- The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a Featured article nomination that was successful. Please do not modify it.
Contents
Immobilizer 418 cruiser[]
- Nominated by: ThrawnChiss7
Assembly Cupola 00:56, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
- Nomination comments: Original nom closed because I couldn't find a source for the publication date of The Star Wars Rules Companion, a source has now been found. The other outstanding objections have also been adressed.ThrawnChiss7
Assembly Cupola 00:56, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
- Date Archived: 12:53, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
- Final word count: 1453 words (258 introduction, 956 body, 239 behind the scenes)
- Word count at nomination time: 1418 words (269 introduction, 966 body, 183 behind the scenes)
- WookieeProject (optional): WP:NOVELS WP:AMBITION
(5 Inqs/2 Users/7 Total)
(Votes required: No additional votes required to pass, please consider reviewing another article.)
Support[]
- UberSoldat93
(talk) 07:11, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
Lewisr (talk) 07:38, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
—spookywillowwtalk 04:27, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
Tommy-Macaroni (he/they) 13:10, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
Master Fredcerique
(talk) (he/him) 19:45, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
- Wok142 (talk) 06:44, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
Brilliant OOM 224 (he/him) 12:52, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
Object[]
Lew[]
You should remove the year introduced date in the infobox, it's redundant to list it was introduced by the year it appeared in a storyLewisr (talk) 23:56, 23 October 2023 (UTC)- I don't think it is redundant; but removed anyway. ThrawnChiss7
Assembly Cupola 23:12, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
- I don't think it is redundant; but removed anyway. ThrawnChiss7
I don't think you need to note the first interior depiction in the BTSLewisr (talk) 23:56, 23 October 2023 (UTC)- It was first depicted/pictured in On the Front lines. I originally put "depicted" but UberSoldat added that the "interior" was depicted and I thought that there was no harm in the "interior" phrasing. If you feel strongly against it, I can remove it. ThrawnChiss7
Assembly Cupola 23:12, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
- It was first depicted/pictured in On the Front lines. I originally put "depicted" but UberSoldat added that the "interior" was depicted and I thought that there was no harm in the "interior" phrasing. If you feel strongly against it, I can remove it. ThrawnChiss7
Emperor Palpatine is only mentioned in a caption (and unlinked), so you'll either need to mention him in the body or just link it in that captionLewisr (talk) 23:56, 23 October 2023 (UTC)- Don't think he's really relevant enough for the body, so I added linking. ThrawnChiss7
Assembly Cupola 23:12, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
- Don't think he's really relevant enough for the body, so I added linking. ThrawnChiss7
Per precedent, it should be noted that Musmuris later reflected on the events at JakkuLewisr (talk) 23:56, 23 October 2023 (UTC)- It has been noted. ThrawnChiss7
Assembly Cupola 23:12, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
- Is the his pronoun citable to the book? Lewisr (talk) 23:48, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
- It isn't, I have removed my mistake now. ThrawnChiss7
Assembly Cupola 18:18, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
- It isn't, I have removed my mistake now. ThrawnChiss7
- Is the his pronoun citable to the book? Lewisr (talk) 23:48, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
- It has been noted. ThrawnChiss7
Musmuris' squad is notable for a pageLewisr (talk) 23:48, 24 October 2023 (UTC)- Sure; added. ThrawnChiss7
Assembly Cupola 18:18, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
- Sure; added. ThrawnChiss7
Vitus[]
Information from "Starships of the Empire and the Rebellion" needs to be added in the body and as a source.--Vitus InfinitusTalk 23:31, 24 October 2023 (UTC)- I don't have access to Starships, could you please provide the relevant information for me to add? ThrawnChiss7
Assembly Cupola 23:37, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
- Thanks to some help with translating I was able to acquire the info from the source. I do not know myself what is the new info but here it is: Lewisr (talk) 23:07, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
- 'The first cruisers of the Interdictor class, constructed by Sienar Fleet Systems, received the designation Immobilizer 418 and were equipped with four antigravity well projectors that concentrated the energy of an immense generator. Each device is housed inside an inlaid cylinder inside the hull of the ship whose appearance was otherwise the same as a Star Destroyer but a little smaller.'
- 'The Immobilizer 418 displayed a length of about 600 meters. Its basque chassis is an economical choice, if this term can be applied to the vessels whose cost also remains exorbitant: it was deemed very easy and fast to adapt to new functions but also to repair. As for maintenance, it is handled using common components.' Lewisr (talk) 23:07, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
- Thanks Lewsr, I've updated the page now. ThrawnChiss7
Assembly Cupola 22:01, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
- Thanks Lewsr, I've updated the page now. ThrawnChiss7
- Thanks to some help with translating I was able to acquire the info from the source. I do not know myself what is the new info but here it is: Lewisr (talk) 23:07, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
- I don't have access to Starships, could you please provide the relevant information for me to add? ThrawnChiss7
Uber[]
"despite being considered an older model." Specify who "considers" it an older model according to the source. If the source does not use the word specifically, reword the sentence to eliminate it.UberSoldat93(talk) 16:21, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
- Reworded
Here's something I'd like to confirm: What name does Rules Companion use? In Legends, the ship had several different names. If I recall correctly, Heir also only identified it as an "Interdictor cruiser" or something similar.UberSoldat93(talk) 07:47, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
- Also confirm first visual depiction, as far as I know it's not either of the two sources specified above. UberSoldat93
(talk) 07:56, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
- The Rules Companion just uses the term "Interdictor" (it is the immobilizer because it has the same RPG stats as the Imperial Sourcebook immobilizer), Heir also uses something to that effect. As for visual depiction and "Immoblizer 418" designation, both of those originate with the Imperial Sourcebook, as mentioned in the article. ThrawnChiss7
Assembly Cupola 01:22, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
- The Rules Companion just uses the term "Interdictor" (it is the immobilizer because it has the same RPG stats as the Imperial Sourcebook immobilizer), Heir also uses something to that effect. As for visual depiction and "Immoblizer 418" designation, both of those originate with the Imperial Sourcebook, as mentioned in the article. ThrawnChiss7
- Also confirm first visual depiction, as far as I know it's not either of the two sources specified above. UberSoldat93
Tommy[]
Our page for Interdictor line mentions that the Interdictor-class Star Destroyer was an evolution of the Immobilizer 418 cruiser, sourced to Star Wars: Build the Millennium Falcon 87. Is the info on that page accurate? If so, it should be incorporated into this article.Tommy-Macaroni (he/they) 11:33, 17 February 2024 (UTC)- Under "Skirmish with the Desert Jewel "Its successor model, the Interdictor-class Star Destroyer, was also discontinued in time as well." ThrawnChiss7
Assembly Cupola 12:12, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
- OK I probably could've phrased that better; I more meant whether it would be warranted to reference the Interdictor line on this page, including the infobox. Just depends on how the magazine phrases things in regard to the line itself. Tommy-Macaroni (he/they) 12:26, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
- BMF 87 establishes separately that the Interdictor-class Star Destroyer was an evolution of the Immobilizer 418 and that the Interdictor-class Star Destroyer was a part of the Interdictor line. ThrawnChiss7
Assembly Cupola 12:33, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
- BMF 87 establishes separately that the Interdictor-class Star Destroyer was an evolution of the Immobilizer 418 and that the Interdictor-class Star Destroyer was a part of the Interdictor line. ThrawnChiss7
- OK I probably could've phrased that better; I more meant whether it would be warranted to reference the Interdictor line on this page, including the infobox. Just depends on how the magazine phrases things in regard to the line itself. Tommy-Macaroni (he/they) 12:26, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
- Under "Skirmish with the Desert Jewel "Its successor model, the Interdictor-class Star Destroyer, was also discontinued in time as well." ThrawnChiss7
As far as I can tell, Imperial Sourcebook doesn't refer to the Legends ship as an Immobilizer 418 cruiser, but rather Immobilizer 418 Interdictor-class Heavy Cruiser (which feels like it ought to be the Legends page's title), Immobilizer 418, or variations on Interdictor. I've updated the article to reflect this, but that means the Legends source to specifically call it the Immobilizer 418 cruiser first isn't mentioned. Since that's the title of this article, which must've been used sometime prior in Legends, I do feel like the first instance of that title should be found and mentioned.- Added first explicit designation as "Immobilizer 418 cruiser". ThrawnChiss7
Assembly Cupola 23:52, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
- Added first explicit designation as "Immobilizer 418 cruiser". ThrawnChiss7
Since the Legends Immobilizer design has been assumed by the canon Interdictor-class Star Destroyer, which almost certainly explains this craft's relative absence in that continuity, I feel like it'd be worthwhile to briefly mention that other craft in the BTS. The inspiration of the Immobilizer to the canon ship's design is implied by the Stealth Strike episode guide on SW.com.- I don't think that is really necessary. The canon Interdictor-class Star Destroyer is a in-universe derivative of the Immobilizer, as mentioned in the article, so it naturally shares shape with the Legends version of the original Immobilizer. ThrawnChiss7
Assembly Cupola 23:52, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
- I disagree. Yes, you've mentioned it in the in-universe section, but I think it is also interesting to point out from an out-of-universe perspective, especially given that the canon Interdictor-class has essentially assumed the role the Immobilizer had in Legends. This is an interesting and fairly unique use of Legends material and I think that warrants reference to it in the article. I'm only talking about a sentence or two here, not the entire history of the Interdictor-class. The reader would likely be asking "why haven't we seen more of this ship in canon" and although we can't answer that directly, we're giving them the facts to help answer that question. Tommy-Macaroni (he/they) 10:18, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
- Don't think it's really necessary to note this on this page, seems something for the Interdictor-class Star Destroyer page to note, but I suppose there's really no harm in doing so. Added. ThrawnChiss7
Assembly Cupola 12:51, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
- Don't think it's really necessary to note this on this page, seems something for the Interdictor-class Star Destroyer page to note, but I suppose there's really no harm in doing so. Added. ThrawnChiss7
- I disagree. Yes, you've mentioned it in the in-universe section, but I think it is also interesting to point out from an out-of-universe perspective, especially given that the canon Interdictor-class has essentially assumed the role the Immobilizer had in Legends. This is an interesting and fairly unique use of Legends material and I think that warrants reference to it in the article. I'm only talking about a sentence or two here, not the entire history of the Interdictor-class. The reader would likely be asking "why haven't we seen more of this ship in canon" and although we can't answer that directly, we're giving them the facts to help answer that question. Tommy-Macaroni (he/they) 10:18, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
- I don't think that is really necessary. The canon Interdictor-class Star Destroyer is a in-universe derivative of the Immobilizer, as mentioned in the article, so it naturally shares shape with the Legends version of the original Immobilizer. ThrawnChiss7
I think the role and first history quotes should be swapped, since the latter more clearly discusses the role of the ship while the former is purely about their design history.- Swapped. ThrawnChiss7
Assembly Cupola 23:52, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
- Swapped. ThrawnChiss7
We have images of the Carrion Spike itself, so I think one of those would be more appropriate to use rather than an image of the stealth ship, since that is only tangentially related.Tommy-Macaroni (he/they) 15:42, 26 March 2024 (UTC)- The stealth ship in "Cat and Mouse" is actually the Carrion Spike, as confirmed in Star Wars: Build the Millennium Falcon 96. ThrawnChiss7
Assembly Cupola 23:52, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
- I know that, but the Carrion Spike does look different to the stealth ship. It has different colours, those beige nobs on the spine have been removed, and the back is a completely different shape. Even if the image of the stealth ship is slightly higher quality, I think that it's more important to have an image of the ship as it was when it encountered the Immobilizer. It's a case of "the ship in the image encountered an Immobilizer" vs "the ship in the image would later be overhauled and look quite different and then it would encounter an Immobilizer." To me this is quite a clear choice. Tommy-Macaroni (he/they) 10:18, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
- I forgot we had images of the Carrion Spike during the Imperial era, for some reason I only thought we had Clone Wars and in the Poe Dameron comic; swapped for an Imperial era rebuilt Carrion Spike. ThrawnChiss7
Assembly Cupola 12:51, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
- I forgot we had images of the Carrion Spike during the Imperial era, for some reason I only thought we had Clone Wars and in the Poe Dameron comic; swapped for an Imperial era rebuilt Carrion Spike. ThrawnChiss7
- I know that, but the Carrion Spike does look different to the stealth ship. It has different colours, those beige nobs on the spine have been removed, and the back is a completely different shape. Even if the image of the stealth ship is slightly higher quality, I think that it's more important to have an image of the ship as it was when it encountered the Immobilizer. It's a case of "the ship in the image encountered an Immobilizer" vs "the ship in the image would later be overhauled and look quite different and then it would encounter an Immobilizer." To me this is quite a clear choice. Tommy-Macaroni (he/they) 10:18, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
- The stealth ship in "Cat and Mouse" is actually the Carrion Spike, as confirmed in Star Wars: Build the Millennium Falcon 96. ThrawnChiss7
Wok142[]
The Design and equipment subheading is not needed as that is the only section in the Characteristics section.Wok142 (talk) 20:05, 12 April 2024 (UTC)- Good spot, removed. ThrawnChiss7
Assembly Cupola 23:14, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
- Good spot, removed. ThrawnChiss7
The second sentence in Role seems more suited for the Characteristics section. I would move it to be the last sentence in the second paragraph in that section. This would make the phrase "with many vulnerabilities" in the first line of the Characteristics section not needed. Lastly, I would trim this sentence to just say "Immobilizer cruisers had multiple vulnerabilities and were more easily destroyed than Star Destroyers."Wok142 (talk) 20:05, 12 April 2024 (UTC)- I thought so to originally, but it turns out that WP:LG/IU states of the "Role" section: "Strengths and weaknesses in application are laid out here, as well." so it's weaknesses/vulnerabilities should be documented in roles. I did trim it to how you suggested though. ThrawnChiss7
Assembly Cupola 23:14, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
- I thought so to originally, but it turns out that WP:LG/IU states of the "Role" section: "Strengths and weaknesses in application are laid out here, as well." so it's weaknesses/vulnerabilities should be documented in roles. I did trim it to how you suggested though. ThrawnChiss7
OOM[]
According to the Incident in the Obroa-skai system article, 1100 civilians were killed in the event due to the Immobilizer's malfunctioning. I think this is pretty notable information that should be documented here.OOM 224 (he/him) 12:29, 13 April 2024 (UTC)- Don't know how I missed that the first time, but it's added now. ThrawnChiss7
Assembly Cupola 12:40, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
- Don't know how I missed that the first time, but it's added now. ThrawnChiss7
Comments[]
Approved as a Featured article by Inquisitorius 12:52, 13 April 2024 (UTC)