This is the talk page for the article "V-150 Planet Defender/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.


Listen, whenever Template:Title is used, I can't see it. Sikon had a similar problem with Interdictor-class Cruiser. Ignoring the fact that some people cannot see this template isn't improving the article one bit. Admiral J. Nebulax (talk) Imperial Emblem 15:47, 5 April 2006 (PDT)

  • It worked OK for me. What browser are you using? What browser was Sikon using? Maybe it works on Firefox and Lynx (?!), but not on your system? —Silly Dan (talk) 22:54, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
    • I'm using Microsoft Internet Explorer. Admiral J. Nebulax (talk) Imperial Emblem 22:57, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
      • WhiteBoy and I have both tested it on Internet Explorer and it can work. If you had just followed the helpful instructions I left rather than taking them as an order then you would be able to see that. Additionally, Sikon didn't have any trouble as we were talking about it in the Wookieepedia chat room when he made the change. —Jaymach Ral'Tir (talk) 23:00, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
        • Works fine in Safari 2.0.3. And the template isn't supposed to be seen, just its effect on the article title (I assume that's what you meant, correct?). Did you try it in Firefox or anything else Jack? RMF 23:04, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
          • I feel like such an idiot. I thought that it was supposed to appear like how the older one did. I didn't even look at the title. My apologies. Admiral J. Nebulax (talk) Imperial Emblem 17:22, 5 April 2006 (PDT)

Um, someone may want to add Star Wars Jedi Academy to the list of sources. In that game, you do go to Hoth, and while there, you can actually fire the Ion cannon. I guess that is technically not canon though since the cannon was said to be destroyed.

  • You can add it in to the "Appearances" section, if you want. I could add a tag explaining that it's a non-canon appearance of the ion cannon. Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) Imperial Emblem 18:43, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Didn't Ion Cannons fire blue/azure bolts? Edit

Many sources state this, esp. the Rogue Squadron series. Yet, there's also a number of contradictions as to the colors of the bolts. In various media, I've seen red, golden, or blue. Unsigned comment by (talk • contribs).

1) sign your comments. 2) in most books they are blue . Ugluk: Destroyer of Redlinks 23:09, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Ion cannon blown up? Edit

Its crew was made up entirely of Alliance troops from Alderaan. They were were among the last to evacuate from Hoth, blowing up the cannon as they left to mask the sensor reading of their escape.

I know this is what makes the appearance of the cannon in Jedi Academy non-canonical, but what is the source for this? --Bender235 01:03, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

  • I remember reading this. I want to say The New Essential Guide to Weapons and Technology, but I'm not positive. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) Imperial Emblem 01:07, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Since the cannon was working, or replaced by 10 ABY when Jaden Korr visited the planet, I added that in but it has been deleted. Any particular reason why? --Darth Windu 03:34, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
      • <sigh> You need to read, Darth Windu. —Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) Imperial Emblem 14:17, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
        • Wow, what an informative, intelligent comment. How about explaining why this comment was removed, particularly considering the source it comes from is canon. --Darth Windu 02:45, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
          • From everything I heard, the cannon being operated or replaced after its destruction is non-canon. It's gameplay. —Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) Imperial Emblem 12:08, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
            • Fisrt off I appologise for the attitude, it was uncalled for. Now, what sources say its appearance in JA is non-canon? I'm happy to accept it as such if we can show that is what is intended, but otherwise video games are canon. Taking into account the cannon's destruction, that is why I added that the cannon 'had either been repaired or replaced'. --Darth Windu 04:06, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
              • Only story lines in games are canon. So far, the ion cannon in the game is non-canon because it's gameplay. —Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) Imperial Emblem 12:10, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
                • Hang on. So even though the cannon exists within the game, and there is nothing to say it hadn't been repaired or replaced, it official doesn't exist? That makes sense? --Darth Windu 04:45, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
                  • The great question is: is the cannon canon? :) -- Riffsyphon1024 04:48, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
                  • The destruction of the ion cannon is mentioned in ITW:OT and SW:CL. The fire control team for the ion cannon sets it to self-destruct, then leave for one of the last transports. The one in JA could just be something set up by the Empire later on. VT-16 10:28, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
                    • Still, I have my doubts. —Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) Imperial Emblem 15:17, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
                      • Ha ha, nice one riff. VT - thats what I'm saying. All I was mentioning is that the cannon itself appears in-game, and as far as I know there is no source that directly contradicts it being there. Okay, the first one was destroyed, but until a source states it was never repaired or replaced, the appearance in 'Jedi Academy' should be added. --Darth Windu 04:49, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
                        • Provide a source proving the ion cannon's appearance wasn't just due to gameplay first. —Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) Imperial Emblem 14:44, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
                          • Jack, stop being so harsh. The presence of the ion cannon doesn't immediately contradict the one being blown up 9 years before. VT-16 15:20, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
                            • I'm aware of that, VT. But recently, I've been suspicious of Windu. After all, I'm only asking him to provide a simple source. —Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) Imperial Emblem 15:24, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
                              • Unless the game states that it is the actual ion cannon from the Battle of Hoth, we don't need any more. VT-16 16:11, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
                                • That's not a source, now is it? —Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) Imperial Emblem 22:19, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
                                  • If the v-150 from the films was blown up, then it can't be that cannon. If it appears in a later source, it means either the cannon was rebuilt, there was more than one (as stated on this page previously, though I've yet to confirm it myself) or someone else placed/built a new one there. Jedi Academy is canon, so its appearance in the game is canon also. —Jaymach Ral'Tir (talk) 22:27, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
                                    • Let's see if we can get a source to back up your claim first. —Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) Imperial Emblem 22:29, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
                                      • Jack, Jedi Academy is the source. It's canon. Here, look at Leland's quote if you don't believe that: ""...continuity "C" canon which is pretty much everything else. " By everything else I mean EVERYthing else. Novels, comics, junior novels, videogames..." - Lord Hydronium 22:37, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
                                        • So far, I haven't seen anything to say it's not gameplay. And, as we know, gameplay goes against canon. —Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) Imperial Emblem 22:41, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
                                          • If it's in a canon source, the burden is on you to prove otherwise. Should we put a little (Non-canonical appearance) tag on the tauntaun page or the wampa page since you can't prove they aren't just gameplay elements? Heck, what's to say he went into Echo Base at all? Maybe the whole game is just one long game mechanic! Gameplay is things like the Force bar in the corner, or hitpoints, not elements that clearly appear in the universe. - Lord Hydronium 22:49, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
                                            • Is there any unrealistic interaction between the player and the cannon, does it figure into the game in any way? And is it impossible for this Imperial faction to bring such an artillery piece to Hoth in the first place? VT-16 22:52, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Well thats basically my argument. Okay, its not what you'd expect from the Imperials, but at the same time we have a source saying it's there with nothing saying it wasn't. Jack, there is also very little need to be suspicious of me. In terms of the wookipedia articles, like you I only desire to make them more accurate and clear, we just have very different views about what that entails. --Darth Windu 04:12, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
    • I'm suspicious because you a) don't bother to discuss big changes on the talk page first and b) constantly break the 3-Revert-Rule and still don't discuss your changes. —Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) Imperial Emblem 12:17, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
      • You've just described yourself, Jack. —Jaymach Ral'Tir (talk) 23:40, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
        • At least I'm trying to change, Jaymach. —Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) Imperial Emblem 00:26, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
          • I do try to discuss my changes in talk. The problem with that is that in some articles no-one cares, and in others you just go and revert anyway, so why bother? --Darth Windu 02:12, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
            • You certainly didn't try to discuss your edits to Imperial I-class Star Destroyer before you made them... —Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) Imperial Emblem 11:52, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
              • and if I had, would you have left the changes? No. So again, there is no point discussing my changes. You seem to have a grudge against me for some reason, and so whatever changes I make, I can be almost certain you will revert them. So now explain exactly why I should bother discussing my changes when the end result will be the same. --Darth Windu 02:01, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
                • In case you haven't realized this, Windu, I'm not the only other person here. For controversial edits like that, you don't just edit the article and think everyone else will be happy with it. That's why I revert it over and over again. Discussing it may not change my opinion on it, but it lets everyone know why you want to make the changes in question. —Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) Imperial Emblem 13:53, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

How many Ion Cannons? Edit

Article says one, but I recall from Rogue Leader that there were at least two of them. Lalala la 02:56, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Battlefront & Battlefront II? Edit

Where it says Battlefront and Battlefront II in the appearances section, isn't it only in the background of the Hoth battlefield?

Correct name Edit

  • "Galactic Gazetteer: Hoth and the Greater Javin" gives this name as v-150 "Planet Defender" anti-orbital ion cannon. Would anybody object to us moving the article there? —Xwing328(Talk) 01:35, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
    • I don't have any objection to this. :) VT-16 11:16, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
      • Neither do I. —Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) Imperial Emblem 20:52, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
        • When things are in quotation marks, it usually denotes that it's a nickname. As such, I believe the article would be more properly placed at v-150 anti-orbital ion cannon, with the nickname mentioned in the opening sentence. —Jaymach Ral'Tir (talk) 21:24, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
          • I'm pretty sure "Planet Defender" was part of its designation. Therefore, it should be as Xwing328 suggested, but without the quotation marks. —Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) Imperial Emblem 00:18, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
            • "Planet Defender" is in quotation marks in the source, therefore it's a nickname. Just like Obi-Wan "Ben" Kenobi isn't Obi-Wan's full name. —Jaymach Ral'Tir (talk) 00:33, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
                • NEGWT mentions the full name thusly: KDY v-150 Planet Defender. No quotes. I say that should be the designation.--Goodwood 00:45, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Right now, it appears to be almost there. :P VT-16 13:14, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
    • Every single source going, besides the Galactic Gazetteer, calls it the v-150 Planet Defender. The whole point of this discussion is that a more proper name has been found in the Galactic Gazetteer, which calls it the v-150 "Planet Defender" anti-orbital ion cannon, treating the former name in all other sources as a nickname. The other sources make no mention of the proper name, with the "anti-orbital ion cannon" section, and simply refer to it by the nickname it's been known as before. What don't you get about that? —Jaymach Ral'Tir (talk) 13:19, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
      • I am OK if the name stays as is, since it does sound more "professional", as long as Planet Defender redirects here. However, when dealing with two sources that are contradictory, I believe we should go with the name as it appears in the most recent official source, and that would be the NEGWT (2004) and not the Galactic Gazetteer: Hoth and the Greater Javin (1994). - JMAS 13:26, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
        • The article should be moved to "v-150 Planet Defender anti-orbital cannon"—which is the full designation for this ion cannon. The "Planet Defender" part is only referred to as a nickname in one source, but in all the other sources, including the most recent, it is not treated as a nickname. —Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) Imperial Emblem 14:23, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
          • If that's the case, then Obi-Wan Kenobi has to be moved to Obi-Wan Ben Kenobi. There's a whole heap of sources detailing Luke's childhood where his name is treated as Ben Kenobi, rather than a nickname, including recent ones. —Jaymach Ral'Tir (talk) 14:38, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
            • Obi-Wan took the name "Ben" merely to avoid being identified as a Jedi. "Ben" was not his real name, as we all know. However, "Planet Defender" was a part of the official designation of the v-150. Canon has said so. —Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) Imperial Emblem 14:42, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
              • Per Nebulax. "Planet Defender" was not a nickname, it was the product name, like "Kleenex" is for Kimberly Clark's facial tissues. No one made up this name later; KDY came up with it to sell their product. - Graestan Jedi Order (This party's over) 14:49, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
                • Canon has said no such thing. Every source going identifies the v-150 as the v-150 Planet Defender. The Galactic Gazetteer, a CANON source, has said that "Planet Defender" is a nickname. If you don't accept this as being a canon source, then you're simply adding your own fanon to the wiki as I've seen you do elsewhere. This, much like the Skywalker sentinels, is simply you trying to push your own assumptions on the wiki. Until proven otherwise, we go with what the CANON source says, and that is that "Planet Defender" is a nickname. Unless you can find me another canon source that says "the full model model number of the v-150 is v-150 Planet Defender anti-orbittal ion cannon" or "Planet Defender is not a nickname for the v-150", I'm going to go with what the canon source says and not ASSUME anything. —Jaymach Ral'Tir (talk) 14:50, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Per Jaymach. If one source says Obi-Wan was born on the Planet of the Hoojibs, we can't say he wasn't just because no other source corroborates it. Gonk (Gonk!) 14:53, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
    • Every other canon source the v-150 has been mentioned in does not treat "Planet Defender" as a nickname, but rather as a part of the full designation. Now that we have the "anti-orbital ion cannon" part, we simply put that at the end of what every other canon source has called this: "v-150 Planet Defender". —Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) Imperial Emblem 14:54, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
      • Every other source calls it the "v-150 Planet Defender" as a name, not a designation. The Galactic Gazetteer has retconed the Planet Defender part as a nickname. If you're unwilling to accept that material can be retconed, then you're on the wrong wiki. The only source so far to give the weapon a designation rather than a name is the Galactic Gazetteer. —Jaymach Ral'Tir (talk) 14:59, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
        • Hmm, I wonder how I could have accepted a retcon if I didn't even know there was one involved. Jaymach, that's the kind of thing you want to mention at the beginning of a discussion. Now that we have this information, I'm fine with how it is. —Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) Imperial Emblem 17:29, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
          • It's like "Super Star Destroyer", it's used in plenty of sources, but if just one says it's a colloquialism, then that's what it is, since there's nothing that actually says otherwise (and if they did, they're surpassed by newer sources, according to LFL practices). Same here with "Planet Defender". VT-16 19:43, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
            • Seems to me like Planet Defender is the product name assigned by Kuat Drive Yards, similar to how Kuat Systems Engineering called the Delta-7 Aethersprite-class light interceptor the Aethersprite. Makes sense, no? Plus if you're going by the retcon rule, then technically the NEGWT entry is a retcon of the Galactic Gazetteer entry.--Goodwood 03:57, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
              • I'm sorry Jaymach, I just don't see a single source putting it in quotes as retconning it into an informal nickname. Maybe if it'd been explicitly stated, or followed up with quotes elsewhere, but to me it looks more like a poor typographical choice than an actual change of the name. jSarek 08:51, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
                • Apparently I backed down too soon then. In that case, I'm back in my former position here. —Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) Imperial Emblem 14:07, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
                  • Actually, Jaymach clarified things for me on IRC; the Galactic Gazetteer information is apparently the only place where the full name of this device is given, so there *hasn't* been any place for it to be followed up elsewhere. jSarek 22:50, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Also affiliated with Empire Edit

This is listed as being part of the Imperial army (near the bottom of the list). Added Empire to the affiliation--Governor Jerjerrod 18:58, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Size-how big? Edit

From the picture (Obviously a shot for scale, methinks) it looks like the ion cannon is 12 meters in diameter, allowing for the cannon and the turret to be slightly sunk into the snow (which they are...)

I think the turret in front of it is about three meters tall, and the ion cannon looks like the height of four of those.

If anyone has a figure from official-type sources, please comment -JimmytheJ 20:39, September 16, 2009 (UTC)

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

Fandom may earn an affiliate commission on sales made from links on this page.

Stream the best stories.

Fandom may earn an affiliate commission on sales made from links on this page.

Get Disney+