Talk:DS-1 Orbital Battle Station/Legends

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Alternate Name
Did the Death Star have a military designation like most ships and space stations? If it has shouldnt that be the name of the article with death star just redirecting to it? --Razzy1319 07:59, 29 Dec 2005 (UTC)
 * Are you kidding? That wouldn't make any sense, and "Death Star" is the most common name anyway. -- Riffsyphon1024 08:05, 29 Dec 2005 (UTC)
 * That was very stupid. The most common term, and the only one, is "Death Star". Admiral J. Nebulax 13:03, 29 Dec 2005 (UTC)
 * Vulture droids arent under the title Vulture droids, Star destroyer titles are under their class names, droids are under their series names. Encyclopedic names doesnt title their articles under the most common term, the articles are titled according to factual information. Anyways, was just asking if their was such a name. --Razzy1319 17:02, 29 Dec 2005 (UTC)