Talk:Praetor-class battlecruiser

What is the exact compare/contrast quote, btw? The old Star Wars Technical Manual seems to imply that what sits under the ImpStar's main "bulb" is the largest single reactor ever carried aboard a ship... -McEwok 20:40, 7 Sep 2005 (UTC)

Should it be placed in the ESB article? y/n?

Since it has an actual effect on things in the film, similar to the Imperial Communications Ship being the source of jamming in ROTJ, should it be placed in the "new vehicles and vessels" subsection in the ESB article? Even though it was just its reactor? VT-16 21:15, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

• Well, we technically didn't see it, but if the Imperial Communications Ship is in the RotJ article, I'd say yes. Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax ^{(Imperial Holovision)} 00:14, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
  • I put it in now, and I remembered an LFL-saying, if something shown in one of the films is named outside of the films, then that is an official part of them. For instance, the bipedal walkers in ESB and ROTJ being AT-STs. Not said in the films, but stated as their names in books, therefore that name is part of the filmatic canon. Since the reactor powering Rebel defenses in the film must exist (as reactors exist in the SW movies and are noted as such in dialogue), and it is part of a greater object (a battlecruiser), this would apply to that as well. VT-16 13:31, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
    • I agree. Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax ^{(Imperial Holovision)} 13:35, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Possible Era of Creation and Use

Judging by the use of the similar naming convention of the Republic era ships (Venator, Imperator, etc.), it seems reasonable to believe that this may have been a heavy type of capital ship that was in use during the fall of the republic. The presence of similar planetary ion cannon batteries in use by the Rebellion before the Battle of Yavin (see Empire at War seems to support that notion. At the very least, I would suggest adding "Rise of the Empire" to the eras category. Anyone disagree?

• I do. Unless a source states so, it hasn't yet appeared in the Rise of the Empire era. —Grand Admiral J. Nebulax ^{(Imperial Holovision)} 14:16, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
  • The ion cannon is not part of the Praetor, only the reactors that power it and the rest of Echo Base. VT-16 10:45, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
• Speaking of Empire at War, one of the most currently popular mods for Forces of Corruption includes the Praetor (which is why I came here - I had never heard of it). I'm not sure if the way it looks is accurate/canon (though, to the creator's credit, he has done an almost better job than the original staff had in making things accurate). Would it be appropriate to include a screenshot? It has four shield generator bulbs (two on each spot where the ISD usually has one each) and is about two or three times the size of a regular ISD, that's all I can remember about it right now. The name of the mod was Phoenix Rising. Quite good, he actually rearranged the whole galactic map to make it accurate, so I'm not quite hasty to judge his design since he certainly seems to have an almost anal tendency towards accuracy himself. 129.107.81.12 06:46, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Sorry, fan mods (and therefore the picture of the Praetor you mentioned) aren't canon. Grand Moff Tranner ^(Comlink) 11:05, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Sad to say, but a mod is fanon and can't be used here. The only thing we know of the Praetor-class, canonically, is that it has enough power generation capability to surpass the Imperial-class many times over. In using a planetary body as a heat sink, the shield and energy weapons the reactor is powering can withstand much more firepower directed at it than if it was on a ship in space. As such, we know that reactor equipment from an ISD can generate power for defenses that can hold off a battleship (something like a Lucrehulk-class or smaller), while reactor equipment from a Praetor can hold off a bombardment from an Executor-class vessel and several ISDs. VT-16 12:48, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
    • It took a lot of looking, but I managed to find an image from the comic book it was from: (http://www.theforce.net/swtc/Pix/comics/marvel/Taggemeeting.jpg). It's the big ship underneath the smaller one, but I suppose that was obvious. This is what it looked like in-game as well. 129.107.81.12 16:48, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
      • Yep, that's from the old Marvel series. They actually used the term Star Destroyer-class battlecruiser for ships in that, and I made an article on them here on the Wookiee. VT-16 16:51, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
        • Yeah, unfortunately, it doesn't explicitly call it a Praetor in this panel, I'm assuming it does in another panel somewhere, because, while the page I found it on was in Spanish (which I don't speak), the word "Praetor" came up multiple times, particularly around this image. It's off topic, but I'd really like to see more of this ship personally. I do believe I will watch this page until then. 129.107.81.12 16:56, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
          • No, that ship is never identified as a Praetor anywhere in the comic. —Jaymach Ral'Tir (talk) 16:57, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Source for company?

I have removed the company given that no source has Sienar or anyone else named as builders. If there is, please list it and provide proper sourcing. Thank you. BillNye 18:15, April 6, 2011 (UTC)

Updating the image.

Rereading the EGTW Endnotes part seven gives us a specific note when talking about the Fractalsponge models. Specifically that it says "Praetor-class/Praetor Mk. II-class battlecruisers" when describing Fractal's ships. According the this the Praetor has the (approximate) same appearance as the Praetor-II. Any arguments against updating the image? It is after all the best source we have.Nolanstar (talk) 04:49, March 15, 2018 (UTC)

• Updated due to lack of opposition. It is sourced either way and better then the alternative. Nolanstar (talk) 18:51, March 15, 2018 (UTC)
  • After reading the endnotes, the only mention about the Praetor is for length only, not for design. After all, the Imperial I and Imperial II classes are the same length, but do not share the exact same design structure (specifically the conning tower). Therefore, I do not believe that the image of the Praetor II should be used to represent the Praetor I. Also, you only allowed around 12 hours for people to object before you enacted the change, which I do not believe is enough time for an informed discussion on the subject. As such, the image is being temporarily removed from the article. - Sir Cavalier of One^{(Squadron channel)} 19:01, March 15, 2018 (UTC)
    • I disagree, considering that in the context of the section of the Endnotes it is referring to the Praetor. The section in the Endnotes that it is in is specifically the "An Art Note" section, which is specifically talking about the Fractalsponge designs. The quote: "For those who like this sort of thing, here are official dimensions and Anaxes class designations for Ansel’s original creations and interpretations of briefly glimpsed background ships. All this has been approved by Lucasfilm, so it’s canon". It mentions the Praetor and Praetor II in this section, under the designation of the FS designs, that's a pretty clear indication that the design is both, otherwise it would simply reference the Praetor-II only and not both designs under the umbrella of its work. Supported by the articles header-content Nolanstar (talk) 19:36, March 15, 2018 (UTC)Nolanstar
      • And I disagree with your interpretation of the information presented. The only explicit thing that is said is that the two classes are the same length. While they may indeed share the same basic design like the Imperial I and II classes, there might be subtle differences. Therefore, it is speculation that the Praetor I is exactly identical to the Praetor II. The only version ever clearly identified is the Praetor II class, and its image should not be used to illustrate this article. - Sir Cavalier of One^{(Squadron channel)} 13:07, March 16, 2018 (UTC)
        • See, the thing is context. Its specifically pointing out the Fractal ship designs (the visuals themselves), then saying "Here is the cannon information on them - Name/Class and a basic size figure" - quotes subjectively. That it lists the Praetor and Praetor two when referring means that they both use the design assigned beforehand - the Fractalsponge one. You need to read the article other then just the one line on the Praetor and it's length. As for the imperial-1/2 argument we see enough refits, artist interpretations and in-universe variants to shut that down, but that in itself is just as much speculation as your point anyway. We should probably get someone else to read into this, but my main point is that the article pints out the Fractal Visual design, then assigns both the Praetor and Praetor-II names to that design. That's pretty good indication that both classes use the design. Nolanstar (talk) 21:10, March 16, 2018 (UTC)Nolanstar
          • I have read the whole article and I simply do not come to the same conclusion as you do. Just because both variants of the class are listed does not mean they must be the same exact design. Later in the section, under the Bellator-class entry, Fry mentions the Mandator class vessels, none of which are given a visual representation in the book. Why is that important? It means that the text in the section clearly goes beyond mentioning only the ship designs that are shown in the book. At this point, without a direct visual image of the Praetor I, it is speculation to assume that it is identical to the Praetor II. Furthermore, even if it was identical, using the Praetor II image to illustrate this article would still be inappropriate since it would be a misrepresentation. - Sir Cavalier of One^{(Squadron channel)} 23:44, March 16, 2018 (UTC)
            • The Mandator is mentioned in the description of the Bellator whereas the Praetor/Praetor II are listed together, then described. That's a clear division between topic and description from a formatting perspective. Again the Praetor designs are Listed together as the subject, then a description is given. Your argument would be correct if rather then "Praetor-class/Praetor Mk. II-class battlecruisers – (Info)." it were Praetor Mk. II-class battlecruiser - (info and mention of Praetor-class). That's the format the Mandator is referenced, its part of the official information on the topic of the design, which is called the Bellator. See:"Bellator-class dreadnought – 7.2 km long. The Bellator is a rethinking of the humpbacked Mandator- and Mandator II-class dreadnoughts, which are slightly longer at 8 km. Known in the Imperial military as a “fast dreadnought,” the Bellator sacrifices firepower for speed, where the Mandator III is a 12-km monster valued as a hulking weapons platform. So you have divergent, differently sized redesigns of the same basic hull. (That’s in-universe; out of universe, Warfare’s text and art had separate references to the famous humpbacked ship seen above Byss in Dark Empire. From that accidental collision, a design retcon.)". I absolutely agree on the Bellator point (Though TBF an image in the Mandator's BTS section may be a good idea with an explanation, another topic). But there's a clear difference. Your mistaking the topic and the description. The design is identified as a Bellator, the Mandator connection is established in the description. Wheras with the Praetors the design is identified as both, then the info is given. Nolanstar (talk) 04:52, March 17, 2018 (UTC)Nolanstar
              • Hopefully this provides some insight. Overall the reason for assigning the image is the same reason for assigning the fractalsponge image other then the direct EGTW ones to the Praetor-II. The source establishes that the fractalsponge design represents the Praetor and Praetor two in the same method it establishes the Bellator represents the Bellator. The Mandator connection is different by being described as a related design, wheras the Praetors are assigned the design. I'll leave this for a bit for argument, but a Praetor image is at least going in the BTS section. Nolanstar (talk) 23:51, March 20, 2018 (UTC)
                • Your interpretation is still drawing on an assumption. The fact that there are two differing views on the way the text is written proves that it can be read as ambiguous and open to interpretation. The actual facts are this: Firstly, there is no explicit reference to the Praetor I and Praetor II being the exact same design. That's the implication you have drawn from the way the text is written, and I will admit that I can see how you arrived at that conclusion. It is just one I do not share. Secondly, no verified image of a Praetor I has been created. For these reasons, it is inappropriate to use the Praetor II image in this article since it can be construed as misleading and "canonically" false (in terms of Legends continuity). - Sir Cavalier of One^{(Squadron channel)} 15:57, March 21, 2018 (UTC)
                  • It draws on assumption that the article is consistent in how it presents information, that's not very much of an assumption from that point. However I can see the dispute on both sides. I still suggest putting a note on the Praetor-II and the design in the Behind the Scenes section. Is that acceptable? Nolanstar (talk) 00:42, March 22, 2018 (UTC)
                  • Absolutely -- a properly referenced notation on the issue would be acceptable in the article's BTS section. - Sir Cavalier of One^{(Squadron channel)} 13:41, March 22, 2018 (UTC)