Talk:I-a2b solar ionization reactor/Legends

A version in TIEs?

 * CUSWE says that a version of the I-a2b is also used in TIEs, apparently citing Star Wars Screen Entertainment, The Stele Chronicles, or The Essential Guide to Vehicles and Vessels. Anyone able to confirm this? --McEwok 13:25, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

"largest" hyperspace field generator?

 * In editing my statement that the I-a2b contained "the largest single hyperspace field generator ever designed" to "one of the largest", VT-16 says this: I'm looking at the hyperdrive on the Death Star, and each individual generator is dozens of km long. You will not be warned again.
 * I'm not quite sure what VT's using to define the size of "each individual generator" in the Death Star's hyperdrive, since (as far as I can find) we have no idea of the size of individual hyperspace field generators aboard the Death Star. We don't even know what the "hyperspace field generator" referred to in the Star Wars Techincal Journal is, except that it's a made-up piece of technology: according to canon there's one under the Star Destroyer's ventral dome, it's the heart of the reactor, and it's "the largest such generator ever constructed", and that its size dictated the size of the ISD.
 * What we do know is this:
 * 1) In the Death Star Technical Manual schematic, the "Hyper Drives" are shown occupying blocks around the waist of the Death Star, about 8km deep by 40km wide. We don't know what the internal organization of these areas is, but a later plan of "Hyperdrive Station A-226" shows two "Hyperdrive Units" that are no more than 10 metres square.
 * 2) In the Star Wars Technical Journal itself, the cross-section of the Death Star indicates that there are 123 "hyperspace motivator units", one of these is depicted as a sphere about 2km wide. Now since the hyperspace motivator is what generates the hyperdrive field, it's possible that these are the same thing as a hyperspace field generator, but I don't think we can say that for certain. Even if there is a question is, how much of the "unit" is taken up by the "generator", and is there just one in each? The diagram certainly doesn't override the text statement.
 * 3) In Star Wars: Incredible Cross-Sections, we see banks of long, rectangular "hyperdrives" flanking a section of the equatorial trench. These aren't "dozens of kilometers long", as VT says, since that would be one-fifth the diameter of the Death Star. They may be individualy larger than the entire hyperdrive systems of the Imperial-classmdash;each perhaps more than 1km long, but we don't know what each housing contains. There could easily be multiple "hyperspace field generators" in each "hyperdrive", for instance.
 * Of course, it's possible that the Death Star's "hyperspace field generators" were actually bigger than those used on the Star Destroyer, since they could have been developed twenty years after the I-a2b; but on the evidence I'm aware of, we can hardly say that for sure. VT, if you have other evidence, please present it!
 * In the mean time, I'm editing. I've made the text slightly less certain, but I do think that an acknowledgement of the Star Wars Technical Journal statement about the "largest" generator should stay. I've also edited the reference to a specific fraction of hull volume, since it's hard to estimate the overlal size.
 * Lastly, VT, you say you're "warning" me. I'm not quite sure what this means? Do you just mean you're threatening to contact an admin? I'm not sure what the purpose of that would be...? --McEwok 18:02, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Okay, I'm not familiar with this argument, can someone from both sides describe their problem to me? Kuralyov 22:17, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
 * McEwok kept reverting information about the ISD reactor which I put in this article. Not only did he remove the description of its location, as shown in the SW:ICS cross-section, but he also reverted my change of "the single largest hyperdrive generator" into "one of the single largest", due to each individual hyperdrive generator onboard the Death Star I being much larger than an ISD in and of itself. He then claimed these weren't individual generators, but consisted of smaller ones in turn, which is not supported anywhere. According to sources written in by other people (which I can't verify, since I don't know where they got it from), there's about 123 individual hyperdrive generators. On the SW:ICS cross-section, it shows rows of generators stacked together, all being hooked up to the main reactor (as posted to the DS I article). I've complained about his behaviour before, but was told nothing would be done unless it affected an actual article. These past weeks have shown him changing not only one article, but two (the Utapau one, where he removed info from ROTS:ICS and I proceeded to complain to another admin). VT-16 22:50, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
 * The Star Wars Technical Journal says that: "The ship's huge hyperspace field generator is located within a domed area along the vessel's ventral ridge. It is the largest such generator ever constructed...." The label "hyperspace field generator" on the attached cross-section points to a smaller sphere above the main reactor, maybe 40m in diameter.
 * I think this warrants describing the reactor as including "what was said to be the largest single hyperspace field generator ever designed" in the article. I know of no direct evidence for the size of "hyperspace field generators" on other ships (as opposed to complete hyperdrives, etc., which is what VT's claimed evidence refers to). I presume that if the ISD's was the largest single such generator, larger ships would use multiple ones, the same size or smaller.
 * Nevertheless, considering VT's objection, I edited the text to say that the generator on the ISD was "said to be" the largest, rather than that that it categorically was.
 * As to the description of the reactor's location, VT's first edit said that he reactor was in the "lower half" of the hull, which isn't entirely accurate - only the upper levels of the superstructure are above it; his second edit said that it filled "slightly more than half" the hull, which seemed to me to be debatable, and best toned back to ambiguity. For the same reason, I removed my own original phrasing that the reactor "dominated" the interior of the hull.
 * On the Utapau page, I expanded the existing section on the planetary navy, putting some of the information into what I hoped was a more neutral form, and subsequently undid or modified three edits from VT-16, where I felt they overinterpreted the evidence. However, I adopted his changes where they seemed to tone down my own excessive opinion, and I don't think the current version of that page contains anything directly contentious. Except for the removal of the word "self-made" (implying that the Rendili Dreadnaught was constructed at Utapau) it's actually his edit. --McEwok 23:34, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I know that any source which disagrees with your WEG wanking is completely irrelevant to you, which is why you try to limit them as much as possible in articles, that's why I've been making sure to add as much as possible, so it wouldn't work. "The Trade Federation protects its position in remote galactic regions by placing embargoes on arms sales to planetary governments. As a result, Utapauns rely upon self-made, downscaled ships - their biggest anti-pirate Rendili Dreadnaught is one-fifth the size of a Trade Federation Battleship."

- Revenge of the Sith: Incredible Cross-Sections, page 22

There's no way to interpret a straight-forward sentence like that, which is one of several written by Curtis Saxton in an official attempt at dividing the different classification systems and make them understandable. You kept removing it and thereby changing what the canonical source said. The administrators told me they wouldn't do anything against you unless you did something to any actual articles and now you've done it multiple times. I hope they finally ban you. VT-16 09:42, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Why are you focusing on the Utapau page here?
 * To reply, though, since I could probably have made this clearer in my previous post: I don't think the text makes it clear that the Rendili Dreadnaught is actually "self-made" at Utapau (your POV), rather than being simply the largest capital ship in a force of mainly "self-made" vessels (which would be my POV). Hence, I think the relevant page should sidestep the issue or leave it ambiguous (which it does). For an example of what's certainly loose grammar in a comparable context, AotC:ICS (by the same author) refers to the Delta-7's "miles-long cousins, the Star Destroyers", which doesn't mean all Star Destroyers are miles long.
 * I know of no evidence that Dr. Saxton was making "an official attempt" to redefine warship designations, though I know he's proposed a system at SWTC that's different to canon usage (based on an inaccurate, if presumably sincere, interpretation of real-world usage). But this is getting us away from the topic of this debate.
 * If it's necessary to say, I reject your accusations as to my motives. My aim is to do what I can to make Wookieepedia canon-accurate, using only explicit systems found in canon (eg. the "standard Imperial classifications" for starship types) and where this is impossible, leaving things ambiguous (or making "behind the scenes" notes). I'm only human, but my intentions are on the level. --McEwok 12:36, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I have to say that I don't trust McEwok's motives here at Wookieepedia. Many of his edits seem to be agenda driven - with that agenda being to promote WEG's stats and other information while playing down canon material in newer (Curtis Saxton's ICS books) or higher ranking (movie visuals) sources. To this end, he has made claims and edits that are purely speculative, and sometimes downright bizarre. As an example, look at how he tries to belittle the Mandator-class Star Dreadnaught into some merely-torpedo-chucking weirdo ship. Not exactly sticking to explicit canon there, were you McEwok? JimRaynor55 19:32, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

As for the Utapau article, McEwok somehow twisted this quote
 * The Trade Federation protects its position in remote galactic regions by placing embargoes on arms sales to planetary governments. As a result, Utapauns rely upon self-made, downscaled ships - their biggest anti-pirate Rendili Dreadnaught is one-fifth the size of a Trade Federation Battleship.

Into this:
 * ''During the Clone Wars, and perhaps earlier, Utapau was one of the worlds restricted by a Trade Federation arms embargo on remote galactic regions. Because of this, the local defence fleet was based around small vessels, many of which were designed and built on Utapau itself&mdash;such as Porax-38 starfighters, tough, long-range snubfighters, designed for Utai pilots and capable of extended patrols of up to twenty days.
 * The largest vessels in Utapau's defensive fleet was a small Rendili StarDrive "dreadnaught", presumably a versions of the 600m Dreadnaught''-class heavy cruiser. This was capable of offering some protection against marauding pirates, and indeed was the largest type used by the Republic before the outbreak of the Clone Wars, but it was several times smaller than a massive Trade Federation battleship.

Yeah, I'm sure that a passage that mentions the Rendili Dreadnaught as an "anti-pirate" vessel in the SAME sentence describing the Utapaun's use of "downscaled" ships, written by Curtis Saxton, really meant to refer to the P-38 starfighter when talking about the weak locally-made ships they had to resort to. JimRaynor55 19:32, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
 * JimRaynor55: Many of his edits seem to be agenda driven - with that agenda being to promote WEG's stats and other information while playing down canon material in newer (Curtis Saxton's ICS books) or higher ranking (movie visuals) sources.
 * Not at all. If I have an agenda, it is is to make Wookieepedia an accurate reference website based on Star Wars canon. Of course, I'm not going to get everything perfect first time, but wikis are designed to progress by revision and refinement towards the goal of accuracy. If, on the other hand, you oppose that "agenda", if you actively wish to exclude canon material that conflicts with your personal opinion, then you shouldn't really be here.
 * As an example, look at how he tries to belittle the Mandator-class Star Dreadnaught into some merely-torpedo-chucking weirdo ship. Not exactly sticking to explicit canon there, were you McEwok?
 * Uhh... how do I "belittle" the Mandator and Procurator in any way by suggesting that they may have been earlier antecedents to the massive Eye of Palpatine and Death Star? How do I "belittle" them by suggesting that they may have carried an armament of torpedos rather than turbolasers? There's nothing "mere" about the torps of an Acclamator or a Victory Star Destroyer. And all this was in a Behind the scenes section, too!!
 * To explain myself briefly: 1.) Children of the Jedi indicates that the precursors of the Empire's largest fleet-beating/planetary-bombardment "dreadnaughts" and space-stations were "torpedo platforms"; 2.) the nearest ships to that super-ship role in the Prequel period are the Mandator and Procurator. We're never told that their main armament doesn't consist of torpedoes, so I don't see the problem with indicating the possibility that these might be the same ships, since the article otherwise begs the question "what are these torpedo platforms"?
 * I will concede that I made an error in my earlier edits of the page, and later corrected it myself when I found the specific quote I'd been misremembering; but I don't think that affects the basic point. Nevertheless, since the idea that the Mandator could have been a "torpedo platform" seems to annoy JimRaynor55, I have no problem leaving it out.
 * Yeah, I'm sure that a passage that mentions the Rendili Dreadnaught as an "anti-pirate" vessel in the SAME sentence describing the Utapaun's use of "downscaled" ships, written by Curtis Saxton, really meant to refer to the P-38 starfighter when talking about the weak locally-made ships they had to resort to.
 * Three points here:
 * Firstly, there's no absolute implication that the Dreadnaught in question is "self-built and downscaled". This is merely an interpretation, and one that seems odd when every other reference to Dreadnaught Cruisers suggests that they're considered large and powerful warships, and constructed in major shipyards like Rendili and Yaga Minor. Your appeal to authorial intention ("written by Curtis Saxton") has no value here, especially as in this case it's an unsubstatiated claim: we can actually quote K-Mac saying that he intended Coruscant to be non-urban, and Timothy Zahn saying that he intended Mara Jade to be the only Emperor's Hand, and both of these happen to be ideas that I'm favourable to in my own persional fan-vision of Star Wars; but I'd never suggest they ought to be presented as anything like "fact" at Wookieepedia. Similarly, it's entirely possible and understandable that Dr. Saxton might have written his canon work in a way that doesn't contradict the fan theories he proposes at SWTC, but that doesn't mean that his personal POV is canon: the canon meaning of what he writes officially is constrained by the rest of canon, not by his opinion or intention.
 * Secondly, the purpose of the section in the Utapau page isn't simply to regurgitate the section in SWTC (though part of my motive for rewriting it was because a lot of what was there previously was almost a direct quote from RotS:ICS). The basic point is to give an overview of Utapau's defense forces. The P-38 deserves a prominent mention, and since it's a locally-built ship, and very small for the interstellar patrol role it's used in, I'm not sure why you object to me connecting it into the general pattern of "self-made and downscaled" ships in use, about the rest of which we know almost nothing.
 * And last but not least, I don't understand why you're complaining about my original edit of the page, which went through later changes. On consideration, I subsequently adopted almost all of VT-16's second set of edits, except for the disputed claim that the Rendili Dreadnaught was "self-made" at Utapau.
 * This is how Wookieepedia should work, with people refining each other's suggestions to produce a superior finished product. I pay attention to what you and VT say, but you seem to react with unneccessary hostility, because of what you think my personal agenda is. Ultimately, I'll return to my original point: if you don't like specific elements of Star Wars canon, you should refrain from contributing to Wookieepedia. --McEwok 23:13, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

On consideration, I subsequently adopted almost all of VT-16's second set of edits, except for the disputed claim that the Rendili Dreadnaught was "self-made" at Utapau.

Even though that is what the quote says the Utapauns had? It does not say "As a result, Utapauns rely upon self-made, downscaled ships - except for their biggest anti-pirate Rendili Dreadnaught, which was one-fifth the size of a Trade Federation Battleship and made somewhere else", it says, QUITE CLEARLY "As a result, Utapauns rely upon self-made, downscaled ships - their biggest anti-pirate Rendili Dreadnaught is one-fifth the size of a Trade Federation Battleship." The word "their" points back to the "Utapauns" in the exact same sentence, since not only this part but the entire page is about a representative of the Utapaun space forces. In fact, I find it more impressive on a galactic scale that a state in the galactic outback can essentially aquire and assemble pieces for an entire Rendili Dreadnaught.

Saxton does not hold the same reverence over the Rendili Dreadnaught like some fans do. It's a good ship, but compared to the Empire's entire navy, it is little more than a heavy frigate in comparison. Numerous, spread throughout the Galaxy, and often used in lower-priority sectors. Doesn't really gel with an exceedingly important high-end cruiser or a battleship. In fact, it gets converted into assault frigates when modernized and upgraded. And that's why Saxton made sure to add the blurb of lower scales, so the WEG system would not be retconned away (and the use of cruiser for ships the size of starfighters to ships the size of Star Destroyers and beyond could be properly placed into different standardized systems). You, and others, have of course claimed the opposite and tried to argue that Saxton and other DK writers "erased canon" or whatnot. This is a blatant lie, as anyone who would actually bother to read the relevant sources, would know by now.

As for the reactor in question, and the continued assertion of the ISD having some form of "supremely sized" equipment, that is hogwash. Larger ships have larger versions of everything, as laid out explicitly in SW:ICS. The DS has all its components on multi-kilometer sizes, and even then groups the individual hyperdrives into a cluster, as stated by other sources. I've also found and added that the Executor has one main reactor (as stated in SW:CL) (though it most likely has smaller auxillary reactors spread throughout the vessel, like all the other types). Given the larger size of the main reactor on a larger ship (the DS and DSII) and the smaller one on smaller ships (Acclamator, Venator, Imperial), the main reactor of the Executor is likely to be larger than that of an ISD's and not several ISD-sized reactors grouped together. I noticed you tried to argue that with the Praetor article, but those were just stated to be Echo Base's main reactors, not the ship's main reactors.

It's basically become clear that you don't believe in retro-connecting or adding information when it doesn't suit you. This behaviour has been pretty consistent for the two years you've been here, so I shouldn't really be surprised when it actually starts to pop up more seriously in the actual articles. VT-16 00:58, 4 February 2007 (UTC)