User talk:SparqMan/Archive2

Galactic economy
what planes do u have for this artical. I am looking forward fot this artical. - Unsigned comment by Srini.
 * I'm not entirely sure yet. It would be good to look at the complete lack of inflation noted by Curtis Saxton (prices from the KOTOR era and late New Republic era seem roughly the same), the necessity of specialized planetary exports and/or output specialization, how banks and other financial institutions operated across planets, as well as the role of credits (across governments) and other forms of currency. I'll write a few paragraphs now and see where it goes. --SparqMan 05:59, 17 Nov 2005 (UTC)

Politicians
Thank you Sparq for moving all these articles under Category:Political characters to the more proper Category:Politicians. Sorry I haven't had much time to move them myself. -- Riffsyphon1024 20:00, 18 Nov 2005 (UTC)

Category change
Are you planning to replace Category:Imperial characters with Category:Galactic Empire people? If so, let me know how I can help. -- SFH 20:56, 18 Nov 2005 (UTC)
 * Already completed, but thank you. --SparqMan 21:14, 18 Nov 2005 (UTC)

Pit Droid Award of Diligence


The Old Republic characters category was one that needed to be cleaned out (given a Wikienema you might say), but nobody could be bothered to do it. For your as yet ongoing work in this category, I present you with the Pit Droid Award of Diligence. --MarcK [talk] 05:02, 21 Nov 2005 (UTC)
 * Wikienema, way to go! XD -- Riffsyphon1024 05:06, 21 Nov 2005 (UTC)

Your Rogue Squadron listing
Sparqman, a search led me to your Rogue Squadron list page. I'm the guy who created the first list on the SWFA website. I recently took the page down, but I am just days away from posting an all-new one. My original list included a lot of stuff invented by me. One of the characters (Jarras Starfire) is even from a friend's fan fiction story. I'm not sending this to correct you, but I didn't want some of it being put online as if it were official.

As I said, my latest Rogues roster will be online very soon, so look for it, here. JMM 16:57, 21 Nov 2005 (UTC) Brilliant! I hope you don't mind my outright theft and conversion into an article. --SparqMan 20:40, 2 Dec 2005 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the heads up, JMM. I was using a few lists that I found online to compile the big one. Once complete, I was going to scrub it through the fact checking on names that I didn't recognize and may have slipped in as fanon. --SparqMan 17:08, 21 Nov 2005 (UTC)
 * As promised, here's my roster of Rogue Squadron pilots, this time with a minimum of speculation: http://www.myuselessknowledge.com/swfa/rogueroster.html --JMM 20:24, 2 Dec 2005 (UTC)
 * Sure, feel free to use it. If you have any questions about my sources, etc, you can e-mail me [mailto:jmmcfadd2@yahoo.com here]. --JMM 21:24, 4 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Waywa Fybot?
What about that article makes it qualify for Cleanup? Thanos6 22:17, 21 Nov 2005 (UTC)
 * NPOV ("unfortunately"), general word choice, conjunctions, etc. --SparqMan 22:26, 21 Nov 2005 (UTC)
 * All right, how's it look now? Thanos6 04:09, 22 Nov 2005 (UTC)

Thanks
Just wanted to offer my thanks in helping to clean up the Clone Wars page. Even though I had worked on it for two and a half hours, I knew that it wasn't as great as I wanted it to be.TIEPilot051999 02:29, 22 Nov 2005 (UTC)

Dark Forces characters
The Category:Dark Forces characters seems extraneous to me. Is it possible to delete it? Kuralyov 21:30, 22 Nov 2005 (UTC)
 * I agree, but some users may like it or prefer it to one of those character-tables (like the Revan one that popped up a little bit ago). You can nominate the category for deletion to get some discussion on it. --SparqMan 21:31, 22 Nov 2005 (UTC)

Sorry
I was trying to make my created charcter go in the wrong place. I'm new at this but where can I put my charcter? Oh I have a suggestion there should be a section for users to make therw own fan creations.
 * There are plenty of websites where you can share your fan creations, but this is not one of them. --SparqMan 21:15, 26 Nov 2005 (UTC)

hi
r u gay? i think ur cute & i would totally date you. --
 * Scored! ;-) --Azizlight 02:13, 28 Nov 2005 (UTC)
 * Seriously! One of two ways to read that:
 * Are you gay? If so, I would totally date you. --
 * Are you gay? If not, I would totally date you. --

--SparqMan 06:46, 29 Nov 2005 (UTC) Hey, what about me? I want my chance. ;) Thanos6 06:56, 29 Nov 2005 (UTC)
 * Ok... -- Riffsyphon1024 06:54, 29 Nov 2005 (UTC)

Admin meeting
I'd like to call an admin meeting. Please check out the discussion. Thanks. WhiteBoy 07:30, 28 Nov 2005 (UTC)

VFD interruption - oops
Sorry I put the "delete" over top of your "vfd" on Kristin Martin -- when I saw the article, the VFD had been removed by 128.226.221.37, so I thought it was fair game for a speedy delete. &mdash; Silly Dan 00:26, 29 Nov 2005 (UTC)
 * No worries. See your talk page. --SparqMan 06:45, 29 Nov 2005 (UTC)

Code Q
Do you know of some special way to include an image that's not in the database on an article page? I've seen a couple User pages with personal images that're hosted elsewhere, but I can't get it to work on mine. CooperTFN 06:46, 29 Nov 2005 (UTC)

A break
While editing a paper for class, I started putting brackets around a year. After seeing what I'd done (Serious pressure for the company go public began internally shortly after the formation of Diageo PLC in 1998 ), I realize that I need to moderate my Wiki time. Yikes! --SparqMan 20:25, 29 Nov 2005 (UTC)
 * I've run into the same problem while browsing the news online. "What the heck?  That doesn't make sense!  Where are the sources?  Revert to previous version!  Report vandalism!  Fanon tag! Argh!"  &mdash; Silly Dan  02:48, 3 Dec 2005 (UTC)
 * Dude, I totally know what you mean. I was writting a paper for my Civil Rights class, and I kept trying to put links onto the case names. (Sigh)...two more weeks...two more weeks... -- SFH 03:07, 3 Dec 2005 (UTC)
 * I even link to articles with brackets when discussing them on AIM and sometimes try to sign my name with tildes on other forums. -- Riffsyphon1024 02:00, 5 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Help

 * Sparqman, I'm trying to resolve a rather heated dispute on the Ship classification page. Unfortunately, I'm not very knowledgeable on this aspect of SW. Can you offer some assistance? See the Talk:Ship classification page. QuentinGeorge 02:22, 3 Dec 2005 (UTC)
 * Further the request from SparqMan on my own talk page, I'll try to explain what I think the page should contain.
 * 1.) An introduction, noting the variety of classification systems used in the GFFA. This it has.
 * 2.) An outline of the "standard Imperial classification" system. This system (in its form as of about 1 ABY) is laid out in a clear-cut manner in the Rebel Alliance Sourcebook. There is no evidence beyond fanon speculation that this system is limited to "sector-scale" ships and fleets as opposed to larger "galactic-scale" ones, and no warrant for intruding into this system any specific designations that are not explicitly identified as a part of it: for instance, 600-900m frigates clearly exist, but (a.) these are anomalies according to this system, and (b.) it is utterly wrong to claim that the term "frigate" necessarily implies a small warship.
 * 3.) An outline of the "Star" system - necessary, but tricky; this cannot be based on anything more than canon evidence, which consists only of the empirical evidence of particular terms like "Star Destroyer" being applied to particular types of ships, with no overall context. While in OOU terms, several of these terms derive from SWTC, the relevant section of SWTC misrepresents real-world systems, ignores prior canon evidence, and slots a lot of poorly-analysed pictures into a framework of its own devising. Also, as fanon, it can have no place here.
 * 4.) An in-depth analysis of the overall linguistic/semantic meaning of all the terms used in canon.
 * 5.) A summary of the Empire at War terminology. This needs to be written.
 * 6.) A "Behind the Scenes" section. At least part of this should explain the categorical factual inaccuracies (both IU and OOU) in the highly influential system presented at SWTC.


 * In essence, I stand by my final edit. That said, I am pretty sure that my own edits are overly marked by my irritation when people add material that cannot be substantiated from canon. To proceed from here, I would suggest VT and myself should get together on IM: that way, we can work out what would be acceptable to both of us, which is what would be ideal for me. --McEwok 17:31, 4 Dec 2005 (UTC)


 * Sparqman, I ask that you please read the entire article, including the canon quotes that VT-16 and myself have provided. McEwok is lying here.  Don't take my word for it.  Just read the quotes.


 * There is no evidence beyond fanon speculation that this system is limited to "sector-scale" ships and fleets as opposed to larger "galactic-scale" ones HttE sourcebook says that this scale didn't cover Star Destroyers and had to be loosened to accomadate them, while the ROTS ICS makes mention of downscaled ships twice (once when discussing the Rendili Dreadnaught, another time when talking about Sienar's warships).


 * no warrant for intruding into this system any specific designations that are not explicitly identified as a part of it: for instance, 600-900m frigates clearly exist, but (a.) these are anomalies according to this system, and (b.) it is utterly wrong to claim that the term "frigate" necessarily implies a small warship This is easily explained by WEG's claim that different groups use their own classifications, and ROTS ICS's statement showing that the "standard" system used in RASB is downscaled.


 * An outline of the "Star" system - necessary, but tricky; this cannot be based on anything more than canon evidence, which consists only of the empirical evidence of particular terms like "Star Destroyer" being applied to particular types of ships, with no overall context. Look to the ITW quote. We can observe that Star Destroyer < Star Cruiser < Star Dreadnaught.  That's all that needs to be said in the article. JimRaynor55 17:55, 4 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Actually, these quotes don't mean what JimRaynor55 thinks (or pretends to believe) they mean.
 * 1.) What HttESB says, building on the RASB, is that in Old Republic service, the "cruiser" category covered the most powerful combat warships (in spite of their differing sizes, the 350m Carrack-class light cruiser, the 600m Dreadnaught-class heavy cruiser, and the 1,137m Venator-class attack cruiser all have a closely comparable turbolaser firepower; Saxton made KDY's Mandator-class Star Dreadnoughts much bigger, but these are just for coast-defence). During and after the Clone Wars, the cruiser category became broader, due to the building of bigger ships &mdash; still technically cruisers but put into a subcategory as "Star Destroyers": a Carrack can just about go head-to-head with the Invisible Hand (RotS novellization) but there's no way it can take on an ISD, still less an SSD, in a straight fight. By the time of the Thrawn trilogy (or indeed by about 1-2 ABY, when the RASB is set), "cruiser" thus no longer denoted the most powerful combat warships, but all ships from ~400m up to the Executor, including (a.) Star Destroyers and, more specifically, (b.) ships in the 400-900m bracket (although some of these, like the Majestic-class, were designed to beat ISDs one-to-one). This is what HttESB means by saying the term was "loosened": it changed its meaning, as naval terms do. Nothing about referring only to "sector-scale" ships, and it does cover Star Destroyers (although they form a subset of larger cruisers). HttESB also implies that carriers were being treated as a seperate type by the NR by about 10 ABY.
 * 2.) Of course different groups use their own classifications. No-one is disagreeing, and it says so at the top of the ship-classifcations page! The "standard Imperial system", however, is, um, the "standard Imperial System", treated also as standard for the Rebel Alliance and New Republic (explicitly) and Old Republic (implicitly) in the RASB and HttESB. There is no "stament" in RotS ICS to show that this system is "downscaled" compared to the system used there (which isn't a "system" so much as a number of terms that are only defined loosely by context). There is a reference to Sienar building "downscaled" cruisers, and one to the Utapauan space-defence force comprising "downscaled" locally-built ships with their largest ship being a Rendilli Dreadnaught: this does not mean that a Redili Dreadnaught is "downscaled", however, as a Rendili Dreadnaught is unlikely to be locally-built at Utapau. We might compare these remarks with references dating back to the days of WEG which have "crusiers" and even "dreadnaughts" in the ~100-200m range as the mainstay of local fleets, many of them built by (surprise, surprise!) Seinar or local shipyards!! There is no canon support for the speculative linking of these references to "downscaled" ships with the "standard Imperial system", since they can adequately be linked with ships "downscaled" below the paramaters of that "standard system".
 * 3.) The ItW quote certainly implies that some "Star Cruisers" are bigger than standard 1.6km "Star Destroyers". However, we can also observe that the most common Star Cruiser in the GFFA is the 1200m MC80, is only 75% the length of the standard 1.6km Star Destroyer, the ISD, and almost certainly significantly smaller in volume and tonnage. To say that all Star Crusiers are bigger than all Star Destroyers is simply not borne out by the canon evidence. In fact, it is a fanon theory from SWTC, based on an indifensable misrepresentation of rl naval terminology.

Sorry to have to bore you with this; but I hope that clears up these issues. --McEwok 01:41, 5 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Sparqman, right now I'm busy (and VT-16 appears to be as well), but I do intend to write up a summary of how we think the article should be. Basically, it's an all-inclusive approach that takes into account everything &mdash; WEG and Saxton's ICS books. As for right now, I'll deal with McEwok's latest round of deception:
 * "What HttESB says, building on the RASB, is that in Old Republic service, the "cruiser" category covered the most powerful combat warships (in spite of their differing sizes, the 350m Carrack-class light cruiser, the 600m Dreadnaught-class heavy cruiser, and the 1,137m Venator-class attack cruiser all have a closely comparable turbolaser firepower" Not true. The Carrack has 10 heavy turbolaser cannons, and 20 ion cannons (which can be easily replaced by anti-fighter lasers, which means they're probably point-defense level).  The Dreadnaught has 10 turbolaser "batteries" (WEG seems to think battery = gun), 10 laser cannons, and 20 quad-laser cannons (the Millenium Falcon's quad-lasers were taken from a Dreadnaught, to show you the size).  In addition, the Dreadnaught is a poorly designed, underpowered ship.  The Venator has 8 dual-barrel heavy turbolasers, 2 dual-barrel medium turbolasers, 52 anti-fighter lasers, and 4 proton torpedo tubes.  So right from the start, McEwok's claim that they have similar levels of armament is false.  He also doesn't consider shield/armor strength, and power levels.  The Recusant-class destroyer has more guns than a Dreadnaught, and the Venator can take 4-6 of them.  It's ridiculous that McEwok would even try to argue that a Carrack is on the same level as a Venator.


 * "a Carrack can just about go head-to-head with the Invisible Hand (RotS novellization)" Didn't the Invisible Hand own a Dreadnaught and THREE Carracks?


 * "Saxton made KDY's Mandator-class Star Dreadnoughts much bigger, but these are just for coast-defence)." Red herring, the Mandator is still a ship. McEwok thinks that the Venator is a cruiser because of that nickname "Republic attack cruiser" (although, like I already said, its official designation is already known to be "Star Destroyer"), and tries to argue that cruisers were the largest.  That's not true; there's the Mandator, and the ROTS ICS mentions that the Venator-class is "medium-weight" and serves as an escort ship for the Republic's big battleships (probably the same thing as the Mandator).  The Venator wasn't even the biggest when it came out.  Therefore, the time period the HttE sourcebook was referring to, when cruisers were the biggest in the Republic fleet, was pre-Clone Wars.  This fits in with the NUMEROUS sources claiming that the Dreadnaught-class was once the Republic fleet's biggest ship.  By the time of the Clone Wars, the scale was already loosened.


 * "one to the Utapauan space-defence force comprising "downscaled" locally-built ships with their largest ship being a Rendilli Dreadnaught: this does not mean that a Redili Dreadnaught is "downscaled", however, as a Rendili Dreadnaught is unlikely to be locally-built at Utapau. Oh please. The quote in question talks about Utapau having to make due with downscaled ships, and then makes a comparison between the 600 meter Dreadnaught-class and the 3 km+ Trade Fed Battleship.  Also, the suggestion that the Dreadnaught is unlikely to be built on Utapau is completely unsupported; something McEwok pulled out of thin air.  There's no evidence which says that a Rendili factory couldn't have been on Utapau.


 * "The ItW quote certainly implies that some "Star Cruisers" are bigger than standard 1.6km "Star Destroyers"." A lie. The quote is right there for everyone to read.  Star Cruisers are bigger than Star Destroyers (no modifying terms or class name used), and Star Dreadnaughts are bigger still.


 * "However, we can also observe that the most common Star Cruiser in the GFFA is the 1200m MC80, is only 75% the length of the standard 1.6km Star Destroyer, the ISD, and almost certainly significantly smaller in volume and tonnage." Those are Mon Cal Star Cruisers, not Imperial Star Cruisers. Also, WEG already explained that distinctions between ship types can get muddy.  Just like in real life, there can be overlaps or examples of smaller ships being in "bigger" scales (it's possible that the MC80's impressive shielding qualifies it as a Cruiser).

I'm sorry to have to write so much on your personal talk page, and I promise that in the coming days VT-16 and I will put together a summary of what we want in the article. I just can't stand to see falsehoods being posted and not responded to. If you want, call for an end to discussions on your own talk page. I'll follow along with that, and continue the discussion somewhere else (like on the talk page for the Ship classification article). JimRaynor55 05:36, 5 Dec 2005 (UTC)


 * I fail to see what's not "all-inclusive" about my own approach, except that I don't skew the meaning of the sources based on unwarranted juxtapositions of evidence. To reply to JR55, though...


 * 1.) The RPG stats give the ten "heavy TLs" of the Carrack and the ten "TL batteries" of the Dreadnaught a firepower of 7D each; the eight turrets of the Venator are rated at by WotC at the equivalent of 8D each. These are the primary long-range guns of each ship, and as you can see, they are closely comparable across the board. On a smaller level, the 20 quad lasers at 4D each on the Dreadnaught can be compared with the 52 single lasers on the Dreadnaught (which IIRC, are 1D each). There are certainly variations between the three ships: the Carrack is smaller, faster, and far more manouevrable, the Dreadnaught is older and has a far heavier crew, and the Venator, which is after all an incipient Star Destroyer, is I think rather better armoured and shielded, and carries a massive fighter force (but IMHO has its main guns awkwardly placed); but they are nevertheless broadly comparable as the bottom, middle, and top of the "cruiser" category. The Carrack and Dreadnaught seem to have been created in the first place as the "minimum" and "standard" for the cruiser class; but the Venator, as an "attack cruiser" of the Clone Wars, comfortably fits at the top-end of the class, just before the VicStar, VenStar and ImpStar were partially seperated into their own larger sub-category as Star Destroyers. I note that any attempt to limit the "standard Imperial system" to a "sector-scale" level has been quietly dropped by JR55. Presumably because it's fanon, and there's no evidence for it.
 * 2.) No, the Dreadnaught and the three Carracks did the damage that destroyed the Invisible Hand, though by the time we get details of the battle at the start of chapter five, the Dreadnaught was basically out of the fight, and one Carrack was a barely-functional hulk being used to block their escape vectors. I should have said that that the Vizzy is possibly going against two Carracks (Integrity and Perseverance), but most of the relevant stuff is phrased as Vizzy vs. Integrity, Needa vs. Grievous. And it's Grievous' ship that's falling apart under the other side's bombardment.
 * 3.) Firstly, I'd like canon evidence to support the claim that "Republic attack cruiser" is a "nickname" and "Star Destroyer" an "official designation". Secondly; there's no evidence in the text to define "battleships" beyond the implication that they're bigger than VenStars, but the idea that a VenStar is "medium-weight" when set against a Mandator rated at ~200 times the firepower is faintly ludicrous. In this context, we should note that the end of RotS was originally planned to show an ISD escorted by several VenStars, suggesting that ISDs could be the "battleships" in question. It's not even beyond speculation that a 900m VicStar could serve in "heavy-weight" battleship role, with the 1,137m VenStar serving in a battlecruiser role (real-life battlecruisers were often larger and faster, but lighter armoured, than the battleships they were designed alongside). Again, JR55 is speculating to fit the canon to the SWTC system. Now it's true that Saxton seems to have introduced Mandators to give voice to his fanon theories and undermine established canon, and yes, obviously they're huge compared to cruisers; but they're coast-defence ships used by a system government, not a blue-water navy.
 * 4.) I notice there's no reply here to the evidence of how small genuinely "downscaled" ships are: the best he can manage is the speculation that maybe Utapau's Rendili Dreadnaught was built locally, and maybe it was a "downscaled" ship. I suppose that if Utapau called it a 'dreadnaught', as the Mandalorians did the similar-sized ships that inspired it, that might even be true (the Old Republic's own much earlier 'dreadnaughts' had fitted in the 1-2km bracket); but formally, it's a Dreadnaught-class cruiser, a cruiser by the standard designation, and a perfectly adequately-sized one. ;)
 * 5.) The statement in ItW is that the "Super Star Destroyer" moniker was applied to ships bigger than the ISD, "from Star Cruisers to ultimate Star Dreadnoughts like the Executor"; this certainly implies that some Star Cruisers are bigger than the ISD, as I said; it does not prove that all Star Cruisers are larger than the ISD. The only clearly-defined "Star Cruiser" class is the Mon Cal one, at 1200m; yes, this may reflect a differing Mon Calamari scale, but in the end, we have no clear canon evidence: this is all I'm saying! While I believe we should present Saxton's system and go some way to implying a hierarchy of scale, we can't insist on the basis of canon evidence that Star Cruisers are bigger than Star Destroyers as a general rule.

Sorry, again, for taking up Admin time here. My invitation to VT-16 still stands, but I extend an invitation to JR55 to PM me at TF.N to see if we can find some common ground. Also, it seems to me that he's trying to pick holes in what I'm saying and reinterpret canon around a hypothesized primacy for Saxton's designations, which he just seems to assume the validity of. I wonder if he could be a bit more proactive...?
 * 1.) Clear evidence (rather than arguable inference backed by SWTC fanon) that the "Star" system is inflexibly scale-based; and clear, explicit, canon deliniations of where the boundaries of the categories are, comparable to those provided for the "standard Imperial system".
 * 2.) Any evidence as to what the specific in-universe context of this system might be, and an explanation not just of why, but how he thinks it can supercede the canonically-defined "standard Imperial system" as a galactic standard based on canon evidence, rather than existing as one of those multiple alternatives that happens to be favoured by Curtis Saxton or his in-universe proxy.

Thank you! --McEwok 11:31, 5 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Since I don't want to clutter up Sparqman's talk page anymore, I've accepted your challenge. Only it's going to be out in the open for everyone to see. 130.68.121.185 18:09, 5 Dec 2005 (UTC)
 * shrugs* It's not a "challenge". It's a question of what canon evidence supports. Like I said, I'd happily put my head together with VT-16 to work out what's acceptable to both of us, which I'd say would lead to strong and unarguable content for here at Wookiee. --McEwok 18:41, 5 Dec 2005 (UTC)

UNJOH Content
Well, I've decided to scrap the site once and for all. I still don't really feel like the Yuuzhan Vong stuff is mine to give out, but its author hasn't been seen in a year, and it's stupid to let all his work go to waste. The last official release of the Vong Database can be found here, though there was a good deal of more up-to-date data temporarily hosted on the site itself, which I've uploaded here. There would have to be lots of tweaking, but it's still a ton of good, solid data, and it's yours if you want it. Let me know once you've gotten the files so I can remove them from the server.CooperTFN 03:36, 15 Dec 2005 (UTC)

RE: YT-4000
Uh...just thought I'd let you know that I'm the person who put the delete tag on for the YT-4000. I think it's complete fanon, and I'm just getting plain sick of checking SkywalkerPL's entries for errors. -Jaymach Ral'Tir 08:31, 16 Dec 2005 (UTC)