User talk:VT-16

Walkers
I notice that you've been doing a lot of work on the various walker articles. I thought that you might like to know that there is in fact an article about walkers in general. Perhaps you would be interested in putting walkers on that list and linking each article back there rather than having a seperate list on each article. -- Aidje 11:22, 15 Apr 2005 (EDT)

Oh, and by the way: Welcome to Wookieepedia. :-) Aidje 11:24, 15 Apr 2005 (EDT)
 * Ah, thank you, I didn´t see that. Will try to fix that. And thanks for the welcome :)
 * I did notice something when I went through the entries, I believe there are two entries on the Executor, each linking from different places. It´s possible one is about Super Star Destroyers in general (encompassing all ships over the Star Destroyer scale), but some info on the Executor seemed to be posted twice. It was a few days ago, so I´m not sure if you´ve noticed and possibly corrected/moved that info. Just wanted to let you know. VT-16 10:47, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * I think that we do have an article on Executor and an article on Super Star Destroyers. I'll check it out and see if there's any Executor specific info that doesn't belong in the SSD article. -- Aidje 19:04, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Preview
Might I give some advice on saving articles. We do have a preview feature that you can use before saving and then finding something else to change. -- Riffsyphon1024 23:09, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * I do use that, and just forgot to do several things at once on the 'walker'-list. VT-16 16:17, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Minor edits
Why is it that you mark all of your changes to List of vehicles in Star Wars as minor? You seem to be overusing the 'minor' flag, in my opinion. I know that whether or not an edit is minor depends largely on personal opinion, but you might want to check out Wikipedia:Wikipedia:Minor edit. – Aidje talk 16:47, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Oh, I´m sorry, I got so used to putting 'minor' for every little thing I changed on the 'vehicle-list', when I did something big (like rearranging the names to go from smaller to bigger vehicles etc.) I guess I must have put minor automatically. Sorry. :\ VT-16 17:03, 11 May 2005 (UTC)


 * I see. You are correct that many of the edits that you do on that article would be considered 'minor,' so I can see how a habit would develop. It doesn't actually concern me very much, but it might bother some people (especially if anyone else ever comes and decides to do a lot of work with vehicles, like you do). – Aidje talk 17:20, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Haha, I actually had to restrain myself from marking the previous reply as 'minor'. I´ll try to evaluate better what might constitute as minor and what should be significant. VT-16 17:23, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

Movie titles
Hey VT-16. Please do not un-italicize movie titles in articles. As per the formating conventions of Wikipedia, movie and book titles are italicized. Read this for more information. --SparqMan 15:59, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

Empire at War units
No problem, mon! I got the names from screenshots on this website: . The images are from a recent German games convention. Shadowtrooper talk 18:33, 30 Aug 2005 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I looked around after posting that and found them after a while. But thanks anyway! :D VT-16 18:38, 30 Aug 2005 (UTC)
 * Oh, by the way, I remembered an old question you posted on the AT-AT discussion page, about the size of the XR-85. Gave my opinion on it. (Even though it was a few months too late ^^;;) VT-16 18:44, 30 Aug 2005 (UTC)

Firing Arcs
Could I ask that you please don't edit out firing arcs and ranges for weapons please? I'm planning on adding them for as many ships as I can.
 * Oh, I'm sorry, I thought they were simply RPG game mechanics. If they're not, I won't touch them :) VT-16 18:59, 17 Nov 2005 (UTC)
 * They are game mechanics, but I guess as long as they don't conflict with other information, they can provide some added insight. --SparqMan 19:10, 17 Nov 2005 (UTC)
 * Its just that some of them seem unintelligable if you're not into playing the RPG in the first place. I hope some of the definitions get explained at least. (That and some of the ranges can seem pretty small). But, yeah, where it doesn't conflict with other sources, feel free to add it. VT-16 19:23, 17 Nov 2005 (UTC)
 * Yeah as stated, they are game mechanics, but they're also rather handy for some anal-retentive fanfilm makers, and people who do the message board based story RP'ing. I just figured we might as well have them wherever we can. Oh and sorry for not signing the last entry. :) -Jaymach Ral'Tir 20:01, 17 Nov 2005 (UTC)
 * That's ok. :) VT-16 20:03, 17 Nov 2005 (UTC)

Ship classification

 * I have locked the Ship classification page until the dispute is resolved. Please see the discussion for further info. QuentinGeorge 23:39, 25 Nov 2005 (UTC)
 * Yep, saw it and gave my opinion in the talk-page. VT-16 23:41, 25 Nov 2005 (UTC)
 * Hey VT-16. 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)
 * I'm busy with a school project right now, but I'll provide some quick points in a day or two. :) VT-16 21:11, 3 Dec 2005 (UTC)
 * I've leapt in here. What I'm going to suggest is that the two of us get together on IM and try to work out what would be acceptable to both of us. That would be my preferred solution. If you have a TF.N username, then PM me for my IM (alternatively, a couple of the Admins here have my AIM)... --McEwok 17:33, 4 Dec 2005 (UTC)
 * Okay, I've not heard back from you, so I've thrown together a draft, and put it up for discussion here. I am entirely serious when I say I think we work better batting ideas back and forth than butting heads against each other. We can fix this - right? --McEwok 11:57, 12 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Rebel personnel carrier
first, thx for making an article on this neglected vehicle!

I have put some new pics on the page, and now it looks kinda cluttered, which of them should we keep and which get off? The uppermost one looks poor quality sorta.JustinGann 03:22, 10 Dec 2005 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I was hoping someone would find a better pic. Thanks. Btw, I've never seen that shot of Luke before, I know there's a cut-scene with him riding it, but I've never seen it from that angle before. Almost looks like there's room for another person inside. And I didn't find the "gun sled" in the ITW:OT or CLOSW books, but there is a vehicle that almost matches its design, called a "laser ice-cutter" (used for carving out the caves of Echo Base). In fact, it looks almost exactly the same. I think I'll mention that. VT-16 11:41, 10 Dec 2005 (UTC)
 * Hmm, I looked into the Ultimate Locations book, ath the Echo Base foldout, and to my surprise, this vehicle is twice labeled, once as personnel carrier, and once as flight crew shuttle. Looks like personnel carrier actually is a canon name!  Good guess, VT-16JustinGann 12:05, 10 Dec 2005 (UTC)
 * Hmmm, actually, contrasting the pics, are you sure these are the same vehicles? The laser cannon pics seem to have a rounded front, whereas the personnel carrier has a boxish front (and rear).  Also, the laser cutter has small rectangles along the side, but the personnel carrier has very large boxes (fewer in number).  Maybe the laser ice-cutter should be a separate page entirely?JustinGann 12:10, 10 Dec 2005 (UTC)
 * Yes, there's two different names for the boxy carrier, and I've known the ice-cutter being different for a long time (but didn't want to make a separate page just for that.) Seeing as you did make a new one, that might be alright after all, since we already accept plenty of articles with less info about their subjects. ;) And I checked CLOSW before writing a new name for it, so that wasn't a guess. VT-16 12:41, 10 Dec 2005 (UTC)

ReL CR20
Yeah, it's the transport taken to the Rand Ecliptic (If I remember correctly; it might have been shown leaving). It wasn't stated, but it looks identical, and the comic came out during the time design work was being done for Clone Wars. But for all I know maybe I'm wrong. Kuralyov 19:30, 19 Dec 2005 (UTC)
 * Looking at it now, I think it's possible it's a CR20, but the shots all show similar looking ships that are more rounded in design. There's not enough to say for sure, unfortunately, but since the CR25 has been shown in the Imperial era, I'm sure the CR20 also appeared. Bit unsure about this... VT-16 19:35, 19 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Positive Feedback
No problem bro (or sis) for cleaning up your Battle of the Dune Sea article. I looove videogames and I know all the missions. And thank YOU for being one of the few people to give me a positive comment. I appreciate it. Wolfdog 23:33, 29 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Real names
I don't know if you keep posting McEwok's real name just to annoy him or not, but he has asked you to stop. You didn't listen to him, so now I'm asking you to stop, and to remove his real name from your userpage. Some people don't like having their real name broadcasted over the internet. Thank you. StarNeptune 01:39, 2 Jan 2006 (UTC)
 * That's strange, since his name can be seen readily on several SW-related pages already, in conjunction with his alias. If he wants to seperate his RL-self from an internet-persona, then I guess he's entitled to the safety this brings. Very well. VT-16 19:05, 2 Jan 2006 (UTC)
 * I post my name on my user page, but it's generally considered good form to call a user by whatever he or she calls him or herself. It's always safe to call them by their user name, or whatever name they have altered their signature to display. --SparqMan 19:09, 2 Jan 2006 (UTC)
 * I see you've been warned about posting real-life info already...now, another complaint has been brought to an admin's attention. This is your last warning.  Next time, you will be suspended from the site.  If someone don't want it known here, then it will not be known here.  Regardless of what you may or may not be able to find somewhere else on the internet.  WhiteBoy 00:50, 5 Jan 2006 (UTC)
 * I should add that a major part of the issue here is that they got the wrong guy. The "McEwok" who uses the name now isn't the "McEwok" who put his personal details on the web back in the day: in the past few years, this identity has been part of a project by a 'hive-mind' group of fans, modeled partly on the Italian anarchist "author" Luther Blisset. There's only one of me now - just, a different "me". --McEwok 03:27, 9 Jan 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually, "McEwok" or whatever his real name is, is nothing more than a lying, deceitful piece of shit. He's either lying everyone straight in the face about this "hive-mind" he's supposedly part of, or they're all using the same BT IP address. I wonder what his supervisors have to say about him wasting time on this site, rather than finishing up his RL assignments? VT-16 19:27, 11 Jan 2006 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't go that far and if you continue this, you will be temporarily banned per remarks about other users. -- Riffsyphon1024 20:49, 11 Jan 2006 (UTC)
 * /me takes a deep breath. VT-16, in case I didn't make myself clear: the "McEwok" identity is no longer associated with the defunct "hive-mind" project. I was part of that group; the person whose details you got hold of was too. Sorry to intrude in your Talk page: I just feel obliged to make that clear. --McEwok 02:12, 12 Jan 2006 (UTC)

GR-45
Hey, I was going through the Images and media for deletion and one of the images is your Image:GR-45.jpg. I don't see an article on the GR-45 and was wondering if you were planning on using this pic or not. If not, I'll go ahead and delete it. Thanks. :) WhiteBoy 07:10, 15 Jan 2006 (UTC)
 * NVM...article and duplicate image found. Dunno why "GR-45" wasn't turning anything up in the search.  ???  WhiteBoy 08:43, 15 Jan 2006 (UTC)
 * That's strange. Could be that I uploaded the same picture with different names without realizing it. VT-16 11:22, 16 Jan 2006 (UTC)

Legacy
can you add the legacy-class star destroyer
 * Only if you've got any kind of official source with that name. Otherwise, it would be fanon, I'm afraid. VT-16 16:05, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Confirmed fanon, this guy's added it several times. See Talk:Legacy-class Star Destroyer. --Imp 16:07, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Oh, I remember that ship. It was the fan-made 3D image based on quick glimpses of the Venator in ROTS. I have to admit, at the time I almost liked that fan-take on it more than the official design, but I've come to accept it. However, that mesh was and still is fanon. Sorry. VT-16 16:11, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Infoboxes
Hey, I've noticed you updated a lot of vehicle articles with the revised infoboxes -- good work. The thing is, part of the idea for the new design is that we can omit fields from the infobox that we either don't know or that don't apply to that particular article. I noticed on some of your edits that you left a number of fields blank, which we don't really want. Also, using the lengthy infobox may not be the best idea for small articles. I know the project page wasn't very detailed in its instructions, and I apologize for that (I did just update it, though). If you want to discuss this further, please use the project talk page. Thanks. RMF 22:01, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
 * With the old system, I always cut down on empty parts, I didn't realise that was the intention here as well. Is it possible to add additional fields, too, if wanted? VT-16 22:08, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes. Usually it won't be necessary, because what we're trying to do is create an exhaustive list on the project page, and then crop that down for each individual article. If you have any fields in particular you want to add, just post on the appropriate talk page. RMF 22:14, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
 * The only think I was thinking of adding, was a 'function' field for spaceships, since their names and classifications are sometimes less than descriptive. Those fields are there in the current version, so I just wanted to know if they'd follow with the new looks as well. Thanks. :) VT-16 22:17, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, on the spacecraft page, it already has a field for class; which is pretty much synonymous with function. For example, on the N-1 starfighter page, under class it lists patrol, interceptor, and escort; which essentially covers both function and class. I believe most of the fields that were present on the old pl/plf infoboxes were carried over, with some new ones added as well. RMF 22:25, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

I just started a unified discussion here, so we can all work together in one place. Please join in! &mdash;Darth Culator  (talk)  13:58, 8 February 2006 (UTC) Regarding the vehicle infobox fields: sure, that sounds fine. RMF 01:53, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Be sure to use rather than, since my experimental template has reached the end of its usefulness.  &mdash;Darth Culator   (talk)  14:25, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Ok, when I tried it a few days ago, I messed up. VT-16 14:31, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I've messed up several times myself. This is almost entirely new to me. I don't think any version of the template is fully ready to be deployed yet, though. I can't figure out why the bullets look different in certain boxes, for example. I don't know if it's a CSS problem, or if it's my browser, or what. &mdash;Darth Culator   (talk)  14:52, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Haha, yeah I noticed those bullets that didn't look the same. Other than that, I think I've gotten hang of it now. Just have t be careful about accidently leaving things out and not following the template religiously. >P VT-16 14:54, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Eras.
I have a question. Could you tell me the eras in order from earliest to lastest (just so I know where to put Imperial Era, Rebellion Era, etc.)? Admiral J. Nebulax (talk) 15:45, 12 March 2006 (UTC) How's that? Admiral J. Nebulax (talk) 20:26, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I think "Imperial Era" is being looked at at the moment. It will probably be deemed unecessary, since the period it covers, is already covered by "Rise of the Empire Era". Basically, it's Rise of the Empire Era (1000-0 BBY), Rebellion Era (0-5 ABY), New Republic Era (5-25 ABY), New Jedi Order Era (25-35 ABY) VT-16 19:38, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
 * So is "Galactic Civil War" not considered an era? Admiral J. Nebulax (talk) 20:02, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm abit iffy on conflicts and how they match up with eras. The Clone Wars are essentially part of the "Rise of the Empire Era", but should be noted on its own as well... VT-16 20:17, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Perhaps something like:
 * Rise of the Empire Era
 * Clone Wars
 * Rebellion/Imperial Era
 * Galactic Civil War
 * New Republic Era
 * New Jedi Order Era
 * Legacy Era
 * The problem is the Galactic Civil War lasted long into the New Republic Era as well. It started in the last years of the Rise of the Empire Era, went into the Rebellion Era and officially ended towards the final years of the New Republic Era. VT-16 20:37, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Good point. We might as well just removed wars from it, then. Admiral J. Nebulax (talk) 21:50, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Or specify them either under an era or over several, where applicable. VT-16 21:56, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Links
Can I ask why you pursue 'fixing' the links of "AT-AT" to "All Terrain Armored Transport|AT-AT"?? I can't find a reason to do so since AT-AT is already a redirect to All Terrain Armored Transport. I think this fixing is just needless. MoffRebus 13:19, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I thought that would cut down on unnecessary redirects all over the place. Nothing more. VT-16 14:15, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Exploiter
Source for the escort carrier Exploiter? Lt. 1993 23:49, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I just found that name in the article already and italized it. You have to ask the one that put it there, because I have no clue. :) VT-16 08:44, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Oh, I thought you put it there.
 * Nope, it was there when I worked on it. VT-16 14:09, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

RE: Big clear pictures
They're from ScreenThemes. It was in an ad on StarWars.com and I decided to try it (and I made the article for it to explain where the pics came from). Most pics are sharp at 1600x1200, a few newer ones can be viewed up to 2048x1536 with no signs of scaling, and a few older ones don't benefit from the highest resolution and can be downsized to 1280x960 or 1024x768. It had the clearest shot of the ROTJ BG Ship I had ever seen, along with a few other obscure tidbits. -- Darth Culator 23:39, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Imperial vs Imperator
Hi, actually the name Imperator comes from fanon blueprints made in 1978, thw author Geoffrey Mandel told me via email that Imperator was never official nor were his blueprints. He specificly said " the blueprints were a fan effort." As with alot of SW ships they don't follow real life first ship name class rules, sure the Executor is the named but thats the only case thus far. my name is AmericanMuscle on here. (141.152.25.193 14:07, 14 June 2006 (UTC))
 * I thought the "Imperator" term had been officialized by now, even if it used to be a fan invention (just as Cygnus Spaceworks was). &mdash;Silly Dan (talk) 14:16, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
 * He doesn't seem to realize that even if the origin was with a fan, when it is used in official works, it becomes official. I've debated this guy (or others like him) on Wikipedia, and they kept deleting official sources that referenced the name (the Revenge of the Sith: Incredible Cross Sections, the Venator article on the Official Databank, and the novel Dark Lord: The Rise of Darth Vader).
 * According to the article on Star Destroyers there, the Mandel prints came with Lucasfilm markings. If what you say is true and Mandel responded to that, does that mean he falsified the markings? In that case, it's his problem if he deceived any buyers. I guess it's the same thing with the D7 Klingon battlecruiser in Star Trek, which apparently is also something he first came up with, that later got canonized.
 * And there's many classes that are named after the first ship made or commissioned in-universe, but not always. VT-16 14:38, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I see. You'll probably want to add a note about the unofficial origins and recent officialization (canonization?) of the Imperator- name to the "Behind the scenes" section, then.  &mdash;Silly Dan (talk) 22:14, 14 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I think that'd be for the best. Still, it's pretty funny, we have one unsubstantiated claim on Wikipedia (about the LFL markings) and another in this thread (about talking with Mandel himself), both of which don't have anything to show for it. I guess we'll just take this on good faith. ;) VT-16 22:25, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

ImpStar Debate

 * VT-16, a week ago, you said you would ask Leland Chee about the armament on the Imperial-class Star Destroyer- in a nice, unobtrusive, non-denominational sort of way. Well, the discussion on the talk page moved on to far more irrelevant topics, so I was wondering if you A) had asked him and B) if so, what he said? Just curious. Atarumaster88 01:06, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I did ask, but the question got buried in a mound of "twilek/human sex" and someone asking if SW books treat it as a real universe or something. I wanted to wait a while before trying again, so either today or tomorrow I'll ask again. VT-16 10:05, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
 * How hideous. Thank you for trying. Keep up the good work. Atarumaster88 01:57, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Anything? Atarumaster88 14:48, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I'll try asking today. Haven't done it yet. :p VT-16 14:51, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
 * OK. Do you know if there is anything special that has to be done for images used only on user pages? Atarumaster88 14:52, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Not that I know of. Just make sure you note that it's to be used only as a userpic and nothing else. VT-16 14:55, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Already done. Atarumaster88 14:57, 21 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I guess we are doomed to just not know what the truth is about the ISD's weapons. Atarumaster88  [[Image:Jedi_Order.svg|20px]] ( Audience Chamber ) 16:01, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Asked again, and no-one's responded. Unless the alternate armament can be indentified on a picture of the vessel, I suggest going with the only one we have, from the ICS. :/ VT-16 16:08, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Template user sub-pages?
I don't think this is possible, but is there a way to make a sub-page of my user page that's a template? And I also thought I read something about users with a sub-page called "sig", probably used for signatures. Is that true, and why/how are those used? I just put my custom signature in the nickname field. &mdash; Aiddat (Holonet) (Contribs Log) 14:42, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm not that knowledgable about those kinds of things, but I think if you go to the templates category (under the main wookiepedia category) you might figure out how to make your own template. :) VT-16 14:45, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Okay. Thanks. &mdash; Aiddat (Holonet) (Contribs Log) [[Image:NR_Seal.svg|20px]] 14:53, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Proposed new policy change

 * Feel free to comment on Forum:Relations with other websites. MyNz 09:51, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

MC80a battleship
VT-16, I was wondering about your source for the info in the MC80a battleship article. I noted that you listed a scrapbook as the source. Could you please provide me with the exact quote that lists [i]Home One[/i] as being a MC80a battleship that is 3800 meters long? I am curious about the validity of the source since LFL maintains that the whole size/classificiation of Home One has never been decided. I am not trying to be rude, but I am always skeptical of articles that claim these things about Home One. Could you please provide me with the quotes that backed your creating the article? Thanks! AdmiralNick22 13:11, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I didn't put that there, someone changed the length after I made the article. Basically, the Home One was mentioned as a MC80a Star Cruiser in several games, I think, and as a battleship in the Rebel Alliance Scrapbook. I took the MC80a designation and the battleship designation and made the name to separate it from all the other MC80-series Star Cruisers, since I also found the old original sources where it was bigger than the others. That's more systematic than saying Home One-type, which is not in any official source. VT-16 13:24, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
 * There is a problem however with this. First off, it is still a fan guess, not a official source. As it is we have conflicting sourcs on whether Home One is a MC80 or MC80a. Also, the term battleship is used loosly to describe Mon Cal cruisers in numerous sources- just like for ISD's. Hell, Kevin J. Anderson refered to Mon Cal cruisers as cruiser, battle cruisers, and battleships- all describing the MC90 Galactic Voyager. As for games that refer to Home One as a MC80a, the only I am aware of is X-Wing Alliance- which has many screw ups in warships size, classification, etc.

Now, the source you refer to as stating Home One is bigger is from the novelization fo ROTJ, right? The whole "largest of the Rebel Star Cruisers" line. Problem is when the novelization was written, there was no WEG sourcebooks that pegged them as Mon Cal cruisers. In fact, early sources from before all the RPG info use the term Star Cruiser to describe the Medical Frigate. The term used is "Rebel Medical Frigate Star Cruiser".

I just feel that the article is not supported by enough sources to warrant its creation. I am not trying to insult your work or anything like that, but I am always wary of these kind of articles with bits of supposition on the Wookiee. Do you understand where I am coming from? Personally, I think we need to delete it. Obviously since you created it I think it was fair that we dicuss this a bit before taking the next step. What is your opinion? AdmiralNick22 14:15, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
 * There is no problem. Novelizations, scripts and actual movie making is and always has had a higher status than third party writing. That is the way LFL canon laws work. And I've never heard the Nebulon-Bs described that way, only as "battlecruisers", a term used in early comics for just about everything the Rebels had, warship-wise. And the Home One is still described as the largest. There is no arguing that, as I've laid out above. The LFL canon laws can not be superceded that way. There's even been several post-WEG sources picturing the Home One battleships as bigger than 1,200 meters (an illustration from Starships of the Galaxy and the revised look for the Home One in Empire at War's expansion pack). I've made sure to bring the evidence to the actual article before writing it, to ensure accuracy. VT-16 15:19, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Fine. Going by this thought pattern, is there a source in the movie, novelization, or script that says "Home One is a MC80a battleship". Because, if there isn't, the classification is just supposition. Now, you site the scrap book as the source for Home One being a MC80a battleship. Can you show me the quote for this? As for the illustration in SOTG, where does it say it is Home One? I have that RPG book. All I see it a picture of a unclassifed rear portion of a Mon Cal designed warship? What is your source for it being Home One? Furthermore, who is to say that the pic is not of a Viscount or Mediator?

Again, I bring up why we can't let the novelization quote about "largest of the Rebel Star Cruisers" mean it is bigger than all other Mon Cal cruisers. Rebel Star Cruiser is not specfically stated in the novelization to refer specifically to Mon Cal cruisers. In fact, the novelization only mentions one type of ship specifically being Calamarian- tankers. So, if I understand correctly, you are basing this article on the fact Home One looks larger in the movies? Even though Leeland Chee of LFL said that there has been no ruling yet on Home One's size? AdmiralNick22 00:02, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
 * You're making alot of silly assumptions about this, and seeing as this is not the article talk page, I will post this there instead. VT-16 01:09, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

userpage
" >3> "

What's that mean?!

Cheers,  Relentless Recusant  19:09, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I think it's a form of emoticon, a kissy-face. I had nothing better to write. :P VT-16 20:01, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Recusant-class light destroyer
VT-16, why is this added to the list of Mon Cal cruisers? It may of been based off stolen Mon Cal designs, but we have no idea how much it was changed. Furthermore, it was not even built at the Mon Cal shipyards. Shouldn't we remove it from the list of Mon Cal warships? AdmiralNick22 13:53, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
 * But it was their design, and the ships started coming out of the CIS factories a short time afterwards. :) VT-16 14:16, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
 * But it wasn't built by them. Whereas all other ships on the Mon Cal warships list at the bottom of the page were. I don't debate it being based on Mon Cal designs. But, it doesn't belong on that list. I feel like it was put there so that the list could appear complete. AdmiralNick22 14:18, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
 * True, but design-wise, that's their doing. The profile on the official site mentioned it, the Holonet article referenced it, and it showed up in a Rebel fleet in SW:Rebellion issue 4, ironically alongside two MC80 cruisers. It just seemed like a good idea to include on the list, like the Imperial prison ships made or inspired by Mandalorian designs on the Mandalorian list. VT-16 14:22, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I did like that the artist included that in Rebellion #4. Between that and the captured Acclamator-class, it is a nice tie in to the Rebel fleet being a mix of older, second hand designs and a few first class ones like MC80's and Neb-B's. AdmiralNick22 15:26, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Yep, they used everything the could get their hands on. Recusants, Acclamators and the Class-II frigate Rand Ecliptic (which I think can be seen in the far left on that same page, at least the ship is too elongated to be an Acclamator). I also noticed several scenes in ROTJ where some unseen Rebel vessels were shooting rather big bolts at the Imperial fleet. Some of them go behind ISDs and would be at least one km in length. Wonder if anyone will retroactively connect those with the big Bulwark-class battlecruisers the Rebels had at the time? :) VT-16 15:33, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Image needing a re-upload.
VT, could you please upload your version of Image:Sovereign star dreadnought.jpg? Someone added a fanon version, and I can't revert it back. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) 11:14, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
 * For the last time, you need to push the "retry" button whenever you're on a page where the picture has changed. Both on the actual picture page and the relevant article. We've tried telling you this on several subjects already. :P The picture is the old one now. VT-16 12:09, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
 * VT, if you were being serious, I tried that and it didn't work. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Imperial_Emblem.svg|20px]] 19:56, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, then there's something wrong with your computer because I see the same old silouette profile picture. VT-16 20:36, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Image request
As you seem to have uploaded most of the images of Force Commander units, I was wondering if you could get a good one of the Infiltrator unit. Thanks a lot. Havac 03:56, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Image resizing
Just out of curiosity, how are you doing that? Oh, and thanks for doing that to all those Marvel images. Cull Tremayne 17:11, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I use a program called "Irfanview" in conjunction with MS Paint. Irfanview can change the sizes and dimensions of a picture, but in doing so, makes them huge, so I have to save them in the same format in Paint afterwards to shrink them down. :) VT-16 19:32, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Aaah, I was thinking you might be uploading them to a separate image cache (say imageshack) which automatically resizes the image. Thanks for the help :) Cull Tremayne 22:51, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Mon Cal cruisers at Fondor
Do you happen to have a pic of this? I don't own the comic and I have always wanted to see the pic. Does the comic take place after Fondor joined the NR? AdmiralNick22 21:24, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Cities
Have you done Iziz yet? Enochf 19:22, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I have now. :) VT-16 19:30, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Category:Hutt Cartel spaceships
Can we please go with Category:Hutt Cartel starships to fit the general Star Wars language? --SparqMan 19:10, 21 December 2006 (UTC) Yeah, I don't mind "spacecraft" as a term, but "spaceships" sounds a bit too Buck Rogers for our GFFA, IMHO. --SparqMan 19:29, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Ah, I thought there was a distinction between "spaceships" (everything that can fly in space) and "starships" (hyperdrive-capable ships). I will change it then. :) VT-16 19:12, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Hah, never thought of it that way. :D
 * Btw. why were most of the Zann Consortium ships taken out of that category? The Kedalbe-class and Crusader-class served it just as much as the other vehicles. VT-16 19:30, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

We've been pretty good about keeping ship classes and specific ships separate for the big categories (Rebels, Imps, NR), but the smaller ones often get lumped together. I'd like for us to note those ship classes by affiliation, but not at the cost of confusing other categories. I put some of my thoughts here: Forum:Starship classes under faction categories. Feel free to revert if you think I was too hasty.--SparqMan 20:08, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I'll check out the discussion. It's nice to see more coherence in the starship/starship class categories. They've always confused me because classes and individual ships get mixed all the time. :S VT-16 10:48, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Battle of Solay
Nice work on the battle of Solay. Nice to see another Marvel encounter depicted. --Eyrezer 01:17, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I'm going to try and get some more up over the coming weeks. :D VT-16 13:06, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Custom Userboxes
If you would like any user boxes made just see my talk page. Thanks. Happy Holidays!

Something that may interest you.
I nominated it for the lamest thing ever contest. Lord Patrick 05:18, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I have voted with my heart. :p VT-16 08:20, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

"Hey there, palm****er"
I warned you once before about using vulgar invective against other users. Since this is on your user page, where we tend to cut a bit more slack than we do elsewhere, I'm going to postpone the immediate and merciless banstick beating I promised. However, if I don't see it toned down to polite disagreement the next time I check, and it's clear that you've been on and had the chance to fix it, the floggings will resume as scheduled. jSarek 14:18, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
 * For that matter, even if you're directing those comments at someone who's not actually a user here, that sort of thing is inappropriate. &mdash;Silly Dan (talk) 14:30, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
 * If only administration had been this effective when McEwok put fanon into three articles the past few weeks. VT-16 15:25, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Some things are more clear cut than others. McEwok's edits are fishy sometimes, and God/dess knows he could use a heavy-handed editor, but they're rarely clear-cut fanon.  "Palm****er" is pretty clear-cut.  Thank you for taking it down. jSarek 23:25, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
 * The fact that he is posting fanon in articles at all, should be cause for alarm. Right now I have to revert his vandalism to the 'cruiser' article because he removed official information. VT-16 10:51, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

GA warships
Thanks for getting all the scans of Legacy GA ships into the various articles. They add to the articles nicely. :-) AdmiralNick22 00:19, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
 * You're welcome! VT-16 00:20, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Loronar Spaceship Classes
Hey, after back-tracking a bit (and then finding the easy way), I discovered you made the Loronar spaceship classes template. I recently saw the X-Q1 patrol craft on the wanted page and subesequently made it, thinking that as it was in a template then it had to exist. I still believe it does, but it'd be of immeasurable help if you could tell me where the source for this name is, if only for me to source it (I googled it and didn't find anything definitive). I did make it with the intention of making an article, though.
 * Hope to hear back from you soon. - Jinko 02:17, 11 April 2007 (UTC)


 * If it can't be found anywhere and the person writing the name can't provide a source, then it shouldn't be here. VT-16 09:15, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Resolved now, at any rate. - Jinko 16:58, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Inclusionism
For the record, I like your inclusionist philosophy. In a way, it adds more color (possibly the right word) to these webistes. --LtCol. JuiceStain 22:18, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I remember some battles I've had getting people to understand that even the silliest in-universe reference should be included, even if the readers/viewers understand it to be an obvious Earth-term. Stuff like "Portugese man-o-war" and "England". (Though I'm not sure about the second, I can't remember if they ever managed to provide photographic proof of the name, which was said to be written on the side of the IT-0 droid's needle). VT-16 12:27, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Galactic-class
Hey, mate, I agree with you. I think that nonsense about it "carrying battle to the enemy", or whatever it exactly says, should be cut, and I would have done it on my own if not because I know certain users will revert the deletion and leave that rubbish there. The fact is, this nonsense about "psychological" and "taking the battle of the enemy" is fanon speculation. I only added the battlecruiser and fleet carrier comparisons because I thought it was relevant. I got the impression you more or less agreed with what I was saying there, but then, I may have misunderstood what you said. What are your thoughts?--SOCLcomm 01:12, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I suspect it was put there by McEwok, a person who thinks doing "post-modern" literary analysis makes up for not knowing military terminology. It's nonsense and complete rubbish and even though it's in the Behind the Scenes section, I think it's a waste of webspace. Sadly, some admins would probably disagree, so I'm not sure how to handle it. VT-16 06:33, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm going to go ahead and delete it. It's simply utter rubbish.  Will you lend me some back up if the matter gets, to put it nicely, stupid.--SOCLcomm 16:27, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
 * If his argument is that "battle carrier" means "something that carries battle" and uses another unfounded example ("Star Destroyer" = "something that destroys stars") as explanation, then this can pretty much be deleted. If something goes in bts sections, it needs to actually have some sort of backing, either in canon or the real world. This has neither. VT-16 16:39, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Anakin's Transport
Do you think Anakin's Transport shouldn't be call that because you don't know if there's more than 1 or if it's just for Anakin. I think it should just be called "B-Wing Starfighter (Clone Wars)". Olsonman 28:00, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Its name will undoubtably be given, but until then, this is just a placeholder and is noted as such. VT-16 19:57, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Calamari Cruisers
Actually, X-Wing Alliance calls the Liberty a Calamari Cruiser Type 2, and the Defiance just plain old Calimari Cruiser. Curiously enough, the tech room in the game calls the Defiance a MC80a, which strikes me as odd, and it also calls the Liberty type a Winged Calimari Cruiser. So...if you can pull anything coherent out of that, best of luck. Thefourdotelipsis 04:13, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
 * That sounds reasonable. Shall you, or shall I? Thefourdotelipsis 12:14, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, I think it might be more prudent to leave MC80 Star Cruiser as a disambiguation page, since so many of them have that in their title. For the Defiance type, I think that the disambiguation qualified thing in the parentheses is enough. And we can just leave the Liberty one as is. I think. Thefourdotelipsis 12:33, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Memory of a goldfish, I swear. OK, I've moved it now. Thefourdotelipsis 13:00, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Unsourced images
Hi. Could you please provide a source for this image that you uploaded? It currently links to generic Clone Wars. Thanks. --Eyrezer 07:06, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Image:July 1983 CINEFEX wingless.jpg --Eyrezer 00:58, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Um, the source is in both the filename and the picture description. VT-16 01:41, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
 * But what is CINEFLEX? The idea of sourcing it is so that someone else could find the pic if they needed to. --Eyrezer 22:38, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I linked to Cinefex's Wikipedia article, since it's not a strictly SW-affiliated magazine. VT-16 22:41, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
 * That's perfect. Thanks for the speedy response. --Eyrezer 10:54, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Executor source request

 * I see that you added the info, since changed to read, "In a military sense the Executor was somewhat impractical, since a smaller ship could fulfill its mission duties, like the Inexpugnable-class tactical command ships of the Galactic Republic had done in eras past." I would request that you provide a source for this information. Thanks. Toprawa and Ralltiir 01:17, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

MC80 names
I'm not sure where to place them actually, although I know those terms are canon. I only briefly glanced at book before I wrapped it up as a present for my bro, but we will open presents soon, so I can recheck then. The actualy paragraph I looked at just said something along the lines, "there are two basic types, the Liberty-type and Home One-type", which doesn't clarify whether those terms go before, after, or in the middle of the name. I will be sure to do more updates based on the book after the unwrapping.JustinGann 20:38, 18 December 2007 (UTC) So: a) Liberty-type MC80 Star Cruiser or b) MC80 Liberty-type Star Cruiser either way is valid. Also, he said the "type" subclassification names are mostly used by "outsiders" and are not names given by the Mon Cal themselves (thus, they are somewhat informal terms), who make no "subclass" distinctions, since each ship is individual; the "subclass" "types" are just vague labels for similar ships given by non-Mon Cals. Thus, he says, the "Pearly Wingless" might or might NOT be considered a "Liberty-type."JustinGann 09:15, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Unwrapped and read. However, I can't find anything to indicate where to put these phrases in the name.  However, I think I made a mistake.  Apparently "Liberty type" and "Home One type" do not have hyphens.JustinGann 00:31, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I asked Moridin himself, since he made the book, and he said that the "type" can go either before or after the name. Of course, I put it after, so I chose the one place that it does NOT go!  Alas!

Viscount from SOTG II
Can you post a scan of the Viscount from Starships of the Galaxy II? AdmiralNick22 03:32, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Theta-class AT-AT barge
Hey, VT. I just wanted to check this out with you. I talked to some people in the IRC who have stated the Theta does not appear in NEGVV. I removed the source from that article. Seeing that you mention that it does make an appearance in the book in the article's talk page, I just wanted to confirm this with you. Thanks. Toprawa and Ralltiir 19:00, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Gamer 2
Hi VT-16. Do you have a Gamer 2? There is a pic in there that would be a good addition to the Moorja article. --Eyrezer 10:43, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

2nd Battle of Onderon
Hello VT-16,

I just wanted to say thank you for your additions to this article. You helped me in a way I would normally not have seen for myself, by adding the important elements of the Wing squadrons & such. Again, thanks. —Tommy9281 ( Maybe it is time to liberate YOU! ) 18:09, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Same article
Hey again VT-16, If you have time, can you source what I added to the infobox please? I am limited in my current editing capacity. Thanks alot. —Tommy9281 ( Maybe it is time to liberate YOU! ) 01:27, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Same article
Hey VT-16, You know, this is up for a GA nomination... —Tommy9281 ( Surely you can do better! ) 23:50, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Image revert
I just wanted to explain my reverting Image:BattleOfSerroco dfna.jpg. I thought the cropped image was more visually appealing than blanked-out red box at the bottom of the image you uploaded. Hope you're OK with that. -  JMAS  Hey, it's me! 20:10, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Mind if I ask what the problem was with my upload of Image:Emperorrecon.jpg? The only difference I see between mine as yours, is that mine was centered and you could see the rain. Your upload I'm assuming you applied a blur effect to try and eliminate the rain, but now the image looks blurry. I think it's better to have the rain than the blurriness. -  JMAS  Hey, it's me! 17:36, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I thought it was a small image someone tried to make bigger. It looked very pixelated. Mine was just from the film itself. Btw, I assume the side-picture or the Venator and Acclamator from Chronicles: The Prequels never worked out? VT-16 17:51, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 * So far, nothing I've tried has worked. So for the time being, I'm going to have to say that I'm unable to get that shot for you. But I'll keep trying in the meantime. On the above image, I'm going to go ahead and revert. It's not pixelated. It's a HD capture from the film. And I think the centered, sharper image is better for the infobox. -  JMAS  Hey, it's me! 18:12, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Ok. VT-16 18:15, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Hello
Hello, VT-16, I'm Grand Moff Tranner. You seem to know a lot about Super Star Destroyers, so I thought I would ask you a question. I stumbled upon the Super Star Destroyer (8km) article, and I saw that both that "class" and the Super-class share the same length. I realize that the Super-class name was given to the Executor-class for budgetary reasons, but I'm becoming more and more convinced that a separate Super-class did in fact exist, which would lend its name to group of variously-sized Star Destroyers known as Super Star Destroyers. I was reading Invincible earlier today, and on page 212 is describes the Megador as being a Super-class Star Destroyer. I'm also aware that this class has appeared elsewhere in reference to actual ships. My question to you is this: Would it be possible to merge the "Super Star Destroyer (8km)" article into the Super-class article and reword it to say that although the class was originally designed to hide the truth behind the Executor, it eventually became its own class? Grand Moff Tranner (Comlink) 00:25, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, the thing is, the Super-class designation is the same as the Super Star Destroyer, it's a general designation for many different warship classes. Even the recent Starships Of The Galaxy edition describes the Executor both as a Super Star Destroyer, Super-class Star Destroyer and designates it Executor-class Star Dreadnought, so it's not a certain class in itself. VT-16 09:17, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't be too sure of that. While the Super-class may have been invented to conceal the true nature of the Executor-class, it appears that some Super-class vessels were indeed constructed - hence the "Super Star Destroyer (8km)" article and ships such as the Megador. Saying that the Super-class is another name for Super Star Destroyer is obviously wrong. The Super-class is a distinctive Super Star Destroyer class. Additionally, saying that the Super-class is made up is wrong, as even the Imperial Remnant uses ships of this class, not the Executor-class. Up until recently, I had the same beliefs that you do, but I think that the Super-class has been used too much now to be considered nonexistent any longer. If an 8km long Super Star Destroyer is canon, it's obviously the Super-class. Saying that it isn't is fanon. Grand Moff Tranner [[Image:Imperial Department of Military Research.svg|20px]] (Comlink) 12:37, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I made that first article, as I've done whenever a new distinct SSD design is mentioned anywhere. By canon sources, both Super-class and SSD are colloquial terms used by various SW militaries, other designations and class-names are used instead. The latest source to confirm the colloquial use is Starship Battles Preview 1 on Wizards of the Coast's homepage. The article should still be there. An 8km SSD can be called whatever they feel like, but it's official name is not Super-class Star Destroyer, since only bigger shiptypes get called that, as per Inside the Worlds of the Star Wars Trilogy. The Imperial Star Cruisers, Star Battlecruisers and Star Dreadnoughts are the canonical Super Star Destroyers, Star Destroyers are not. Whatever this 8km long ship is, it's still not designated a Star Destroyer as that is an official designation for smaller warships than SSDs. VT-16 13:03, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I have no idea why you're so opposed to this, but the Super-class is canonical. Having a separate article for an 8km long Super Star Destroyer is unneeded when the canonical 8km long Super Star Destroyer is the Super-class. This is supported by canon. However, I have asked Mr. Chee about this on the StarWars.com message boards; please do not undo my edits until he has given me a reply. Grand Moff Tranner [[Image:Imperial Department of Military Research.svg|20px]] (Comlink) 20:27, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Like I've said over and over again, according to canon the Super-class exists only as a military colloquialism, not an actual Star Destroyer class. Whatever the 8km Super Star Destroyers are, they are not designated Super-class Star Destroyers. VT-16 22:57, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

SSD dispute
A forum on SSD's involving you has been started. A response would be appreciated. -- SFH 00:40, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
 * With all due respect, SFH, I've had plenty of responses. Frankly, I don't want to read another; I just want an admin to look over the issue. Grand Moff Tranner [[Image:Imperial Department of Military Research.svg|20px]] (Comlink) 00:43, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I know, but he has a right to state his reasons as well. -- SFH 00:45, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

About this whole issue
First off, I'd like to apologize. Second, I just wanted to ask your permission for something. I would like to put Super-class Star Destroyer as the class of the Megador again. While it may or may not be its own class, that is what the Megador is called in Invincible. I won't bother with redoing any of my other edits to similar pages. But to be quite honest, I feel that if you refuse this, then this site is no longer dedicated to having the correct information in regards to Star Wars. Besides, if Leland Chee replies saying that the Super-class isn't its own class, it's not like we can't remove it. And if that's what he says, believe me, I'd be the first to remove it. Grand Moff Tranner (Comlink) 13:10, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, sorry for blowing off some steam over this, I'm just used to that kind of stuff with another (now hopefully in-active) user on this site. I have no disagreement about putting the word Super-class Star Destroyer on any article, but it has to link to the Super Star Destroyer article, as that is the canonical position as of now. The Super-class article is a distinct article about an in-universe fake class, whose main legacy is the name being used colloquially later on. Maybe with some rewording, it can be linked to as well. I'll try doing that. VT-16 13:27, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Linking to the "Legacy" section of the Super-class article seems good to me. Thanks, and I hope we can put this whole issue behind us. I think we have a lot in common. ;) Grand Moff Tranner [[Image:Imperial Department of Military Research.svg|20px]] (Comlink) 16:34, 18 May 2008 (UTC)