Talk:Victory I-class Star Destroyer

Conjectural Turbolasers
"The Victory-class presumably also had a few heavy turbolaser turrets." Similar to the HIMS debate, why would we include this in the article? If there is a long standing discussion of the probability of VSDs bearing them, perhaps it should be included in Behind the Scenes, or if it's discussed at length on websites, linked to fron External Links. --SparqMan 15:45, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Because WEG also consistently ignored the HTL turrets on the ISDs in their stats. Even the Venator has HTLs, and it's just a carrier. It wouldn't make any sense at all for the VSD to not have them. -Vermilion 00:27, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

I should point out that recent sources have gone back to the Victory I-class Star Destroyer having 80 concussion missile launchers, not simply twenty launchers with 4 missiles each; the New Essential Chronology supports the former case, and the fact that the Providence-class Carrier/Destroyer has 102 proton torpedo launchers makes the VSD having 80 launchers not that unreasonable. --TIEDefenderPilot 00:56, 30 Nov 2005 (UTC)
 * Not nesesarily (I spelt that wrong, but I'm tired... lol): The Venator and ISDs were built by KDY, whereas the VSD was by Rendili. Plus I'm pretty sure the Victory came before the Venator. --Beeurd 00:43, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
 * WEG consistently left out the primary armerment of ships in favor of the secondary one. From their POV it makes sense, a hit from one of big HTLs is gonna annihilate the party.  But the weapons still need to be there.  -- Lowkey
 * Visible turrets are not necessarily the sine qua non of heavy weapons. More serious is the question of concussion missiles - as I've noted in the Behind the scenes section, we seem to have a snafu here, if SotG really says four tubes: so, does it? --McEwok 14:01, 16 Nov 2005 (UTC)
 * It says 20 tbes, 4 missiles a piece -- Lowkey
 * I agree. If the recent sources support the 80 launchers, then that should be it. Admiral J. Nebulax 20:01, 30 Nov 2005 (UTC)

Victor Project
Please explain to me how what really comes down to an immature temper tantrum about what a book says is necessary? A wiki entry is suppossed to be from a neutral POV, how is bashing what LFL has decided to retcon in anyway shape or form neutral? --Lowkey
 * It doesn't matter; it's information that should be there. Admiral J. Nebulax 17:06, 10 Dec 2005 (UTC)
 * Why? How is the fact that LFL made a decision that you don't like to change things relevent to the Victory class?  I don't like the fact that Galaxies is canon, you don't see me messing up articles bashing it.  What justification is there for including it?  -- Lowkey
 * Simple: It's information. Admiral J. Nebulax 17:13, 10 Dec 2005 (UTC)
 * The fact that you don't like it does not make it relevant informaion. --Lowkey
 * I never said I didn't like it. Admiral J. Nebulax 17:33, 10 Dec 2005 (UTC)
 * Then why are you so quick to revert information bashing LFL and defedning its inclusion despite being fron a nonNPOV? --Lowkey
 * You know, I don't really care about this anymore. It's out of the article anyway, despite the fact that it provides some information. Admiral J. Nebulax 17:43, 10 Dec 2005 (UTC)