39;ari 16:04, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah, and so would the Death Star. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) 20px 22:01, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Its got shields, hasn't it?--The All-knowing Sith&#39;ari 13:33, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Don't forget, the DS has to recharge between firings. The Alliance could easily have evacuated in the time it took for the superlaser to recharge after destroying Yavin, or would have had more time to launch their assault - \\Captain Kwenn// &mdash; Ahoy! 13:37, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
 * That wouldn't be my problem. My problem is: why does the countdown repeat like 5 times with 30 second segments. That's awful continuity for the first and great movie in the saga. -- Riffsyphon1024 13:40, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Also, from the Q&A section on SW.com: "The Death Star's superlaser is very powerful, but it's not all powerful. Relatively speaking, a terrestrial world of rock and metal like Alderaan is easier to blow up than an immense gas giant like Yavin. The Death Star simply couldn't blow up Yavin, and had to circle the gas giant in order to get to the much smaller moon Yavin 4" - \\Captain Kwenn// &mdash; Ahoy! 13:43, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
 * The Death Star would still do a fair bit of damage to Yavin if it blasted it.--The All-knowing Sith&#39;ari 13:45, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, but not enough to destroy it, and it's still gotta recharge after - \\Captain Kwenn// &mdash; Ahoy! 13:56, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
 * The radiation released would be enough to render Yavin 4 uninhabitable.--The All-knowing Sith&#39;ari 16:45, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Not necessarily. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) 20px 20:34, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I object! There is no proof!--The All-knowing Sith&#39;ari 12:53, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
 * What? There's no proof of your argument. It's canonically stated that destroying Yavin would not help the Empire, thus the DS has to go round the planet to reach Yavin IV - \\Captain Kwenn// &mdash; Ahoy! 14:34, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Besides, Earth gets bombarded by the Sun's radiation every day. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) 20px 15:28, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I'd like to see this canon of yours, Kwenn.--The All-knowing Sith&#39;ari 13:23, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
 * What, just because we're telling you destroying Yavin wouldn't do any good, you have to ask for sources? Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) 20px 14:35, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but when I think I'm right I go on a bit.--The All-knowing Sith&#39;ari 15:28, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, to be honest with you: You're not right this time. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) 20px 15:28, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
 * "I'd like to see this canon of yours, Kwenn". I've already cited my source: The Q&A section on StarWars.com. How about your canon source? - \\Captain Kwenn// &mdash; Ahoy! 15:31, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I doubt there is any. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) 20px 15:34, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that's kinda why I asked - \\Captain Kwenn// &mdash; Ahoy! 15:35, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, it's pretty much over now. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) 20px 15:38, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, it's logical to assume that the Death Star could destroy Yavin, but thats all it is, an assumption.--The All-knowing Sith&#39;ari 17:13, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
 * The Death Star couldn't destroy Yavin. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) 20px 17:40, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Alright! I accept that now!--The All-knowing Sith&#39;ari 17:52, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Just saying. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) 20px 17:54, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Right, now lets get on with our Star Wars-filled lives.--The All-knowing Sith&#39;ari 19:53, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I have to add something to this, SORRY!! for restarting disscussion but i just have to tell anyone. I don´t know if any of you plays EaW but when you use the DS in a space battle it takes abit of time (about 1 min) till you can fire the superlaser.The in-game explanation for this is that the DS has to circle the planet but why does it need to? In ANH circling Yavin is neccesary because the planet is between the DS and Yavin 4 but in EaW you mostly build your base on the planet itself not on the moon so the DS should be in range immediately. What do you think? Commander Rob 06:39, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Most likely answer is gameplay. On the other hand, the weapon probably needs to charge first. &mdash;Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) 20px 11:02, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I think you´re right :gameplay is the answer. The superlaser could be recharged before or during hyperspace flight.Or the game designers thought that the DS should always circle the planet before destroying it(hehe). Also I have something to say about "Why didn´t they blow up the planet Yavin?": the superlaser of the first DS took 24 hours to recharge so the Rebels would be able to flee. A friend of mine suggested flying or firing through Yavin but I think that´s impossible due to the presence of a molten core. Commander Rob 13:10 19 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, flying through Yavin would be impossible due to a core, yes, but I don't think that's the reason why it couldn't fire on Yavin. There's a different reason for that. &mdash;Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) 20px 15:15, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
 * i dont know if this would be canon, but one idea of why they didnt was thatishooting yavin would not destroy it like a solid planet, but make it explode violently enogh to also destroy the death star from nucelar fusion. plus theres the recharge thing, it would have taken sevral hours to recharge 69.115.204.217 13:12, September 12, 2010 (UTC)

Superlaser moved up further toward the station's north pole.
What's the source for this? Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) 20px 19:56, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
 * You mean that paragraph in the BtS section? Concept art from ANH, I believe - \\Captain Kwenn// &mdash; Ahoy! 20:03, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
 * No, the caption for the RotS Death Star I image. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) 20px 20:05, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Speculation based on the appearances of the proto-DS and the finished model, I assume. It does look like this dish is too close to the trench, and also appears much smaller than the finished dish - \\Captain Kwenn// &mdash; Ahoy! 21:31, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
 * It's definitely smaller, but I still think it's in the same position. Maybe the size caused this speculation about the superlaser being moved up. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) 20px 01:10, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
 * It's unbelievable but I think Nebulax is right here. The position of the superlaser seems to be the same. The diameter of the superlaser dish also seems to be smaller. On the one hand this could be simply an error in the movie, or on the other hand what we see on the picture is not the external structure of the superlaser dish but some kind of smaller internal support construction. But at all I don't think that the empire expanded the superlaser dish during construction, this would have been very expensive, because the superlasers seem to go back all way to the reactor core. They would have to change the complete internal structure of the DS depending on the state of progress of the project. But we should remove the line from the picture. Fleetadmiral Jack Ryan 17:12, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree. &mdash;Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) 20px 19:18, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
 * So you think we should delete this sentence under the picture, too? You want to do it? Fleetadmiral Jack Ryan 23:04, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Sure. &mdash;Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) 20px 23:09, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
 * The superlaser position doesn't correspond to the one seen in ANH, but I've found an alternate explanation, and that is it's being moved into place, rather than be installed already. It's such a large area, it would be hard to see if it's moving in those few seconds. VT-16 08:45, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Interesting point. But this would mean the superlaser dish was build as one piece and installed afterwards. Wouldn't this be rather complicated? I think it would be far easier and more stable to build it at the DS directly. If the DSI has a diameter of 160 km, the dish should have at least a diameter of 30 oder 40 km. Would be a very large object to move. This means it would be expansive. And where would they have build it? You can't really transport it. Fleetadmiral Jack Ryan 09:50, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * It's space, where moving things is easier anyway, and the Empire has incredible sources of energy for moving things. If they can push a 160km sphere through hyperspace, they can move a 30-40km dish into position from a construction site elsewhere at the same location. jSarek 09:58, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Exactly. And we also see other parts being pushed towards it in the scene. VT-16 10:22, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Problem is, it appears the surface of the Death Star around the superlaser (especially above) is complete. For each option, it would involve the removal of some of the Death Star's surface. Therefore, it's hard to say. &mdash;Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) 20px 11:05, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Then again, the Ultimate Weapon plans from Episode II shows the correct-sized superlaser dish in the correct location. Therefore, VT could be right. That would explain the need for a Death Star prototype as well&mdash;the superlaser dish was too small, so they needed to test the correct-sized one on a prototype. &mdash;Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) 20px 11:09, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Also, let's assume the Death Star started taking shape before Episode II, and the original plans called for a smaller superlaser dish. The Geonosians working on the plans could have decided to go with a larger dish. Palpatine gets the plans, but then the Clone Wars breaks out, and construction has to be halt indefinitely. Then, the Clone Wars ends and the Geonosians' plans are used in the construction. Therefore, the superlaser dish in Episode III could actually be in the process of being removed to make room for a larger one. Remember, this is all assumptions. &mdash;Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) 20px 11:12, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Planets of Construction
Do we know on which planets the workers/slaves constructed the pieces of Death Star I? Wookiee Jedi 06:45, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * It's in the article. &mdash;Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) 20px 14:42, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Where? I see the Geonosians had the plans, Mygeeto was used for laser plans, and Kashyyyk was raided, but I don't see it written anywhere that the actual construction took place on any given planet. Wookiee Jedi 01:13, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Despayre. &mdash;Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) 20px 01:30, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh, I see. So it doesn't actually say that it was built there, but if you click on that link it leads you over to what the Destruction of Despayre was, and what Despayre was. I see, I see. Wookiee Jedi 01:33, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that's my mistake for not realizing it wasn't in the article. However, it's in the Death Star II article. &mdash;Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) 20px 01:35, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Cool! I think it should be mentioned more clearly, personally. Wookiee Jedi 01:49, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Definitely. I'll take care of it. &mdash;Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) 20px 12:02, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Projectile artillery
In ANH, you can clearly hear over the intercom, a person saying "Stations 5, 7 and 9, release charges" and then *bang bang bang bang*. Is this a weapons test with projectiles being fired from the station? Is it even mentioned anywhere in books? VT-16 11:59, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Wait, during the Battle of Yavin? &mdash;Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) 20px 19:19, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
 * No, when Vader inspects the Falcon after it landed. Among the intercom messages is that order. Maybe the DS is shooting projectiles at incoming Alderaanian debris? VT-16 13:27, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Size: Behind the scenes section
The Behind the scenes section contains this passage: [S]tatements by Grant McCune, Chief Model Maker for the movie [1], show that the first Death Star was actually 160 kilometers in diameter. That is based on the Death Star model being three feet (91.4 centimeters) in diameter as Dr. Saxton suggests (the Bantha Tracks only mention the scale, not the size of the actual filming model). However, that is mistake. According to various behind the scenes sources (such as the Behind the Magic CD-ROM), the filming model was actually 120 centimeters in diameter making the Death Star 216 kilometers in diameter (at the scale being used, 1:180,000). I thought I'd clarify that. Northerner 18:09, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Diameter Problem
Although the second DS was completely spherical, this is not, ( measure the length and height from the movie if you want evidence) and is elliptical. Since the diameter( which is measured at the equator) is 160 km, then obviously the height is not. Please allow me to change the "height/depth" to "<160 km" rather than "160 km"
 * While you may be right, I have to disagree with your suggestion, since these are your own calculations. It seems that the first Death Star was intended to be completely spherical. Grand Moff Tranner 20px (Comlink) 00:30, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Star Wars Blueprints
Does this page note that there are 4 emergency tributary beam shafts? I don't remember seeing it, but I want to be sure. It says so in this source.--Governor Jerjerrod 21:21, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Force unleashed screenshots
I don't know why they didn't puit up superlaser generator pics from battlefront II, but put the pics from the force unleahsed game here.--Governor Jerjerrod 21:21, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Maw
Wasn't it constructed in the Maw installation before being moved to Despayre? The online game Death Star Designer says so, but there is no mention in the article. QuiGonJinn The ability to speak does not make you intelligent.20px 21:08, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Battlefront II and the Force Unleashed
Just a thought here, but could the Death Star mission in Battlefront II and the mission in TFU be the same mission? The escaped Padawan be Galen Marek on his way to the Emperor. The one major difference would be that Starkiller would have been killed by the 501'st instead of by the Emperor. All in all, a pretty crappy day for the Empire.

I don't think so. I own Battlefront 2 and have played TFU and I don't see how the missions could be the same. Obiwan3000 23:01, 28 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't think so either. In Battlefront 2, you play the 501st Legion when the Death Star was operational and its plans stolen. While in TFU you are on a still under construction Death Star. Its just too large a time difference between Battlefront II and TFU for it to be the same. Darth Batrus 23:26, 28 November 2008 (UTC)


 * It isn't Galen unless he was miraculously alive in 0 BBY Death Star prisoner NaruHina  Talk 14px 23:57, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

How Long?
How long did it take to build th DS1? Mecenarylord 16:30, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Seems like it took about 2 decades. Dangerdan97 16:57, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Carried craft
Acc to the DSTC: 7,200 TIE fighters 4 Strike-class 3600 assault shuttles 2840 Skiprays 1860 dropships 13000 "support craft" 1400 AT-ST 1400 AT-AT 178 mobile command bases 1420 repulsortanks 1420 repulsorcraft (the pic looks like Chariots) 355 floating fortresses 4843 JuggernautsJustinGann 07:34, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Discussion merged from Talk:Justice Star
The following discussion was merged from Talk:Justice Star. Justice Star was merged into this article on 22:16, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

The subject of the article should be the actual Justice Star, rather than a Justice-star themed summary of the ANH infinities comic.-- The Erl of the  talk What I do 20:18, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Ok, I rewrote the article and tried to show the actual role of the Justice Star, rather than summarizing the story. Sorry about that first one, I suppose I kind of lost focus. I am fairly new to this, so any help is greatly appreciated. Let me know if this one is any better, or if indeed it is needed at all. :) Chervil 20px 23:13, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
 * No prob, I really appreciate you coming in to do this. Sorry if I sounded a bit harsh. The Erl of the  talk What I do 22:55, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Not enough, if you ask me. Why, I think it should be merged with the regular Death Star article, under the non-canon banner, of course.  Totema  20px Comlink Frequency 22:59, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Hello? I'm trying to instigate a merge&hellip;  Totema  20px Comlink Frequency 22:59, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Number and size of levels/sublevels
Just a quick side note, the Star Wars Technical Journal states that first Death Star was broken up into 84 levels of 1,428m each and that each of these levels was composed of 357 sublevels of 4m each. The Journal, however, uses the 120km diameter. I am trying to decide if this information could be added in to some extent. However, I was wondering if anyone knows where the 257 stated in the article comes from, or if other sources hint at the size of the different levels.

Thanks Starknights88 16:41, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Rebellion Era Sourcebook
Is the second Death Star DS-2, or does it not mention it? — Milo Fett [Comlink] 04:56, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

"New" name
Cool, I never knew the death star had such a name. I see the name edit was quite recent. Just wondering, how/why did it take so long for this official name to pop up? I was gone for three months and I come back and the Death Star gets a name change! LOL. --Secretss 10:03, 26 July 2009 (UTC)


 * As intriguing as this new name is, the article should really be moved back. To casual users of this place like myself, being overtly technical with article titles over the common name can be confusing. Your own manual of style says to use the common name of a character or item. The station has been known as the Death Star for 32 years, whereas this new name isn't even a month old; its pretty clear people aren't going to search for "DS-1 Orbital Battle Station" over "Death Star" or "Death Star I". Keep the opening sentence the same as it is now, but move the article itself back. 90.202.37.128 00:01, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I would also prefer to have it back at "Death Star I" (Death Star alone is for the article dealing with the whole line of battlestations.) However, the policy you refer to is an incomplete, proposed policy, mostly ported from Wikipedia. One of the more formally ratified decisions linked to at the Manual of Style deals with the titles for character articles, and states that real names are preferred to nicknames. If we propagate that rule through to articles on space stations, we could only move this back if we don't consider "Death Star I" to be a nickname. (Actually, where is it specifically called "Death Star I"?) &mdash;Silly Dan (talk) 00:18, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, the Databank specifically refers to a "Death Star II", so logically the first one can be "Death Star I" Lalala la 07:24, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Origins of the Death Star via The Essential Atlas
Actually I'm working on article Death Star in my wiki and I discovered that in your article, section "Separatist beginnings" is full of errors. Article states that "the initial technical design of the Death Star was created by Geonosian Industries" and "these plans would later be fused with Wilhuff Tarkin and Raith Sienar's vision of an Expeditionary Battle Planetoid" and "in 21 BBY, early in the Clone Wars, Sidious ordered Geonosian builders to begin construction on the station - hundreds of thousands of workers were busy building the station throughout the war" - none of this is true. The Essential Atlas states: ''Tarkin presented Sienar's idea to Chancellor Palpatine, claiming it as his own and championing the weapon in his evolving Tarkin Doctrine (&hellip;). Designer Bevel Lemelisk pursued both issues with help from the Geonosians under the command of Poggle the Lesser. Lemelisk was alarmed when Geonosis seceded from the Republic, but the Chancellor seemed oddly unconcerned, assuring him the Separatists would never put the weapon into production and urging him to keep his work a secret. When Geonosis became a battlefront at the beginning of the Clone Wars, Count Dooku, took the plans to Darth Sidious, unwittingly bringing the schematics for the ultimate weapon full circle. Construction began on occupied Geonosis shortly before the end of the Clone Wars, and accelerated when Emperor Palpatine assigned Tarkin to the project.'' - page 169 and 170. Someone has to edit this article in order to fit informations with these from The Essential Atlas. I would like to do that, but I think my english is not good enought for that. But I hope I helped a little bit. Cheers Sky Ossus 05:58, December 15, 2009 (UTC)

Acquistion of Plans in Force Unleashed
I've thought about this a while and wanted to get some imput on it. When Galen Marek(aka Starkiller) infiltrates the Death Star, Juno Eclipes manages to get the blueprints which she uses to guide him through through the station. Now i know they're only partial schematics but why wouldn't she keep a copy of those plans and give it to the Alliance?

The wiki mentions that the Alliance acquired different versions of the plans so should this be added as one of them? Jedted 03:55, May 31, 2010 (UTC)

How fast is it?
How fast is the death star? Does it go into hyperspace? Signatures/Youdead00 16:56, April 20, 2011 (UTC)

Vote
 This section is an archive of a community discussion. This section is no longer live. Further comments should be made in a new discussion section rather than here so that this section is preserved as a historic record. The result of the debate was: '''No consensus to rename page. Plurality votes for current title. Defaults to no change'''. Closed due to dormancy greater than five days. -- Darth Culator  (Talk) 15:04, January 22, 2012 (UTC)

Vote to change the name of this article from DS-1 Orbital Battle Station to Death Star I. Voting will go till December 25th 2011 as long as it needs to under the consensus policy.

Yes, move to Death Star I

 * 1) Yes --R5-X41238-G8-R3-3124-D2 16:22, December 11, 2011 (UTC)
 * 2) The paragraph in the Rebellion Era Campaign Guide which uses the name "DS-1 Orbital Battle Station" is an example of the kind of knowledge an average citizen of the Empire might have. Since the same paragraph also says that Rebels were responsible for firing the weapon and destroying Alderaan and that this information is from the Imperial HoloNet, there's no reason to believe that the name "DS-1 Orbital Battle Station" is anything other than an attempt by the Empire to hide the true nature of the Death Star. --  I need a name  ( Complain here ) 17:09, December 11, 2011 (UTC)
 * 3) Per I need a name. As long as we don't know whether "DS-1&hellip;" is even an official in-universe name, we should prefer the established in-universe name. --Craven 14:06, December 23, 2011 (UTC)
 * Huh, have that book sitting on my shelf, read it numerous times. Always figured the name was from the Death Star novel. It's clearly obfuscatory propaganda, vs. actual DS staff calling the darn thing the DEATH STAR.  DD97 Which bear is best? 14:45, December 23, 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) * Move and say something like "codenamed DS-1 Orbital Battle Station." MasterFred 20px(Whatever) 14:47, December 23, 2011 (UTC)
 * 2) Per INAN and Dan. Master Jonathan War Room Friday, December 23, 2011, 19:59 UTC
 * 3) * By the mists, yes! I feel that in this instance, using the common in-universe name is just common sense. More people search for "Death Star I" than they do "DS-1 Orbital Battle Station." It took me a while to finally memorize that name. In this instance, using the more common in-universe moniker just simply makes more sense.  Trak Nar  Ramble on 20:07, December 23, 2011 (UTC)
 * 4) Per Trak. Green Tentacle (Talk) 22:31, December 23, 2011 (UTC)
 * 5) * A very weak vote pro "Death Star I".  Clone Commander Lee  Talk 22:34, December 23, 2011 (UTC)
 * 6) Evidence is shaky that this is an official name; it's explicitly what a random player character may think they know, though generally outright *misinformation*is not included in knowledge check results. On the other hand, evidence is rock-solid (and G-canon) that everyone - Imperial or Rebel, civilian or admiral - called this thing the Death Star in practice, as does every instance of in-universe documentation. jSarek 23:42, December 23, 2011 (UTC)
 * 7) * Although I prefer going with the more "official" title on most cases, what jSarek says pretty much makes sense. DS-1 Orbital Battle Station was never used in any of the movies. Plus, Death Star II is not entitled "DS-2 Orbital Battle Station." So, I suppose this is the better choice, although I still have a slightly shaky feeling about it.-- Cal Jedi 8px (Personal Comm Channel) 04:45, December 24, 2011 (UTC)
 * 8) Per pretty much everyone above me. -  JMAS  20px Hey, it's me! 04:50, December 24, 2011 (UTC)
 * 9) Down with propaganda! Menkooroo 05:30, December 24, 2011 (UTC)
 * 10) -- Doctor Kermit ( Complain. ) 05:48, December 24, 2011 (UTC)
 * 11) Per jS. grunny @ wookieepedia :&#126;$ 10:00, December 24, 2011 (UTC)
 * 12) Per jSarek, Menkooroo (lol), and the source itself. Bella&#39;Mia 04:50, December 28, 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) Per jSarek, Menkooroo (lol), and the source itself. Bella&#39;Mia 04:50, December 28, 2011 (UTC)

No, keep at DS-1 Orbital Battle Station

 * 1) This is the latest canonical name for the subject. TK  999  16:59, December 11, 2011 (UTC)
 * 2) This really isn't the place for this, but we should keep it as DS-1 since that's the most recent canonical name for the subject. Policy states this is what the article should be titled. <- Omicron (Leave a message at the BEEP! ) 13:45, December 23, 2011 (UTC)
 * 3) *I assume you'll be updating the article to include the canonical fact that it was the Rebel Alliance who fired the superlaser and destroyed Alderaan then? --  I need a name  ( Complain here ) 14:12, December 23, 2011 (UTC)
 * 4) Official Holonet news report>slang. Corellian Premier20pxAll along the watchtower 16:07, December 23, 2011 (UTC)
 * 5) What is the article going to say after the move? "The Death Star I, codenamed as the DS-1 Orbital Battle Station&hellip;"? "publicly known as the DS-1&hellip;"? It is not G-Canon that the general populace called it the Death Star: only that people that appeared in the movie called it the Death Star. Them being Imperials and Rebels privy to its true purpose, and fighting a war, they're hardly indicative of the galactic population. C-Canon sources only have laymen call it that after the Battle of Yavin, when that name would have had time to proliferate. If anything, people onboard calling it the "Death Star" is suggestive of that being a codename or even just a service nickname. NaruHina  Talk 14px 00:36, December 24, 2011 (UTC)
 * 6) Unless someone can come up with a damn good reason moving this back to "Death Star" would fail to violate the very first rule of the naming policy, this whole discussion is moot. INAN, we don't say that the Rebels blew up Alderaan because we are aware of the objective fact that they did not. Similarly, we are now aware that the Empire, who owned the bloody station, called it "DS-1 Orbital Battle Station" in public documents. They didn't even like to talk about the thing, but this is what they called it when they did. If we're not going to "be precise when possible" then we might as well move CR90 corvette back to "Corellian Corvette," Imperial-class Star Destroyer back to "Imperial Star Destroyer," and so on. The Empire built it, the Empire called it this. Any other name violates our own rules and precedents. -- Darth Culator  (Talk) 15:43, December 24, 2011 (UTC)
 * "Unless someone can come up with a damn good reason moving this back to "Death Star" would fail to violate the very first rule of the naming policy, this whole discussion is moot." How about the fact that by using your own logic of ignoring context and sources of information, the R5-D4 article should be called "Skippy"?
 * "INAN, we don't say that the Rebels blew up Alderaan because we are aware of the objective fact that they did not." Indeed. Since the Imperial HoloNet is clearly and demonstrably lying, why should we believe anything else it says?
 * "Similarly, we are now aware that the Empire, who owned the bloody station, called it "DS-1 Orbital Battle Station" in public documents." The North Korean government, who run the bloody country, say Kim Jong-Il was a demigod. They wouldn't lie about this kind of thing, would they?
 * "They didn't even like to talk about the thing, but this is what they called it when they did." They didn't like talking about how they blew up Alderaan either, but they took full responsibility and- oh, wait, they didn't, they lied through their teeth about it and blamed someone else instead. My mistake.
 * "If we're not going to "be precise when possible" then we might as well move CR90 corvette back to "Corellian Corvette," Imperial-class Star Destroyer back to "Imperial Star Destroyer," and so on." The difference is that those are accurate names, given by accurate sources. CR90 corvettes are of Corellian design, ergo it's accurate to call them Corellian corvettes. Same deal with Imperial Star Destroyers. Of course, if the only mention of the term "Imperial Star Destroyer" was the sentence "Imperial Star Destroyers are swift starfighters used by the Rebel Alliance" from an IU publication called the Big Book of Inaccuracy, we'd all dismiss it as being clearly wrong. Except you, apparently.
 * "The Empire built it, the Empire called it this." WW2 was started when Poland attacked a German radio tower. American soldiers committed suicide at the gates to Baghdad at the beginning of the Iraq War. No-one in North Korea has ever starved to death. Anyone who protests against the Syrian government is an armed criminal and/or terrorist. I can bench press a car. Since all these claims were made by parties involved in the events, they must clearly be factual and true. Since you weren't involved in any of them, you have no basis to disagree.
 * "Any other name violates our own rules and precedents." Bullshit.
 * To expand upon a point I only briefly mentioned above, the Imperial HoloNet isn't a credible or reliable source. The Rebellion Era Campaign Guide (the same source of the "DS-1 Orbital Battle Station" name, and on the very same page no less) states that "the Empire heavily censors the HoloNet" and "news stories are routinely removed from broadcasts and revised to cast the stories in terms more favorable to the Empire". The previous page says that "the average Imperial citizen has access only to the information presented by the government, and the Empire takes great pains to present itself as a force for peace and order in the galaxy". In regards to events such as the destruction of Alderaan and the annexation of Bespin, it says "Only the best-informed Imperials know the whole story, and even then, they are too loyal to the Emperor&mdash;or too afraid of him&mdash;to publicly dispute the official version of these events". Considering that it says the most knowledge an average Imperial citzen can have is that Palpatine might not really be that nice of a guy, I sincerely doubt someone less knowledgeable is going to know the true name of the Death Star. These are all OOU claims, BTW. Taking the Imperial HoloNet's claims as factual is like taking an article from The Onion seriously. I get the feeling that I'll have to e-mail one of the writers for the RECG and ask them whether the Imperial HoloNet was being entirely truthful when it claimed that Rebel saboteurs hijacked the Empire's peaceful DS-1 Orbital Battle Station and destroyed Alderaan. I expect the answer to be something like this. --  I need a name  ( Complain here ) 23:09, January 7, 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) I've been swayed by Culator. MasterFred 20px(Whatever) 17:30, December 24, 2011 (UTC)
 * 2) Indeed, per Culator.  Imperators II (Talk) 12:36, December 25, 2011 (UTC)
 * 3) SinisterSamurai 02:11, December 28, 2011 (UTC)
 * 4) JRT2010 02:22, December 28, 2011 (UTC)
 * 5) I really don't care.  JangFett  (Talk) 02:24, December 28, 2011 (UTC)
 * 6) Per Culator.  IFYLOFD  ( Floyd's crib ) 04:52, December 28, 2011 (UTC)
 * 7) I had a bad feeling about this when I first voted. Hearing Culator's vote makes so much more sense, thus, I'm changing my vote.-- Cal Jedi 8px (Personal Comm Channel) 04:56, December 28, 2011 (UTC)
 * 8) Culator's comment is the only logical argument being made here. Show me direct, literal evidence to the contrary and we might have a different story. Until then, the article belongs at this name. Toprawa and Ralltiir 21:35, December 29, 2011 (UTC)
 * 9) Grand Moff Tranner 20px (Comlink) 21:45, December 29, 2011 (UTC)
 * 10) Canon source, canon name. My "pro-vote" was very weak and Culator swayed me.  Clone Commander Lee  Talk 21:46, December 29, 2011 (UTC)
 * 11) Per Culator. – Tm_T@Wookieepedia:&#126;$ 15:16, December 30, 2011 (UTC)

Comments
The full paragraph from the Rebellion Era Campaign Guide, for anyone who's interested:

--  I need a name  ( Complain here ) 14:12, December 23, 2011 (UTC)