This is the talk page for the article "Executor/Legends."

This space is used for discussion relating to changes to the article, not for a discussion about the topic in question. For general questions about the article's topic, please visit the Knowledge Bank. Please remember to stay civil and sign all of your comments with four tildes (~~~~). Click here to start a new topic.

This talk page has archives.


"We do not require glory, only status articles for our Emperor."

Executor/Legends is within the scope of WookieeProject Ambition, an attempt to build comprehensive and detailed articles relating to the Galactic Empire.
If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this notice, or visit the project page, where you can find out more about our mission, or even join yourself!


Executor/Legends is a Featured article, which means it has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wookieepedia community. If you see a way this page can be updated or improved without compromising previous work, please feel free to contribute.

Article milestones
Date Process Result
16 June 2009 Featured article candidate Success
12 October 2009 Featured article
September 13, 2011 Featured article review Kept
October 23, 2011 Featured article
Current status: Featured article


How do you pronounce it: ig-ZEK-yuh-ter or EK-si-kyoo-ter? Unsigned comment by (talk • contribs).

  • The first oneOmegatron9 14:29, November 25, 2009 (UTC)

The "proton torpedo" claim in the previous editEdit

I noted this in the archives:- the claim that A-Wing's used proton torpedoes on Executor because of the novelization is simply wrong. The novelization's account of Executor's demise has nothing to do with the movie:-

"'Firing proton torpedoes,' Green Wing advised. The bridge was hit, with kaleidoscopic results. A rapid chain reaciton got set off, from power station to power station along the middle third of the huge destroyer, producing a dazzling rainbow of explosions that buckled the ship at right angles, and started it spinning like a pinwheel toward the Death Star."

This never happened in the movie. The novel doesn't even note that it was Arvel who killed the Executor, instead it thinks a proton torpedo salvo did it. The novel's description is entirely contradicted - fighters never attacked the bridge itself with any warheads of any type, nor did any of that happen when we saw the A-Wings strafe the globe. Accordingly I've edited the article. In addition I've made some changes to take into account Starships of the Galaxy Saga Edition and the Star Wars Complete Locations. The shields were already down when the A-Wings attacked the globes. Vymer 10:20, January 20, 2010 (UTC)

And your edit had been reverted. Executor recently passed our Featured Article review. As such, it is a comprehensive article including information from all reliable and official sources. Just because the event was not shown in the film does not mean it did not happen. The events from the novelisation are valid information, and were added to the article. - Cavalier OneFarStar(Squadron channel) 10:23, January 20, 2010 (UTC)

The novelization's account of Executor's death is mutually exclusive from that of the movie. In the novel the Executor dies to proton torpedoes, in the movie it dies from being rammed in the bridge. There was no chain reaction of explosions from a proton torpedo attack. It could not have happened, period- what, are you saying offscreen, before or after what happened in the movie, the events in the novel happened? Whilst it was already on its death ride? Or before that, and it was an entirely different Executor that crashed into the Death Star 2 due to the A-Wing in the bridge? Help me out here. Simply because a source is official doesn't mean it is correct or that it is not obviously overriden by something else. This is a lot like saying Luke's squadron at Yavin was both Blue and Red Squadron because the novel says Blue Squadron. Vymer 10:25, January 20, 2010 (UTC) And another point - it smacks of ignoring context to claim that the A-Wings used proton torpedoes against the domes when the novel isn't even talking about that, its talking about Executor being destroyed by a direct attack. Its just a bizarre thing to include in the article - take something in the novel that never happened in the movie, then pretend its talking about something that did happen in the movie, in a completely different way? Errr - what? No. Its flat wrong. Vymer 10:41, January 20, 2010 (UTC)

So does anyone have a reasonable argument for how this claim about proton torpedoes against the globes can be correct, apart from distorting the context of a passage from the novelization that doesn't match the scene in the movie in any way? Indeed, I didn't revert the article after my own edits were reverted, and all thats seemed to happen is the protection level was increased to 'protect' it from 'fleet junkie-obsessed edit warring' - a better way to prevent such edit warring would be offering reasonable arguments that make sense in light of the evidence. Vymer 04:30, January 22, 2010 (UTC)

The theft of Vader's helmetEdit

I know this SWM mission is highly improbable, but doesn't really contradicting. It may be part of an assassination project, before Hoth. Have some official source stated this is non-canon? If not, we don't have the right to say so. There are sillier EU thing that are canon. Darth Morrt 13:09, June 16, 2010 (UTC)


  • Just an observation this page lists the length of The Executor to be 19,000 meters, when in fact it should be closer to 9,500 meters because the length of the Eclipse is listed as 17,000 meters. The Eclipse is a far larger ship and would therefore have the larger dimensions. Please fix if possible thank you. Unsigned comment by (talk • contribs).
    • The length is correct. Current Canon sources state that is is 19,000 meters. - Cavalier OneFarStar(Squadron channel) 08:38, August 16, 2010 (UTC)
      • The 19m is obviously wrong, so why is it there? 12seraph 00:01, November 17, 2011 (UTC)
        • This is the official canonical length established by Lucasfilm, which is properly sourced and explained to a near ridiculous degree, if I may say so myself, in the article. The literal size of real-world film models are not taken into equation. Toprawa and Ralltiir 00:23, November 17, 2011 (UTC)
          • How and why is a secondary source more canon than the film? 12seraph 04:37, November 18, 2011 (UTC)
            • This is how canon works. I'm sorry if you don't like it. If you disagree with its principles, you are welcome to contact Leland Chee or another Lucasfilm representative and argue your case to them. I won't be responding to any further comments relating to this thread. Thank you. Toprawa and Ralltiir 06:01, November 18, 2011 (UTC)
  • Shouldn't it be eleven times the length of a Star Destroyer, as stated in From Star Wars to Indiana Jones? Oh, and isn't the length of the studio model given as 282cm? That was on the Star Wars Databank, I believe, and should be included... Unsigned comment by 12seraph (talk • contribs).
    • Take some time to read through the article and you will find all of this information is already included where appropriate. Toprawa and Ralltiir 00:37, November 16, 2011 (UTC)

Missing appearancesEdit

The appearances list is missing two children's items:

Neither contains any new info. I would have added these myself, but the article is currently {{Inuse}}. Interestingly, neither of the Return of the Jedi versions mention or depict the Executor at all. Master Jonathan New Jedi Order (Jedi Council Chambers) 18:01, December 11, 2010 (UTC)

Perfect EvilEdit

Perfect Evil is published as Infinities in the UK. Would that make all the Perfect Evil info instead belong to a BTS non-canon section? Hanzo Hasashi 02:39, March 30, 2011 (UTC)

ROTJ Canon ConflictEdit

Under the heading "Protecting the Death Star construction site", it states that Vader flew in the Executor to Endor. Not sure which novel(s) they cite, but in any possible instance this is directly overridden by all three (four?) versions of the movie, based on official Lucasfilm canon policy: the movie clearly shows the ship that brought Vader to Endor was an Imperial-class Star Destroyer, and the movie overrides print materials in canon conflicts. StarSword 05:03, August 5, 2011 (UTC)

  • There is no canon conflict here. Vader travels to Endor from Coruscant aboard the Executor, as established in the Shadows of the Empire 6 comic issue and later supported by the story The Rise and Fall of Darth Vader and The Essential Atlas reference book. We do see his shuttle departing from a regular Imperial Star Destroyer in the film when he first boards the Death Star, but that doesn't mean we're seeing him as he's first arriving in-system. For all we know, he could have departed from the Executor first in his shuttle and made a pit stop aboard that ISD to conduct official business before proceeding on to the Death Star. Obviously there's a lack of explanation there, but it doesn't necessarily equate to an inconsistency. The article has purposely left that part vague because the circumstances have never been clarified in canon. Toprawa and Ralltiir 05:12, August 5, 2011 (UTC)

5.3 Factual correction Edit

Cargo capacity seems ridiculously low. 250,000 metric tonnes is a laugh compared to Jahre Viking - a 450 meter long ship that can carry 564,763 tonnes! Maybe it should be 250,000,000 metric tonnes? -- 22:55, January 26, 2012 (UTC)

The destruction of the ExecutorEdit

While I understand the idea of using as much from the novel as possible- it's worth remembering that novel content has been retconned out of existence before.

Most notably- Ben's conversation with Luke. In the novel, he continues the conversation after warning him about his feelings "They do you credit, but they could be made to serve the Emperor". He then goes on to explain what he did with Leia and Luke (Owen is here described as Ben's brother).

In the Ryder Windham book The Life And Times of Obi-Wan Kenobi, however, he ends the conversation there, simply fading away.

Proving that C-canon sources can retcon G-canon conversations our of existence.

In a similar fashion, the scene of the destruction of the Executor in the book does not match the movie. The rear of the Executor is not on fire. There's no visible secondary explosions down the middle of the ship after the hit on its command tower. It does not "buckle at right angles". It is not shown to "snag" various other ships in it's descent. It is not a "whole exothermic conglomerate" when it hits the Death Star- just the Executor itself is seen to collide with it- with no obvious damage besides that on the tower.

So, Vymer's arguments are valid IMO. -- Hamish 20:33, June 21, 2012 (UTC)

Kuat commissioning ceremonyEdit

On page 201 of The Essential Reader's Companion, they basically toss the notion of the Executor having "unofficially" been in service for two years out the window and state that the events of Small Favors and its commissioning occur about six months ABY. How do we reconcile this with the article's current information?--Matthias777 (talk) 17:30, November 8, 2012 (UTC)

False information about Arvel Crynd Edit

Arvel Crynd accidentally crashed into the executor, not purposely or delibratley. Why would he do that if he would die? I think that the article should be edited to change that part out of the article. Nothing in the star wars movies has ever explicity stated/implied that arvel crynd intentionally died to destroy the Imperial Executor starship/spaceship...

  • The article is correct, and the information is not at all "false". Crynyd's A-wing was irreparably damaged; he was going to die anyway, so he did what he could to make sure that he did as much damage to the Executor on his way out. It is canon that his collision with the Executor's bridge was intentional; check your sources (p. 38 of Galaxy Guide 5: Return of the Jedi (Second Edition)).--Matthias777 (talk) 07:19, December 22, 2012 (UTC)

Rebel Strike Edit

Can somebody give me a name, if any, for the three Star Destroyers you have to destroy in the Rebel Strike level "Attack on the Executor"? I'd also like to know if there's names for the two that you have to destroy in the Rogue Leader level "Battle of Endor". Are there canonical names for them, and if so, what are they? And if they have names, should the five of them be mentioned in the article on the Executor? --Pluto 2 (My Sith name is Darth Nightmaricus) 21:01, October 3, 2013 (UTC)

New information on the Executor's intended size ratio to a Star Destroyer.

In the Star Wars blog, Pablo Hidalgo discusses how the brass Imperial Star Destroyer in ESB, used for "to scale" shots, was quite a bit more than 1/11th the length of the Executor:

Should this be an addition to the "History of Executor size changes" bit at the end of the article?

-- 18:46, November 1, 2013 (UTC)

Earlier mention (ie, can we add this in)? Edit


While looking through Star Wars Insider Issue 132's A Certain Point of View section with plans to expand the section on the main article (if not create a separate article for the occasion), I stumbled upon the section of Bossk and the Executor in Expanding Empire. A few questions: 1. Should we note that the name "Executor" technically appeared before the film release with the Bossk mail in figure (as well as the reason for its name not being mentioned until much later being because Kenner feared children would think that the children market would view "Executor" as a synonym for "Executioner")? and 2. If so, can Toprawa please add it in or at least take down the inuse section long enough for me or anyone else to add it in? Weedle McHairybug (talk) 13:54, November 3, 2013 (UTC)

TIE DefenderEdit

There is a slight problem with this page, this problem being that the TIE/D defender was not even invented until years after the Executors destruction at the battle of Endor. Ergo,the executor could not possibly be carrying fighters of this model.Unsigned comment by (talk • contribs).

Nope, no problem. The TIE/D Defender was present throughout the Galactic Civil War as shown in numerous and multiple sources such as Star Wars: TIE Fighter. The TIE/D automated starfighter, however, was introduced years later. Similar designations, totally different fighters. - Sir Cavalier of OneFarStar(Squadron channel) 16:04, March 19, 2014 (UTC)

Well, regarding the size of 19000m of that ship,... If you compare the Executor in Episode 5 and 6 with the Star Destroyers that fly in formation with it (wich are between 900m and 1500m long), then you see that the Executor can not be 19000m long. A Length of 8000m (which was published in the old WEG SW RPG) is more realistic. And no, the paralactic distortion from one ship being closer to the camera and the Executor further away, can not be the explanation, since you also see ships behind the Executor, and thereby can prove the assumption of 8000m to be correct, since even in comparison to those distant Star Destroyers the Executor cannot be 19000m long. 15:16, January 18, 2015 (UTC)

Size of Executor Class VesselsEdit

Well, regarding the size of 19000m of that ship,... If you compare the Executor in Episode 5 and 6 with the Star Destroyers that fly in formation with it (wich are between 900m and 1500m long), then you see that the Executor can not be 19000m long. A Length of 8000m (which was published in the old WEG SW RPG) is more realistic. And no, the paralactic distortion from one ship being closer to the camera and the Executor further away, can not be the explanation, since you also see ships behind the Executor, and thereby can prove the assumption of 8000m to be correct, since even in comparison to those distant Star Destroyers the Executor cannot be 19000m long. 15:18, January 18, 2015 (UTC)

  • Perhaps, but it is not ours to decide what the canonical length of the Executor is or should be. We chronicle information, we don't judge it. --Lelal Mekha Old Republic military symbol (Audience Room) 15:29, January 18, 2015 (UTC)

And btw, all the resources citing each others and copypasting the same megalomanic information does not make it correct. To me it seems someone at Wizzards of the Coast or another Author mixed up the different Super Star Destroyer classes and accidentally (or since ppl. prefer big things) took the Eclipses 19000m length for the length of all Super Star Destroyers. And since ppl. like it big, from there on the authors of wikipages and other books preferred citing the big numbers. But if you watch the old movies, 19000m is way too long for the Executor. 15:38, January 18, 2015 (UTC)

Sorry for not knowing how to properly answer directly to your post, Lelal Mekah, so i do it here below. Thats exactly what I say, the old Resources State 8000m wich fits to the Movies. It seems that some, maybe official, Publisher made a copy paste error and, since ppl like it big, they preferred citing the new error instead the correct original information.

Size of Executor propEdit

Regarding the combination of "7 inches thick at its thickest point" description (cite note says "Behind the Magic" is the source) and the "282 cm x 92cm x 33 cm" figure (cite note says "From Star Wars To Indiana Jones" is the source) - they can't both be right. 7 inches is more like 18 cm than 33 cm.

Screenshots of the Executor show it as not 3 times as wide as it is high, but over 4 times as wide as it is high.

Maybe From Star Wars to Indiana Jones is wrong and the Executor model needs to be remeasured?

-- 19:15, August 13, 2016 (UTC) Hamish


The Armament section is slightly contradictory - the (outdated and only available via Wayback Machine) Databank entry doesn't match up with the Starship Battles Preview 1 data.

"Aside from the Star Dreadnought's unprecedented size, the Executor's awesome offensive capabilities set it apart from other warships,[1] bristling with more than 5,000 turbolaser batteries and ion cannons.[3] With 2,000 turbolaser batteries, 2,000 heavy turbolaser batteries, 250 concussion missile batteries, each armed with thirty heavy concussion missiles, 250 heavy ion cannons, 500 laser point-defense cannons,[12] and forty Q7 tractor beam projectors[7] along its city-like surface, the Executor was capable of reducing any planetary surface to slag[7] in a matter of hours.[47] "

The 2000 figures aren't batteries, they're individual turbolasers or heavy turbolasers (in groups of 8) (and there's 250 concussion missile tubes, not 250 batteries - the word "battery" implies multiple tubes to a battery)

Even if it's changed to "bristling with more than 5000 turbolasers and ion cannons"

(which, if you follow the link to the obsolete Databank page, is what you get)

it's still wrong: 2000 + 2000 + 250 = 4250.

I presume that the creator of the Databank entry counted up the number of weapons in the Starship Battles Preview entry, and forgot to clarify that the 5000 consisted of more than just turbolasers and ion cannons.

It should say something like:

bristling with more than 4000 turbolasers and ion cannons. With 250 turbolaser batteries (fire-linked into groups of 8 turbolasers), 250 heavy turbolaser batteries (fire-linked into groups of 8 heavy turbolasers) 250 concussion missile tubes each armed with thirty heavy concussion missiles...

I checked with SheaHublin of (Wookieepedia thread, Literature section) and their pic of the preview, showed the 2000 figures as individual turbolasers which happen to also be fire-linked in groups of 8.

--2A00:23C5:B7E3:5B00:70D7:4095:BFC6:EE3A 15:46, March 25, 2018 (UTC)

Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.