User talk:McEwok

McEwok, welcome!

Hello and welcome to Wookieepedia. I hope you like the place and choose to join our work. Here are a few good links for newcomers:
 * Internal pages:
 * Community Portal
 * Manual of Style
 * Online sources
 * Wookification
 * Things to do
 * Jundland Wastes Sandbox
 * External Wikipedia pages:
 * How to edit a page
 * Editing, policy, conduct, and structure tutorial
 * Picture tutorial
 * How to write a great article

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wookieepedian! By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and vote pages using three tildes, like this: ~. Four tildes produces your name and the current date. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the Community Portal talk page or ask me on my Talk page. May the Force be with you! -- Riffsyphon1024 16:18, 10 Aug 2005 (UTC)

Un-Star Wars
Let me make you aware that we do not plan to make an article for Howard the Duck, even though it is a George Lucas film. And would you really want to anyway considering how much of a flop it was? Please plan to stay within the realm of Star Wars as much as possible. -- Riffsyphon1024 23:00, 10 Aug 2005 (UTC)
 * Don't take things like that too seriously - and don't worry, I'm not planning to send the Wiki into silly street. I'm here in an effort slide my rigorous and disciplined self out of the Ewok-costume (cramped in there for someone a shade off 6 feet all these years)... McEwok 00:13, 11 Aug 2005 (UTC)
 * McEwok, you should really make a page about all the stupid theories youve had. I suppose you could add other peoples as well. All the stuff like 'Anakin Solo survived by soul transferring into a potplant.' Its as relevant as Supershadow at least ;).
 * Thank you, Durnar. It would be a bit arrogant, I think, and anyway, I'm currently trying to fight (half-heartedly) against the tendancy to redact everything I do down to "stupid theories".

For the record, some are just for fun - for instance, producing infinite potentially canonical ways for Anakin Solo to not be dead, or the suggestions that Ewoks are Noghri in the same way that Kint is Soze; though even those are also intended to comment on aspects of SW and fandom. And, since I'm here, I might as well note that I'm more-or-less serious in (say) suggesting that Clone Madness could involve the resurgence of the template's memory and personality, or in questioning the superficially positive depiction of the "New Order" at the end of the NJO, or trying to stem the encroachment of fanon ideas about Star Dreadnaughts into continuity...

And as for Mar^H^H^HMarakin (thanks for nothing, SparqMan), I don't want to explain that in its entirity (but see my latest post here)...

That said, if any fansite wants an interview... well, it might be fun to try to get my head on straight. Good practice. That's what I'm here for, after all... --McEwok 21:27, 13 Aug 2005 (UTC)
 * I might take you up on that offer... j/k lol. But your page gave me a laugh. I haven't heard the infamous potted plant theory for a while. :) --beeurd 13:40, 7 Sep 2005 (UTC)

Links

 * Just so you know, it's completely unnecessary to put underscores in internal links, spaces will work just fine. MarcK 14:59, 17 Aug 2005 (UTC)
 * Thanks. For some reason, I seemed to end up with underscores going in sometimes when I typed spaces (via the edit or preview screen?). Seemed easier for me to do more work than force other people to correct it. Or was I just doing something wrong? --McEwok 15:31, 17 Aug 2005 (UTC)

Doctor Curtis Saxton
Doctor Curtis Saxton is connected to Lucas Films. He authored and coauthored many books about Star Wars such as Revenge of The Sith Incredible Cross Sections Attack of the Clones Incredible Cross Sections Inside the Worlds of Star Wars Trilogy Inside the Worlds of Attack of the Clones. These works are canonical. I do believe delinking his site in Star Destroyer is a mistake. On the other end of that link is a description of all Imperial battleships from the movies and any from the Expanded Universe. This is not just a random fansite where people just makeup numbers. The technical commentaries are better than StarWars.Com for technical information. I shall readd the link this weekend. --— Ŭalabio‽ 04:53, 19 Aug 2005 (UTC)
 * Nonetheless, his website is not in any way canonical, regardless of whether he has authored official works (which are rightfully cited where appropriate). The Star Wars Technical Commentaries are no more official than the fan sites of other Lucasfilm authors like Nathan Butler or Abel G. Pena.  jSarek 05:03, 19 Aug 2005 (UTC)
 * Yep. Only Saxton's official work is canonical. His fan site contains many assumptions and hypotheses that are not. Obviously, the continuity elements that LFL have allowed him to incorporate in official material derive from the ideas expressed in this fan fiction, but ideas from SWTC only become canonical inasmuch as they are themselves incorporated in official material: they do not automatically become backstory for that canon material.
 * And people say fanfic authors can't get published... --McEwok 12:44, 19 Aug 2005 (UTC)
 * I find this an old intellectual flaw among critics of Saxton´s work (besides presuming that he came to Lucasfilm wanting work and not the other way around, of course ;P), that his site being a fan-site somehow makes his findings 'fanon'. Most of the numerical information is simply gleaned from the films and other official works from Lucasfilm and Lucas Licensing, which are for all to see, not just Curtis Saxton. Many errors are made on both sides in these debates, but the most severe is proposing that the various ITWs and ICSs which Saxton worked on, are fan-fiction made fact, when most of the information leads directly back to the works of George Lucas, the various concept artists and ILM, who were the originators of Star Wars tech and designs, which the books detail. Then there´s the editors of each book, who have to approve the texts within. And as far as I can tell, Saxton is neither a filmmaker, SFX artist nor an editor. ;) VT-16 18:07, 20 Aug 2005 (UTC)

Okay. *deep breath* I'm not saying that ITW and ICS are fanfic. As official publications, these are canonical, and I respect them as such. And kudos to their author for the fact that LFL has contracted him to work on these things. What, I am saying is this:

1.) The canonical status of statements in these books does not endorse the real-world reasoning that (we might presume) led to them, still less does it legitimize anything at SWTC that is not in these books.

2.) There are problems, both in terms of continuity and simple logic, in some of the arguments presented that SWTC.

As to SWTC Saxton's analysis of the movie material is normally excellent, and the breadth and depth of what he's done has really raised the bar for both fan analysis and LFL. But his site is built on a debatable methodology (he assumes a visual consistency that the movies simply lack), and, like any fanboy, he often extends his work into downright speculation (for instance, his idea that because Executor is much bigger than other Star Destroyers, Star Destroyers are, in the general run of things, small ships - where the EU material makes clear that the Ex is just insanely big). This is especially unfortunate where his suggestions contradicts with what established canon shows to be the case.

IMHO, anyway. --McEwok 19:03, 20 Aug 2005 (UTC)


 * Ok, let us suppose that this is 2003, one year before the OT:ITW is released. Saxton´s site, which is a fansite (now don´t get that mixed up with what I am about to say), shows the Executor as 11 times the length of an Imperial-class SD, going by visual information from the films and quotes from the modelmakers. This is official info that contradicts most written material. Is it fan-fiction? No. It is official information used by the filmmakers while making the film and nothing less. The subsequent torrent of WEG and WEG-influenced tech manuals and novels usually ignore this knowledge and print 8 km/8 times the lenght of an Imperial-class SD as the length of the Executor. This info is wrong and contradicts the films and the intention of its makers. Now, because no OT:ITW exist, it´s considered ok by certain elements in fandom to "take a proverbial shit" on Saxton and his site for sticking by the former, even though the films (always higher on the chain than any tech manual) contradict their viewpoint. Was it ok back then to consider much of what Saxton wrote on his site to be the equivilant of fan-fiction?
 * I agree Saxton goes beyond just numbers and pure evidence and that that part is pure speculation, but what I am arguing is that the reasoning "all information on his site is fanfiction and invalid because the books say otherwise" is "intellectually dishonest" (to use a phrase by Nathan Butler, a slightly closeted anti-Saxtonist). The Executor´s length and the DS II´s width is measured from objects in the films, combined with quotes from the people who made them. What is wrong with using or publishing this information, even if it contradicts older material (which was wrong to begin with)? Why all the racket? VT-16 19:53, 20 Aug 2005 (UTC)
 * I hoped you'd ask that. The problem is not with the figures Saxton derives from the movie evidence; they seem generally accurate (that's what I meant above by saying his "analysis of the movie material is normally excellent"). The problem is what he then does with these figures. The films are not visually consistent. Compare the major details on the large-scale model of the SSD command tower with those on the FX model of the ship, for instance. Or the different sizes and proportions of the FX miniature, matte painting and physical set of the Tyderium or Millennium Falcon. That's what I meant by "debatable methodology". It's perfectly possible to argue that, becuase the movies are inconsistent like this, the size the Ex is shown in the movies is unreliable - less reliable than the size she's described as being in the EU.
 * I used to accept the "eleven-mile" version (and for what it's worth, I still *like* the ~11-mile version); but it has always been possible to argue that the superior "accuracy" of g-canon doesn't imply real visual accuracy in the movies. And I've been saying that the Ex a super-large Star Destroyer since I got involved in the debate in 1998. --McEwok 20:34, 20 Aug 2005 (UTC)
 * I´m not going to debate your first argument, since individual models of the ship and the tower alone will undoubtably be different with regards to detail (which is why they use them at different ranges to begin with =P), and I fail to see any relevance this has with regards to estimates.
 * I also thought he did take time to evaluate the discrepencies and go for what the majority of shots showed? Hmm, I´d better look again. I do know he has at least one section on that, for the shuttle.
 * "Super-large Star Destroyer", heheh, that´s funny. XD VT-16 20:46, 20 Aug 2005 (UTC)
 * Well, it's what they are!! As to the argument, my basic point is that the visuals are not consistent, whether or not the overall sizes of cap ships are: the large features clearly visible on the tower on the SSD ship model don't correspond with those on the stand-alone tower model. There's stuff on Tyderium at SWTC. And I can try and dig the Millennium Falcon stuff out of the Wayback Machine cache of Robert Brown's defunct fansite. Even without major inconsistencies in the depicted length of the spaceships (ILM seem to have worked hard for a good visual consistency in model FX shots), you can show that the films are not consistent or accurate overall, raising doubts about the canonical validity of the on-screen sizes: the primary aim of visual FX is visual effect, not literal accuracy. But if you do want specific scaling inconsistency in model shots, I think you may (by accident!) have given me exactly what I needed with the bridge tower sizes... --McEwok 01:03, 21 Aug 2005 (UTC)
 * No, the name "Super-large Star Destroyer" is not canon and is not used to describe anything canonically, don´t be an idiot.
 * "But if you do want specific scaling inconsistency in model shots, I think you may (by accident!) have given me exactly what I needed with the bridge tower sizes..."
 * Sure, go ahead, knock yourself out. VT-16 01:14, 21 Aug 2005 (UTC)
 * *sticks tongue out*. I'm not being an idiot, VT. Of course "Super-large Star Destroyer" is not a canon designation; but I'm not talking about a "Super-large Star Destroyer" designation. I'm saying that the phrase "super-large Star Destroyer" (note lack of caps; adjective + proper noun) is an adequate and accurate, canon-supported, description of the Ex or Eclipse. Their designation as Star Destroyers is canon, and they're super-large. --McEwok 01:41, 21 Aug 2005 (UTC)
 * I was right, you are a moron. Fine, rewrite SW canon into your own little fantasy-world. That´ll get you banned pretty quick. VT-16 01:57, 21 Aug 2005 (UTC)
 * Well, going by the example of SWTC, it'll get you gigs with LFL so you can actually, actively mess with the real franchise continuity. And where am I "rewriting canon", exactly? Don't flame and rant - be specific. --McEwok 02:11, 21 Aug 2005 (UTC)
 * Your continued obsession with SDs and SSDs and your modifications to articles to make a big issue out of little things is getting on people´s nerves, including mine. And the continuity has been messed with plenty of times by Lucas Licensing staff and WEG already, long before Saxton became involved. So your precious SSDs are getting redefined and categorized. Tough. VT-16 02:18, 21 Aug 2005 (UTC)
 * It's not myself I'm worried about. It's the maintainance of a consistent Star Wars continuity. And the fact my challenges to your assumptions are "getting on your nerves" doesn't make you right, though it doesn't make me right, either. To return to the point, I'm arguing that there's a lot of evidence that the Ex-class are very large "Star Destroyers", and only one ambiguous statement trying to make them "Star Dreadnaughts", and that this Wiki should reflect that evidence (though obviously, it should be changed if the balance shifts). If you can provide evidence otherwise, please do. --McEwok 10:58, 21 Aug 2005 (UTC)
 * "and only one ambiguous statement trying to make them "Star Dreadnaughts"
 * WHAT?! Haven´t you been paying attention for the past few years? 'Star Dreadnaught' has been around since the AOTC ICS, the term 'dreadnaught' since Marvel (and not just to denote a type of obsolete vessels). I´ll quote some info: "The use of the word dreadnaught first appeared in the old marvel comics. It was then used in a roundabout fashion to describe the massive EX-F in the Black Fleet Crisis books (no, it wasn't a Rendili one, it was explicitly said that none of the ships of the Black Fleet were smaller then a star destroyer, so it has to be bigger than 900 meters long and the NEGC implies a power output far beyond a regular Imperator). It was also used in The Final Prophecy to describe a very large Vong capital ship and shatterpoint to describe a Geonosian capital ship."
 * The DK line of books were made to give definitive info on issues from the films, that´s what made them stand out from all the RPG/Tech manuals over the years. They were meant to clear up issues that had long been points of controversy. THAT was their purpose, which they have kept consistent to this day. THAT was Saxton´purpose, that was the reason Lucas Books sought him out, to get more concrete info and STICK to it!
 * You know what? I´m going to pretend you didn´t write that last post. I´m going to pretend we´re not having this conversation and that you are not this ignorant or slow on the uptake and that your comments are just an amusing jest without substance. VT-16 12:02, 21 Aug 2005 (UTC)
 * Yes, the idea of dreadnaughts in SW has been around for a long time. But the idea that they were effective modern warships, or equivalent in size to the Ex, or that the Ex was/should be/could be one herself, are entirely Saxton's. As to EX-F: (1.) she's a propulsion testbed "built on a Dreadnaught hull" - not necessarily a new ship; and (2.) not necessarily in the Black Sword Order-of-Battle list. And the "Geonosian dreadnaught" is 600m long, same size as a Rendilli Dreadnaught. --McEwok 19:29, 21 Aug 2005 (UTC)
 * No, the Geonosian Dreadnaught´s Core Ship-section has a diameter equal to the lenght of a Rendili dreadnaught cruiser. Since core ships only make up a small part of the total lenght of their vessels, the full ship is much bigger. VT-16 20:56, 21 Aug 2005 (UTC)
 * The Geonosian dreadnaught is described as 600m. Perhaps she's a TFBB core ship; but she's called a "dreadnaught" herself. However, rereading the BFC, I concede that the EX-F is almost certainly not a 600m Rendilli Dreadnaught; what's more significant, however, is that this "Dreadnaught hull" is also described as a "Star Destroyer"!!
 * As to ItW and "clearing stuff up": do you have direct evidence? If that was their aim, all I can say is that their lack of concern for, or awareness of, Saxton's manifest biased against significant pieces of canonical evidence that don't fit his fan theories is staggering. Curtis Saxton does an awful lot of good work and deserves the success he's had. But at the same time, he is either knowingly creating continuity contradictions to "canonize" his own fan-fiction, or else he has blind-spots the size of... um, Super Star Destroyers? --McEwok 19:29, 21 Aug 2005 (UTC)
 * First of all, Saxton does not decide what goes into any of these factbooks, the editors and other correspondents in the Lucas hierarchy do. He must abide by their rules, not the other way around. They go through their files, weigh the evidence on matters of controversy, and ultimately make the call. (Through emails with Saxton I found out at least one instance of editorial wants being the deciding factor, rather than what Saxton wanted.) And if you are so worried about their professional integrity, you´re 28 years too late. Revisions and errors have cropped up in materials following the first film, not to mention the long-standing WEG books and stats going through the copy&paste procedure whenever they feel like releasing a tech manual.
 * However, Lucas Licensing´s recent efforts with the internal Holocron archives (maintained by continuity-checker Leland Chee), is commendable, and Chee has said on the official SW forum that the term 'Executor-class Star Dreadnaught' is now the official designation for this type of ship. Note, that is his decision to make, not Saxton´s. Your one-sided tirade could do with more than one scapegoat, so you might as well rag on Leland Chee while you´re at it. Hopefully, it´s clear to anyone reading these discussions that all this "controversy" over Saxton The Terrible is nothing more than a classic example of penis-envy, and not any basis for legitimate discussion. VT-16 20:56, 21 Aug 2005 (UTC)
 * For one, I'm concerned with damage limitation, the reconciliation of apparent contradictions, and the preservation of established continuity. I don't think ItW and the ICS books have done that - quite the opposite. Saying "there are contradictions" does not excuse creating more contradictions. That's my POV. If you think differently, tell me why. --McEwok 13:49, 25 Aug 2005 (UTC)
 * More importantly, I have to firmly reject your mischaracterization of my remarks on Saxton and LFL as a "one-sided tirade": I emphasised the "good work" done by Saxton, and noted the possibility that the problems with Saxton's handling of some canon evidence were unintentional and unconscious (though I should have added the possibility that they could be playfully postmodern as well - my apologies to anyone concerned). If you wish to respond to my criticism of his treatement of certain pieces of evidence, both at SWTC and in official publications, then kindly do so on the terms of the evidence. As to LFL, I remarked that if this is their idea of resolving continuity problems, then "their lack of concern... is staggering"; to clarify - my problem lies not with their employing Saxton, but the fact that, for whatever reason, they did not edit his work effectively to keep it in line with established continuity and ensure it reached its full potential. It could be that they accepted his arguments without deep examination; it could be that they simply don't care much; but I'm intrigued by your suggestions that there's an active internal LFL initiative here. Is your knowledge of this gleaned entirely from e-mail, or is there public discussion anywhere? --McEwok 13:49, 25 Aug 2005 (UTC)

Okay - and, my apologies! For what it's worth, every signature down the page so far marks the end of one contributer's block of text, but I'll edit if that would help. Is there something on how to do this right in the style guide? --McEwok 00:47, 21 Aug 2005 (UTC)
 * I would appreciate it if people signed their paragraphs so that we may not get confused here. -- Riffsyphon1024 00:39, 21 Aug 2005 (UTC)

Grist for Your Mill

 * In case you haven't seen it yet, I just thought you'd like to see this post (the one dated Oct 25, 2005 09:28 AM) from Tasty Taste about the resolution of G-canon and C-canon disputes. Bon apetit. :-) jSarek 22:18, 1 Nov 2005 (UTC)
 * You saw that and thought of me?! I'm flattered!! *grins* Thank you. That, I think, becomes this Ewok's new TF.N .sig... --McEwok 22:29, 1 Nov 2005 (UTC)

Boo
You know, I was just gonna pop over and say hi, and then I saw the miles and miles of Saxton bitching, and now I need to go lie down. Thanks a lot. CooperTFN 03:49, 16 Nov 2005 (UTC)
 * Now you know how I feel. I really don't enjoy it. At all. I'm just standing up for the evidence as it is, not as people want it to be. --McEwok 14:02, 16 Nov 2005 (UTC)
 * Then it's too bad you've deleted canon information from the 'ship classification' page, which I've since had to re-add. When dealing with canon sources, it would be nice to the other contributors to consider more than your one favorite. VT-16 14:39, 21 Nov 2005 (UTC)
 * I deleted inappropriately-placed information, and have now deleted it again. As cited on the talk page, the standard in-universe system as defined in canon sources places all ships up to the size of the Ex in the "Star Destroyer" subclass of the "cruiser" category. Alternative designations can and should be discussed elsewhere on the page, but they do not belong in a summary of the standard in-universe classification system, which contains a specific series of terms defined in specific ways, and is used correctly by most official sources. Please respect the canon evidence. --McEwok
 * You have been reported for vandalism offenses and I expect you to respect all canonical sources in the future VT-16 22:05, 21 Nov 2005 (UTC)
 * See my reply on the vandalism page. As I have said already - here, at Talk:Ship_Classification, and now there as well, your additions were inappropriately-placed and did not fit into the particular system you had inserted them into on the page. And I had already told you as much repeatedly. I fail to see what your case is here. Yes, there are other terms used. That doesn't change the canon standard system, I'm afraid - in which almost everything above 400m is a cruiser, and almost everything above about 850m is a Star Destroyer. Terms not part of that system belong elsewhere on the page. --McEwok 23:38, 21 Nov 2005 (UTC)

Ship classification dispute
Hey McEwok. I'm trying to help QuentinGeorge in the despute resolution at Ship classification. I've read over your brief argument, but while it sums your polemics, it does not give me an understanding of what you would like to see the article contain. Can you please draft a quick outline of the points you think should be included (not what should not)? Please cite specific sources for each point where possible. Just e-mail it to me (my username @gmail.com) or leave it on my talk page. Thanks. --SparqMan 17:33, 3 Dec 2005 (UTC)

SW Galaxy Article
"This is a piece of cap brought to you by McEwok. have a nice day :D" Is this really necessary? I deleted it. Θ 05:22, 6 Dec 2005 (UTC)
 * Um. No. That wasn't me. --McEwok 00:55, 7 Dec 2005 (UTC)


 * K, sorry for accusing you. I should ask first next time. 209.26.220.227 19:19, 8 Dec 2005 (UTC)
 * Attention anonymous one. Don't pin blame on other users here, or you will be banned from this wiki. -- Riffsyphon1024 19:22, 8 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Thrawn chronology
It appears that your recent Thrawn edits have thrown a spanner into things. We now have two different chronologies regarding his first Imperial mission to the Uknown Region. As far as I can tell, his first mission followed the staged political fallout. Everything after that was trips back to the Empire proper. --SparqMan 20:50, 23 Dec 2005 (UTC) The fallout with Tigellinus could be the one mentioned in Command Decision. Is there a piece of evidence that I'm missing which disproves this general chronology? --SparqMan 17:07, 24 Dec 2005 (UTC)
 * There's a continuity mess at the heart of it. A staged political fallout is mentioned in Command Decision, which has Thrawn, Commander Parck and Captain Niriz entering the UR aboard the Admonitor; that story predates Side Trip, which predates the Battles of Derra IV and Hoth... which predates Thrawn's public promotion in TIE Fighter... which has to predate the staged fallout with Tigellinus described in the old SWAJ stuff. The best retconn is probably that there were two staged fallouts, but that seemed speculative, so I glossed over the reference in Command Decision.... --McEwok 02:51, 24 Dec 2005 (UTC)
 * 1 BBY: Captain of Vengeance; babysits Jerec; S'krrr incident
 * 2 BBY: Secret promotion to Grand Admiral
 * 3 ABY: Battle of Hoth. As "Vice Admiral" (which would be the fairest promotion is he hadn't had the secret one, and explains him wearing the outfit [not a very good secret keeper]) does TIE Fighter missions and formal GA promotion, BBY: Returns to Coruscant, plays the political game, gets sent to the UR, Command Decision, Side Trip/Derra IV, back to UR.

I just reread Command Decision. Thrawn identifies his ship as an Alderaanian colony ship (perhaps hedging his bets that the UR pirates have heard of the pacifist Alderaanians), but that's all that I can find. But 3 ABY is a big ol' year. What if he gets his formal promotion at the start of 3 ABY, gets punted from Coruscant, and then we get Command Decision, Side Trip, Battle of Derra IV, Battle of Hoth, TIE Fighter? Perhaps he is a Vice Admiral in TIE Fighter as one of those instances that he disagreed with Palpatine and got stripped down in rank? --SparqMan 21:38, 24 Dec 2005 (UTC) Ah, the Thrawn promotion schedule has always been a pain. You can see my take on his biography here. For the record, Thrawn is never explicitly referred to as Grand Admiral in Command Decision, but the black-and white illustrations depict him with a light-colored uniform with epaulets, consistent with a Grand Admiral's uniform; however, the *color* illustration that starts the piece shows him in a regular admiral's uniform. Take from that what you will. jSarek 10:10, 10 Jan 2006 (UTC)
 * The problem is this: as I understand it, TIE Fighter takes place after ESB, whereas Derra IV takes place before ESB, Side Trip takes place before Derra, and Command Decision takes place before Side Trip. I'm trying to get access to a copy of Command Decision to check if there are any specific dating details there (I have a vague memory that references to Alderaan may imply a date before ANH); and I think there are Tigellinus vs. Thrawn references in SWAJ that are calendar-dated in universe to post-ESB... --McEwok 20:28, 24 Dec 2005 (UTC)
 * Doesn't work, IMHO - because the public promotion comes at the end of TIE Fighter (and he's wearing a white uniform already in the cutscene as an ostensible Vice-Admiral); and I could be wrong, but I'm pretty sure that the stuff in SWAJ about his spat with Tigellinus (a series of news reports) is dated after ESB.... --McEwok 16:52, 28 Dec 2005 (UTC)
 * To rephrase that more comprehensibly... I can see what you're saying now, but I'm pretty sure that there's dated material which places the public spat that led to his exile post-ESB ("Blood and Honour", for one, though I'll have to check the SWAJ material), and I'm not sure if an idea of a second public promotion works within the internal narrative of TIE Fighter. That said - does it say he was a GA before his exile anywhere? If the date or context of the Thrawn vs. Tigellinus material could be wiggled, we could concievably have secret promotion, spat, exile, "Command decision", "Side Trip", Derra, Hoth, recall, TIE Fighter, "public" field promotion, Endor, Thrawn fades out again. --McEwok 03:22, 1 Jan 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, SWAJ 11 says Thrawn is coming back to the hustle and bustle of the Core as of 37:9:13 (2 ABY). SWAJ 12 tells us that despite being gone for the Fete Week celebrations the next year, he is still around to get his Order of the Canted Circle membership card at the displeasure of Tigellinus. Hm...I can't find the issue with the mention of his social gaff. --SparqMan 11:16, 6 Jan 2006 (UTC)
 * Okay... dates in 37 and Fete Week 38 are pre-ESB, so the next question is whether Thrawn is described as a Grand Admiral at that stage (which, considering his unknown status in HttE, he really shouldn't be), and whether there's any real canon evidence that Tigellinus was responsible for his exile... as I look at it, the order of events could be: (1.) Thrawn's supposed exile, and secret promotion to Grand Admiral; (2.) "Command Decision"; (3.) a period before Hoth where Thrawn spends time outside the UR, covered by SWAJ 11-12, "Side Trip" and "Blood and Honor" - Baron Fel's claim that "Rumors later placed him in the Unknown Regions. An embarrassment, clearly, that the Emperor wanted hidden far away from Imperial Center" could be based on a hearsay account of his earlier exile; (4.) a final recall after Hoth, culminating in a public field promotion to Grand Admiral. Endor, however, prevents this promotion being properly publicised, and ends whatever plans may have been in the works.... although there's an accidental implication in Charlene Newcomb's short stories that he'd returned from the UR and was serving as Supreme Commander by the time of The Krytos Trap! --McEwok 15:06, 6 Jan 2006 (UTC)
 * This answers nothing mentioned above, but in that same Fel comic, Thrawn is shown with the rank badge of an Admiral and is refered to in the SWAJ Galactic NewsNets as "Admiral Thrawn" at the launch of Executor while Tigellinus is clearly called "Grand Admiral". More info. --SparqMan 08:22, 10 Jan 2006 (UTC)
 * Okay. So, let me get this straight - in the SWAJ stuff and "Command Decision", he's always "Admiral Thrawn" rather than "Grand Admiral"? Hmm, how about "Side Trip", I wonder? Though that one I can actually check myself. As it stands, though, it seems that we have no firm date for the secret promotion to Grand Admiral, or for Thrawn's exile&mdash;am I right? --McEwok 22:32, 10 Jan 2006 (UTC)
 * Not ALL of the SWAJ stuff. Though the official Galaxywide News Nets always call him an Admiral, in Star Wars Adventure Journal 11, the secret smuggler's newsfeed Cynabar's Infonet called him a Grand Admiral (given how well informed Cynabar was, it's not completely out-of-place for them to know a secret that most of the Imperial military didn't even know).  That event was dated as 37:9:13, which (if I did my math right) roughly coincides with his return from the Unknown Regions for Side Trip, in which he was also definitely referred to as Grand Admiral.  Given that it seems rather unlikely to me he would have received his secret promotion before at least being given the public rank of Admiral, that means his promotion had to occur between 9 months ABY (when Captain Thrawn participates in the events of Galaxy of Fear: The Swarm) and 37:9:13. jSarek 04:00, 12 Jan 2006 (UTC)
 * Hmm. I've seen ESB cited as 38:6:9, though whether that's the 6th of Ninth or the 9th of Sixth is perhaps open to debate; either way, I'd have thought that Derra, which follows soon after "Side Trip", was much closer to the Battle of Hoth than the Ninth of the previous year, but I could be wrong. To push things to the other extreme, it's technically still possible, isn't it, that Thrawn's exile and "Command Decision" take place after the return recorded by Cynabar, but before Side Trip/Derra IV/Hoth.... Nevertheless, Cynabar does show that he's a Grand Admiral already prior to the Tigellinus business, which helps. Is it possible that he doesn't tell his true rank to everyone immediately in "Command Decision", and the illustrations represent two phases of the story? And does Commander Parck outrank Captain Nriz? --McEwok 05:07, 12 Jan 2006 (UTC)
 * I could be wrong about my math on Derra; it was a quick calc based on my limited knowledge of the dating system, not meticulously worked out. It's possible he doesn't give his true rank to everyone in Command Decision, but it's equally possible that everyone aboard knew his rank but simply never chose to speak it aloud, since the proper term of address for all Admiral ranks is just "Admiral," anyway.  The illustrations may represent two different phases of the story, but they may also simply be impressionistic, to coin a phrase. ;-)  Commander Parck doesn't outrank Niriz, but he does have the special confidence of the Admiral, which gives him no small amount of de facto power over the Captain. jSarek 11:05, 12 Jan 2006 (UTC)
 * Touché, sir, on most of that. The only thing I'm uncertain about is Parck's rank. It's years since I read "Command Decision", but (a.) the adjutant of an ordinary squadron-command admiral "holds the rank of captain of the line" (Imperial Sourcebook, pp. 102-3), and (b.) with the exception of a CCG reference or two, the rank of Commander in the Imperial Navy is always the equivalent of a RN/USN Commodore (Dutch Commandeur, Imperial Russian Kommandor), outranking Line Captain. So: is it possible that Commander Parck is senior in rank to Nriz, but lacks operational control over Admonitor, by not being her Captain? Or could Nriz actually outrank Parck, but be a Captain by posting? --McEwok 12:25, 12 Jan 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't think Parck outranked Niriz. He was originally a captain, but received a demotion to Commander during the faux political fallout.  Thus, if we assume he was equivalent to a Commodore, he would have had to have been a post captain while no less than a Rear Admiral; this is possible, I suppose, but I find it more likely that he held the Anglophonic interpretation of the rank of Commander.  This is backed up by the fact that, before the fallout came down, he *would* have been equivalent to "a captain of the line"; after all, he *was* one. The fact that Thrawn would have had a "substandard" adjutant after the fallout would have been ideal for making it look like his image had suffered. jSarek 05:48, 13 Jan 2006 (UTC)
 * I think you're right on this one: "Command Decision" says directly that he's lost his VSD and been "demoted to commander", and Parck's WotC bio says exactly the same thing about a demotion. It's somewhat forced to suggest he's previously been a Rear-Admiral. On the other hand, General Haverel addresses Niriz as "sir", suggesting that the "Captain" outranks the General... which renders everything slightly opaque about Niriz. On another note, there's a remark that the crew aren't used to dealing with the hyperdrives on the "new TIE scouts": if we knew when the TIE Scout or the Lone Scout-A entered service, we could date the story better. And of course, if this was still early in the days of the Empire, well... there's Anglophonic ranks being used in the Clone Wars, so everything would work out neatly then.... --McEwok 17:37, 13 Jan 2006 (UTC)
 * Niriz is the ship's captain; a ship's captain outranks *everyone* on the ship when it comes to matters of the ship (even an Admiral can't give orders to a ship directly, but must relay them through the captain), so it's not totally out of place for a General to show deference to his ship's captain, albeit perhaps a little odd. As for the Scouts, I don't think we have ANY info on their introduction yet, other than the fact that the Scout's appearance in SWCCG was in the Premiere Limited set, which consisted entirely of cards from A New Hope; this suggests that they were "just offscreen" during that movie, and thus had to be introduced sometime before. jSarek 23:05, 13 Jan 2006 (UTC)
 * Surely a General by definition calls the shots if he outranks the ship's Captain? Or maybe Haverel is just being greasy or idiomatic with his "sir"? My personal hunch is that "Command Decision" is well before ANH, but I think the TIE Scout is supposed to represent the "scoutships" sent to Dantooine; so if they're new then, and if you couple that with the "Alderaanian Colony Ship" idea, it's not impossible that we're some way after ANH. That said, the place to look for stuff on the Scout seems to be Star_Wars: The Roleplaying Game, Second edition, probably setting up te Lone Scout-A as a possible player-character transport. Anyone? --McEwok 00:14, 14 Jan 2006 (UTC)
 * Not exactly; as Wikipedia has to say, "The captain of a ship at sea is in absolute command of that vessel even if higher-ranking persons are aboard. If higher-ranking persons give orders to the nautical captain, such persons are very careful to say what they want done rather than specifying how the orders are to be carried out, because even higher rank does not give them the right to interfere in how a captain runs the ship." I happen to think that "Command Decision" happens after A New Hope, since Thrawn was only a captain as late as nine months after; we can assume that the TIE Scout simply didn't see full deployment immediately, and that Admonitor didn't receive her contingent until she was assigned mapping duty. As for the Lone Scout, the SWRPG was incredibly tight-lipped about it; I was only able to get a stub's worth out of it by raiding its RPG stats. jSarek 00:10, 15 Jan 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure how much real-world nautical custom necessarily implies in the Imperial Fleet... but never mind that. You may be right on everything. We just have no proof yet! So - how do we handle that? ;) --McEwok 02:49, 15 Jan 2006 (UTC)
 * Either we leave our conjecture out entirely, or we discuss the competing possibilities and evidence for each, I suppose. Or, we just assume I'm right; I'm always in favor of that possibility. ;-) Seriously, though, there is a bit more evidence that his promotion (and thus "Command Decision") came after A New Hope - the New Essential Guide to Characters mentions both his promotion to Vice Admiral and rumored secret promotion to Grand Admiral as occurring at the same time, and both happnening after the events of The Swarm. If it *wasn't* after A New Hope, it couldn't have been TOO long after, since Mara was passed off as a dancing girl, not a little girl, for the public dedication event that happened the same night. jSarek 23:20, 15 Jan 2006 (UTC)
 * I suspect you may be right. If the NEGtC places it after The Swarm, then that's canon. Of course, that's not to say that he was really "just" a Captain earlier: he could be a Rear Admiral as far as his public rank goes, and a full Admiral in terms of his true position. I have a hard time thinking he took twenty years to reach flag rank, and a hard time too thinking he was ever really a Colonel.... --McEwok 00:38, 16 Jan 2006 (UTC)

SSD
I have a inquiry, do you like or approve of the Star Dreadnought thing?(68.238.30.89 17:54, 28 January 2006 (UTC))

Well, that very much depends what you mean by "like or approve". There are three levels to this...

1.) What is the canon evidence?
Wookieepedia is essentially an encyclopedia of Star Wars continuity. This means it is essentially a study of the 'story' told or implied by official material; and at present, we know there were "Star Dreadnoughts" before/during the Clone Wars, but the canon evidence for calling SSDs "Star Dreadnoughts" consists of only one ambiguous reference involving one class of SSD. Anything further than that is fan-interpretation.

It just seems a necessary inference of Wookiee's canon-based approach that non-canon material should be excluded. On the one hand, it is legitimate to juxtapose pieces of canon evidence that combine to produce a situation that their authors didn't intend; but only if the juxtaposition is inevitable. For instance, in Conquest, Tahiri says that last time he was on Yavin 4, Anakin Solo left with Mara Jade; although the author probably meant this to refer to Dark Tide: Onslaught, the fact that Anakin and Tahiri were shown on Yavin 4 in the same scene in Agents of Chaos: Jedi Eclipse implies that Mara picked him up after that, and probably chaperoned him and Jacen "off-camera" at Centerpoint; but the fact that some large ships are formally classed as Star Dreadnoughts and large SSDs are referred to once as "ultimate Star Dreadnoughts" doesn't mean that any SSDs are formally classed as Star Dreadnoughts; it only means what it says/is in itself.

The term Star Dreadnought is in itself canon, as is the specific Mandator-class Star Dreadnought, and so there's no problem with those; but there's only one place where it's used to describe large Imperial ships like Ex, and this one usage is not given as a formal designation. It's just a reference to "ultimate Star Dreadnoughts like Executor". In contrast, there are tons and tons of references to SSDs as some sort of Star Destroyer, formal and informal alike.

Now sure, some fans are convinced that SSDs are more correctly/formally "Star Dreadnoughts"; but using the same logic, I could go through Wookieepedia and change all the references to Battle Dragons to call them "Dreadnaughts", since they correspond in role and size to the Rendili and Geonosian ones.

I might think that was cool and appropriate, even 'right'; but it's not canon, so it doesn't belong in Wookieepedia.

2.) Is the term necessary?
Why do we need the term "Star Dreadnought" anyway? I don't actually have a problem with the idea of "multi-mile" Star Dreadnoughts in the Clone Wars, and I can understand why, due to their sheer size, some people might occasionally refer to Super Star Destroyers as "Star Dreadnoughts". That doesn't bother me. It's established canon.

But at the same time, we don't need to redesignate the super-large Star Destroyers of the Empire as "Star Dreadnoughts". Everything from the films onward described these ships as massive Star Destroyers, and variants on "Star Destroyer" work fine as names for them.

Moreover, given that wealth of established information, to suddenly decide that they should 'really' be called "Star Dreadnoughts" would create unneccessarily contradiction and confusion. Thankfully, so far, there is only one ambiguous reference in canon! I hope it stays that way - though if it does change, Wookieepedia should, of course, change to reflect it.

3.) Where does the term come from?
If changing Super Star Destroyers into "Star Dreadnoughts" is so totally unneccessary, why do people think it should be changed? This question takes us to the Star Wars Technical Commentaries website, to Curtis Saxton and to a small group of fans associated with him, who've been pushing for ten years to reduce the ISD to a small warship and to redesignate the Ex with a new name. I've been told that Leland Chee settled on the specific term "Star Dreadnought" in the reference in Inside the Worlds, but the impetus for change undoubtedly came from Saxton and his friends...

Now I don't pretend to understand their motives and I certainly think there are very positive features to their work - but unprejudiced presentation and analysis of canon material isn't one of them. SWTC has a lot of good aspects to it, but it also has a tendancy to let enthusiasm for an agenda override canon and effective analysis, and there are a range of errors and misrepresentations across the site.

The trouble is, SWTC superficially very convincing, and the casual reader comes away with a sense of clear and lucid structure. As part of this, the idea that a ship the size of Ex isn't/can't be/is much bigger than a Star Destroyer is disseminated through fandom, and has even gained a foothold in canon. It's just a shame that SWTC's structures often aren't anything to do with real Star Wars; rather, they're a detailed and impressive fan alternative, but one that is, on close inspection, built around assumptions on terminology and organizational patterns that aren't supported by the evidence, and irreconcilable with official canon on many counts. --McEwok 17:55, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Rodian in Ewok's clothing?
Where does that phrase come from, exactly? &mdash; Silly Dan 22:30, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Perhaps its literal? :P -- Riffsyphon1024 22:38, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, if the Rodian was played by Warwick Davis....8) &mdash; Silly Dan 22:41, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
 * It's from the Farlander Papers, Mon Mothma's speech on Agamar at the start... --McEwok 23:10, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Interesting. Thanks! &mdash; Silly Dan 23:18, 14 February 2006 (UTC)