Talk:Star Destroyer/Archive 1

Article a bit too long -> split up?
As a Star Wars fan I really like all the info in this article, but it is very long and would be intimidating for casual readers. For example, if somebody didn't know anything about Star Wars and wanted a good but concise idea of what a Star Destroyer is, I don't think they really care about the exact number of turbolasers on an Acclamator-class (although that's certainly some potentially useful information to have somewhere else). I believe it would be much more accessible if each class had a brief summary (ie. one paragraph) which then had a link to a full, detailed article on each individual class (eg an individual page for ISD, VSD, Acclamator, Interdictor, Super, etc). Thoughs? --Cornflake pirate 12:22, 22 February 2006 (UTC)


 * It's been tried. It was decided that merging them all in was more preferable. --maru (talk) contribs 13:47, 22 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Perhaps it's time that some of the ships were moved into their seperate articles - perhaps Imperial Star Destroyer for the ISD sections, Super Star Destroyer for the Executor and other SSDs, and all the other stuff remaining at Star Destroyer? The page is 90kb, which is above the recommended prose length. I'm not sure why they were merged in the first place - look at the number of articles on Star Trek ships, and we've bunched together all this information into one huge article, which is misleading at best. --Sanguinus 22:01, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I recommend posting a formal request at WikiProject Star Wars/things to do so we can get more feedback, but I completely agree with a split for ISD, VSD, ESD, SSD, and so on. Some of the less significant ones can be listed in a header "Minor Star Destroyer variations" or something. Deckiller 22:07, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Picture
Hello, everybody. We need a picture of a Star Destroyer for this article, don't you think? Something that inspires fear, awe. . . that sort of thing. Anybody want to provide?


 * The Executor picture is insufficiently intimidating? :( --maru (talk) contribs 01:06, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps could be used. // Liftarn

Fair use issues
Little doubt: is it legal to put a picture like the one in the article (apparently extracted from a Star Wars movie)? What about copyrights?


 * I was about to post a picture for the Millennium Falcon article and I thought about taking a picture of a 45 cm falcon model I have (to avoid copyrights). Then I saw this star destroyer and the doubt came.

Naming

 * "The Imperial Star Destroyer, sometimes called either Imperial-class or Imperator-class, although there is no definitive statement from Lucasfilm on whether the name of the first ship is indeed Imperial, Imperator or something else entirely, is the premier class of medium starship in the Imperial Starfleet in the Star Wars universe. Possessed of a battery of 64 heavy guns each more powerful than the entire present nuclear arsenal of the Earth, and a wing of 72 Imperial TIE starfighters, the Imperial Star Destroyer is closest in mission and weapons outfit to the modern Kuznetsov aircraft carrier of the Russian Navy."


 * "See also Star Wars"

Above text taken from Imperial Star Destroyer

Personnally I beleive Imperial is the name that should by used in the header as this is the name most people associate with that class os star destoyer.--Tom 14:19, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Handy data source
This site has more information than you will ever want if you want to write a really detailed article on Star Destroyers. It settles some of the points raised in the material you added. --Mark Richards 21:04, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Foolish analogy

 * Unless I'm very much mistaken, the Russian naval vessal Kuznetsov does not cary a large complement of starfighters. This comparison is ridiculous. There is no more information to this comparison than if we were to say that because of it's large size and hard exterior, the Star Destroyer bears a certain resemblance to an ostrich egg.

Sorry, but it has to go! Mark Richards 06:20, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * That's okay, makes room for me to work in that ostrich egg analogy you suggested should take its place. :) --Bryan 06:24, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Dr. Saxton's pages
A lot of the information in the new addition comes directly from Dr. Saxton's work.

I'm not talking about an exact parallel, you knuckleknob. I'm talking about mission parameters and general - GENERAL! - similarities. Kuznetsov has heavy internal armaments - so does a Star Destroyer. Kuznetsov's fighter complement is primarily centered around air superiority - so is a Star Destroyer's. If you want precise analogues, brother, you're never going to find them. But general parallels can be easily found. --User:Iceberg3k 10:53, 9 Mar 2004 (CST)


 * This is getting silly - aside from the abuse, which I'm prepared to overlook, taking a look at the specifications of the Russian Aircraft Carrier I am more than ever convinced that there is no useful parallel to be drawn. The whole notion of making comparisons between the Russian Navy and Star Wars spaceships in terms of capabilities, mission or whatever else is misleading at best. You might just as well say - If Star Destroyers were 20th Century American cars, they would be Humvees - it's nonsense. Mark Richards 19:13, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * Aside from that, as far as I know, while the Kuznetsov does carry air-superiority fighters, it is not a very large complement. The number of starfighters carried aboard an ISD is more akin to that of a modern supercarrier such as the US Nimitz class Aircraft Carrier, although these ships are obviously not analogues of the ISD for different reason. Besides, the ISD carries TIE bombers and other vessels for attacking land and large spaceborne targets, while the Kuznetsov lacks catapults and thus does not carry planes designed for bombing. --M412k 18:21, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Coloration
Classic Imperial White under private use? Is this correct? Aren't they usually black? --Mark Richards 18:44, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * I dunno, they seem pretty white to me. --Golbez 17:08, Aug 31, 2004 (UTC)

Naming of ISDs
I have to ask, aren't ISDs called Imperial because they belong to an empire? I'd say they are Imperial Star Destroyers of the Imperator (or whatever) class.

Expanded universe has the classification of Imperial class for star destroyers we know and love... you know the one from the begging of A New Hope.

Information lost in merge
We seem to have lost a lot of information with the removal of the Imperial Star Destroyer page. Whilst we've got a lot more information on others, it would be good to include more info on the Imperator/Imperial Star Destroyer, since it's such a prominent ship. Any reason why the articles were all merged/simplfied? Also, can somebody cite a source for the name being canonicly changed to Imperial? I've never seen any canon confirmation of the name - leading to the debate. --Sanguinus 03:05, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * The name-change was mentioned in ROTS ICS which came out recently. (Though the reason for originally calling them Imperial-class destroyers makes as much sense as calling Japanese aircraft-carriers, Japanese-class Carriers, just because they´re used by Japan. :P) Can´t help you with the rest, I´m afraid. --VT-16 22:09, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I recently spoke with Geoffrey Mandel by email and he told me that his blueprints are fan work and that the name Imperator is not official. (TracksZ06 09:36, 25 January 2006 (UTC))


 * And who the hell is Geoffrey Mandel? --Rogue 9 05:25, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

He produced the Blueprints for the Star Destroyer back in 1978, he named it Imperator and labelled various parts of the ship I assume from his own speculation. (TracksZ06 05:35, 26 January 2006 (UTC))

This is a picture from the blueprints.(TracksZ06 05:34, 26 January 2006 (UTC))


 * And this is undeniable proof that the globes are sensor domes. Rogue 9 10:49, 26 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Quite strong demonstration. I think most people will find the backstage evidence combined with the newer nature of the official sources citing them as sensor globes quite convincing. Not that we're in the business of convincing people of particular viewpoints here on Wikipedia. Balancer 03:42, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Curtis Saxton's website is unofficial therefore anything he says is invalid case closed. (70.16.226.247 12:37, 27 January 2006 (UTC))

The quote is however properly sourced and from an in side source and there for valid.--Elfwood 13:55, 27 January 2006 (UTC)


 * His webpage may not be official, but you can verify the quotation by following the links I put in. The Cinefex wiki-stub includes a direct link to the Cinefex website, through which you may order back issues or photocopies of out-of-print articles and freely verify the quotation. Balancer 17:02, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Computer games...
"However, they have generally been "toned-down" to allow the player some chance of defeating them." - This really is pointless clutter & actually doesn't have much relevance (not to mention is somewhat controversial between the two main camps of SW fans). What's "toned down" about computer game targets in an actual demonstrable fashion is that they behave stupidly, and I think everybody understands this.

Hence why I removed this phrase along with my edit adding a link to the X-Wing computer game article. If you think the added editorial really needs to be attached, please do tell why. -Tomai 4/13/2005
 * I had restored the phrase because it seemed relevant. They are clearly "toned-down" significantly in most games, but I understand why you removed it now. I'll leave it as it is. - Vermilion 06:34, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * I have to agree with Vermilion: it is relevant to clarify that the representation of Star Destroyers in the games is not necessarily representative of their supposed power in the novels and movies. M412k 18:11, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Executor crew
Guys, I'm confident that the crew size is 250,000. The ship is 12.8 km long; because of the size a considerable portion would have to be reserved for power generators. Some of the work would probably be done by droids. 2.6 million is far too big for a crew, even for 17.6 km (which is how long the Eclipse was).

Also, try to get a picture of the Executor bridge and also put a section in about it.- B-101 00:54, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The Executor class is definitely 17.6 km long, based on the films and confirmed by the latest EU materials. The Eclipse is approximately 16 kilometers long -- the author intended it to be twice the length of an Executor class, but used the old WEG length figure of 7.6 kilometers. WyldStallionRyder 08:52, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

I thought Executor class Super Star Destroyers were 19 km long.Astroview120mm 01:56, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Curtis Saxon's scaling work demonstrated Executor to be eleven to twelve times the length of an Imperator/Imperial class Star Destroyer, giving it a length of between 17,600 meters and 19,200 meters. The old Star Wars RPG from West End Games had a length of 7.6 kilometers; no justification was ever given for this figure, although it's repeated in a lot of the older novels. Some more recent material uses a 12.8 km length, exactly halfway between the old figure and the correct figure; this is again without any given justification, although it's commonly believed to be the result of some kind of office politics compromise. In September 2005 the databank entry on the official Star Wars website was changed from the 12,800 meter figure to 19,000 kilometers, which appears to be the latest official figure. --146.115.57.236 17:34, 27 January 2006 (UTC)


 * For a long time, actually, the 19 km figure was never mentioned in discussion - you had 8,12.8, and 17.6. That said, how many official figures for the crew numbers have been actually published? Balancer 17:42, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Star Destroyers and modern naval designations
''The term Star Destroyer also designates some of these vessels as belonging to a class of destroyer in the sense of the classic naval role. Under this definition, Star Destroyer follows the nomenclature of Star Frigates, Star Cruisers, Star Battlecruisers, and Star Dreadnoughts.'' -I hate to open up this whole can of worms, but I really don't think this is how they're portrayed in the Expanded Universe, and of course the films don't really touch on this. Yes, I know this is how it's described by Saxton. He scientifically compared the length of standard Imperial star destroyers to the Executer, and concluded that the Executer must be a Star Dreadnought. And yes, I know that his words are respected if not canonical, and that his commentaries are a great service to Star Wars fans.

That said, I don't think that the "real world" way of naming things has to be the same as the Star Wars way of naming things. It's like arguing a blaster rifle isn't actually a rifle because it doesn't have rifling. It's established that they use different words as us, i.e. slicer. More importantly, I believe that Saxton's definition is inconsistent with the Expanded Universe. In Zahn's Thrawn Trilogy, what Pellaeon calls "cruisers," are clearly established as being smaller and less deadly than standard Imp star destroyers. For example, the task force that attacks Sluis Van in book 1 has 5 Star Destroyers, 12 Strike-class cruisers, and 22 Carrack-class light cruisers. In the next book, after Thrawn exercises ship-protective caution, Star Destroyers are stated to be the mightiest ships in the Imperial Fleet. Later, in Specter of The Past, a pirate is fearful of sending his battlecruiser and 2 smaller ships against a single Imp star destoyer.

Of course, the ships listed as "cruisers" on Saxton's list of Imperial warships page exist as legitimate, canonical ships between Executer-class and Imp-class in size. But most of them aren't named as being cruisers in actual Star Wars stories, he just assigns them that classification based on their size. I accept that corvettes are smaller than frigates and bigger than gunboats and the like, and that the biggest ships could legitimately be called "dreadnoughts," but cruisers are definitely smaller than destroyers in some cases. While the exact terms could be debated, naval desgnations in Star Wars are significantly different than in real life.

PS: I admire most of Saxton's efforts, and I apologize in advance for angering some people-LtNOWIS 04:22, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * I've seen it rationalized before by the assumption of a two level ship classification system where the "Star" prefix means a larger ship. That way you might have a 500m "heavy cruiser" and then a 5km "Star Cruiser". IIRC, there is some evidence in the ROTJ novelization that supports this two level system. I personally prefer just using Saxton's designations, but either way works. ISDs were probably the mightiest ships left in Thrawn's fleet because all the bigger ships had either been destroyed by battles between warlords or already recalled to Byss. - Vermilion 05:29, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * We are talking about a fictional universe here, albeit a detailed and interesting one. There is virtually nothing in the movies or the expanded universe that hints at a more powerful ship-of-the-line than the Star Destroyer (the few larger ships being aberrations or rarities).  The RPG has consistently described the Super Star Destroyer as a rarity, and the small number of them that have appeared in the literature would seem to bear that out.  There has not been one story in which a fleet engagement has involved a large number of ships of a larger class than Star Destroyer.  The literature also states that the far smaller dreadnaught was the mightiest ship of the Old Republic era (or at least the pre-prequel era), and so the Star Destroyer would seem to be the next logical step.  Basing its mission parameters on its designation as a destroyer is silly, because I doubt Geroge Lucas was really considering that at the time; there is not much approaching accurate military tactics in his movies.  We have Strike Cruisers, Mon Calamari Crusiers, Carrack Crusiers, etc. that should all have more firepower and ability than a destroyer, but they clearly do not outmatch a Star Destroyer.  The same goes for the dreadnaught itself, which should be the big kid on the block going by traditional ship nomenclature.  Saxton's work is nice and all, but it is fan made by definition and therefore does not belong in an encyclopedia no matter how interesting and insightful it can be.  While the Star Wars universe does not always avoid self-contradiction, suddenly delcaring the star destroyer to be a traditional destroyer in the Imperial fleet would be to overturn Zahn, Anderson, West End Games, Kube-McDowell, and the entire New Jedi Order series just to name a few sources.  I am not quite sure where this rant is going, but I strongly agree with LtNOWIS. Indrian 06:05, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)
 * If I wasn't clear, I think the italicized text above should be removed from the article or modified. I also wouldn't mind a section in the article describing this whole dilemma. While there are ships bigger than Imp Star Destroyers, they're not refered to as cruisers nearly as often as ships smaller than destroyers. Vermilion's "Star" prefix kind of works, but And as Indrian stated, combat doesn't revolve around the heavy ships like in real life. The "classic naval role" of real-life destroyers has never been to do almost all of the heavy fighting while bigger ships are unneccesary even in major naval clashes. I think calling the Executor a "dreadnought" made it into the canon with Inside the Worlds of the Original trilogy, which Saxton advised on. While that creates confusion with the comparatively tiny Dreadnought-class ships of many of the novels, I wouldn't put it past the people of the Star Wars universe to confuse everything, like we in the real world did with frigate.  Both of you, thanks for your opinions.-LtNOWIS 15:46, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * I don't think it should be removed since the terms are canon, having been used in the ROTJ novelization and the Incredible Cross Section books. I wouldn't be opposed to modifying the text though. - Vermilion 03:37, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * It's definitely not the case that the "Star Destroyer" role is analagous to the modern naval destroyer role. It is worth noting this in particular. IIRC, Mon Calamari Cruisers are sometimes described as star cruisers in some books. The ISD combines a carrier and battleship role; it seems intended as a sort of heavy aviation gunboat cruiser, capable of working on its own without escort. The destroyer role seems to be filled by various ships usually described as frigates or corvettes. It's definitely the main "ship of the line" for the Imperial Navy. Perhaps a removal of that particular phrase entire with retention of "star dreadnaught" etc as a proper designation for the superheavies? -Tomai 25 Apr 2005


 * I agree that the use of Dr. Saxton's modern nomenclature is not what was intended by the EU writers. As stated above, the name "Star Destroyer" is more a psychological designation than a military term. The ISD has regularly been refered to as a heavy cruiser, but the name sticks. The "Dreadnoughts" introduced in Timothy Zahn's books were considered to be accurately named at the time they were introduced. We should stick with the namingconvention used in canon and EU sources, and not Saxton's website. Additionally, while those terms may be mentioned in two sources, the majority of canon and EU sources speak to the other naming convention. It is also impossible to compare our naval naming convention to the Star Wars universe, because their naval landscape is not shaped by nuclear weapons and submarine warfare.

--SparqMan 20:57, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * The naming convention used by Saxton's website is used in the canon. The movie novelizations are above the EU in the canon hierarchy and nothing in the EU can override them. The ROTJ novelization directly refers to Mon Cal ships (like the 3.8km long Home One/"Headquarters Frigate") as 'Star Cruisers'. Inside the Worlds of the Star Wars Trilogy, Attack of the Clones Incredible Cross Sections and Revenge of the Sith Incredible Cross Sections are at least as canon as the rest of the EU, and it's been implied by some sources that the DK reference books are above the EU and on the same canon level as the movie novelizations. Claiming that a large number of EU sources saying something is true must make it true is fallacious at best. See the last 15 years of EU stating the wrong sizes for the Executor and the Death Stars - more WEG mistakes corrected by Inside the Worlds of the Star Wars Trilogy. -Vermilion 03:06, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * So the Star Wars novelization, in which Obi Wan states that Darth Vader helped the later emperors wipe out the jedi is on a higher level of canon than the EU and cannot be overriden. Interesting. Indrian 08:03, Apr 30, 2005 (UTC)
 * I find stating that one source is "correct" and another not rather funny. This is FICTION.  As none of these things exist, there is no right answer.  When two fictional sources conflict, one can use a variety of means to decide which description they prefer, but no source is "right" or "wrong."  Try to remember that.Indrian 08:11, Apr 30, 2005 (UTC)
 * And yet not a single EU novel uses the term "Star Dreadnought" to describe a Star Destroyer. Nor is the phrase "Star Frigate" or "Star Cruiser" used for Star Destroyers. The "Incredible Cross Sections" books are rife with contradictions of other sources. I find Saxton's attempts to apply the physics and realities of our world to the Star Wars universe bizzare. He uses the comics as a primary source for many of his scaling exercises, which are certainly unreliable. If anything, the movies override any novelizations or EU sources, and I've yet to hear the term "dreadnought" used in ANH, TESB OR ROTJ. If I'm wrong, please let me know.--SparqMan 05:18, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Just as additional food for thought, is simply the lack of knowledge on Saxton's part on traditional naval nomenclature to be somewhat absurd, as well. The term "command ship" was never actually used as an actual classification, not today, not a hundred years and not anytime in the past three hundred years of national navies. I do find it somewhat amusing that the most ardent of Saxton supporters often cite 'ignorance' of science as the chief reason not to listen to dissenting opinion, yet completely ignore Saxton's complete misappropriation of naval terminology, but that's something else entirely. Facts are: "Star Destroyer" is always a proper noun, if it were simply interchangeable with "destroyer" it wouldn't be listed as such. In the Original Trilogy the ships listed as ISDs were originally noted as "Cruisers" (a generic term which prior to the advent of steel ships was used for ANY "ship" that was capable of independent cruising) and their role seems to indicate an independent cruising role like the Napoleonic era frigates or later day light/heavy cruisers of the dreadnought era. If anything "Star Destroyer" is simply a designator for a platform capable of independent travel with a certain list of capabilities. All of the ships listed as Star Destroyers(at least in Old Republic/Imperial service) can do a combination of: ship to ship("direct 'line' engagement"), air superiority(carrier), and planetary assault roles. On the other hand if EU sources are to be believed, "Star Cruisers" for example normally lack the planetary assault role. --NobAkimoto 16:16, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Well, I was tempted to revert the recent edits by an anonymous guest user but decided that the Dreadnought and etc. terminology should not be used. However, the Imperator name should be restored- I think that that was in the ICS book.M412k 01:34, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
 * They also deleted the entire Tector-class section and several paragraphs from other sections, so I reverted it. --Vermilion 02:12, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

Heading style
From Manual of Style (headings): "Avoid restating the subject of the article or of an enclosing section in heading titles." Repeating "Star Destroyer" for each class is unnecessary and makes the TOC harder to read. Fredrik | talk 09:59, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * It's repeated for each class only because they are not all "Star Destroyers." - Vermilion 11:34, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Actually, I think leaving it off is acceptable except for "non-Star Destroyers" like the Acclamator and others. Illuminatus Primus 22:46, May 17, 2005 (UTC)

Executor as an SD class
I was under the impression that the Executor was of the Super-class that denoted that generation of Star Destroyers. I have never seen Executor as a class elsewhere. Isn't it odd that they would name a ship and its class the same? They didn't do that with any others. What's the deal here? --BDD 19:17, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
 * They didn't? And from what I can tell, more sources say Executor class than Super class, and that Super is a colloquial term. --Golbez 19:26, May 11, 2005 (UTC)
 * When I said "They didn't do that..." I meant there wasn't an SD named Imperial or a smaller one named Victory (individual ships, instead of just classes). My physics teacher is a self-professed "Star Wars nerd" and also doesn't think that Executor is a class. --BDD 18:40, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
 * No, but the general thought seems to be that there was an SD named Imperator, and that people who keep changing it to Imperial are annoying. :> And even if Executor isn't a class, that doesn't mean Super is a class. --Golbez 19:36, May 12, 2005 (UTC)
 * Executor class is canonic, as (unfortunately) is Super class. Some attempt to manage the different terms as referring to two different classes - the Executor being the far larger, with the Super being a small class. Super star destroyer is used colloqially, similar to Imperial star destroyer. --Sanguinus 19:48, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Then was Executor made into a class sometime after the destruction of the original ship? I realize that canon conflicts at time, but some sources can be considered more canonical than others. I, for example, have in front of me a 1998 Star Wars Encyclopedia (it should go without saying that it is official) that indicates the Executor as a Super-class ship. A few other SD classes are mentioned, but I have to be brief here because my friend's mom might be having a miscarriage right now, and needless to say I'm about to leave. Let me just briefly propose that we follow this encyclopedic standard until a better option presents itself. --BDD 22:14, 13 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Later references, including the G-canon Inside the Worlds of the Original Trilogy, refer to Executor as the class leader of her own class, which is named for her. Since ITW is G-level, it trumps the 1998 Encyclopedia, which is C-level.


 * Also, the possible existence of the 8,000 meter Super class Star Cruiser is addressed in the article. Iceberg3k 01:26, May 21, 2005 (UTC)

Executor appears to be the only ship in SW thats actually the first ship in the class as the class name. There is no Imperial named ship. Imperator is a fan created name, Venator was never a ship name either. Real world naval terms don't apply to star wars. Star Trek is different though thats a hypothetical future of the real world. (TracksZ06 09:46, 25 January 2006 (UTC))


 * There were over 25,000 Imperial mk2 Star Destroyers manufactured by the time of Endor, we see about 25 of them in the film and only 1 mk1 was ever named (Devastator) why is there definately no Imperial/Imperator star destroyer? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.232.4.58 (talk) 13:32, 9 June 2008 (UTC)


 * The Imperator was mentioned by name in "Wedge's Gamble" - it was believed to be part of Imperial Centre's fleet, but didn't show up. Captain Seafort (talk) 18:14, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Star Destroyer Debate
A few things to begin with, first and foremost is that in none of the original trilogy is the name “Imperator” used only Imperial. Thus there can be no argument as to whether it is Imperial or “Imperator”; the script clearly states that they are Imperial Star Destroyers. Second, in the Empire Strikes Back a probably reason for the Executor looking more than five times as large as the Imperial Star Destroyers could be that the model itself was purposely/mistakenly made out of proportion or that the angle that the shot was viewed from showed the ratio to be different. If we go to Return of the Jedi we see from the Emperor’s Throne Room and when the surprise attack commences that the Executor is five times the size of the Imperial Star Destroyers; which, by the way, all of those are Imperial Star Destroyers. They all have the almost exact same dimensions from the forward view and the side view from the Emperor’s Throne Room. Also from Return of the Jedi, we here Admiral Ackbar specifically indicate that all fire power should be concentrated on “that” Super Star Destroyer. The “that “Super Star Destroyer that he is referring to is the Executor. I have no clue where the name Star Dreadnought came from, though outside Expanded Universe sources might in some way reference certain ships as Star Dreadnoughts, those sources in no way override the films. The other Star Destroyers that are claimed to be at the Battle of Endor are in fact just plain old ordinarily Imperial Star Destroyers, the map paintings might have been off, or ILM might have gotten a little fancy with some of the models, but those are Imperials. Point out where these supposed other Star Destroyer classes are and point them out definitively. Unless clear distinctions can be made between these other classes and Imperial class Star Destroyers then there is no real supporting evidence. Further more neither Lucas of ILM has ever published works showing these other different variants. This information cannot simply be the work of wishful fans; it must be thoroughly cross checked with all of the films and must have a certain amount of continuity and multiple sources of reference in the Expanded Universe. In none of the modern canon work is there any reference to the Imperial Star Destroyer not being the primary battle ship of the Imperial navy. The simple fact of the matter is that, aside from the many Super Star Destroyer variants, the Imperial Star Destroyer is the Empire’s most powerful warship. Let more research and fact finding be done so that we can clear up all this nonsense.

10:17 P.M. May 25th, 2005A.D.

Dreadnought? Huh?
The "Star Dreadnought" is referred to as a "super star destroyer" throughout the last two movies. For example, Admiral Ackbar (that was his name, I believe) said at the end of ROTJ to "concentrate all fire on that super star destroyer." I also read a great deal of the Star Wars books when I was younger, and I never recall the word dreadnought being used.

So why is this term used? -- tomf688 (talk) 23:32, May 26, 2005 (UTC)
 * This term is used in a small number of more recent reference works such as the Incredible cross-sections. Despite the fact that this material contradicts the movies as pointed out above and flies in the face of years of previous EU material without giving a particularly weighty reason for the change, a single user, Vermilion is using this as pretense to revert any attempts to make reference to the standard naming convention.  I myself could personally care less.  When a person has invested so much time in a fictional universe that he is aruging whether a particular ship is called Imperial or Imperator or Executor class vs. Super class or Super Star Destroyer vs. Star Dreadnought, he may want to think about where his real priorities should be. If you feel strongly about the matter and are interested in seeing this changed, which I am not particularly, then you should try initiating a dialogue with that user, and if that fails to resolve the issue, starting a poll or proposing an RFC or something. Indrian 07:44, May 27, 2005 (UTC)


 * I've just done a quick google, and "star dreadnought" returns almost no pictures about the ship in question, while "super star destroyer" returns dozens. Furthermore, the official Star Wars website refers to them as "Super Star Destroyers."


 * I'm not a star wars nut (at least not anymore ;) ), but the most common name should be used, not the super-hardcore-star-wars-fan term. -- tomf688 (talk) 15:08, May 27, 2005 (UTC)
 * I agree whole-heartedly, but at this point Vermilion will revert any changes, which is why something must be done about him first. Indrian 17:23, May 27, 2005 (UTC)


 * I am one who started the above section on why it is Imperial and Super Star Destroyer as opposed to Imperator or Star Dreadnought. To who ever is constantly reverting my changes you are blatantly wrong. You have no supporting evidence from the films or from a majority or even more than one real canon Star Wars source. Furthermore using prequel information when the original trilogy says other wise is also false. The original trilogy contradicts some things in the prequels but are there changes being made because of that information, no. The original trilogy used Imperial and Super Star Destroyer that should be all the information needed. But you, for some reason, don't think the films are the highest canon. You have taken a huge amount of garbage written by this Dr. Saxton and that is just irresponsible and wrong. Did Dr. Saxton create Star Wars? Was he the man who wrote all other the Expanded Universe content? No, he is simply writing work about Star Destroyers that is completely not canon and diverges in every way from the films. So again to who ever is constantly reverting the correct changes of Imperial and Super Star Destroyer back, why can’t you just admit that you have no evidence and stop making this page false and entirely incorrect.


 * I disagree. An encylcopaedia doesn't deal in 'common wisdom', but in fact. The Executor class is a dreadnought. I see no reason to prevent things being called by their proper name. If you have a problem with the use of the proper terms, then explain Executor-class star dreadnought vs Super Star Destroyer, rather than sticking with the one you've heard of, or is more common. Furthermore, Dr Chris Saxton is an author of official Star Wars author. Is Timothy Zahn's work 'false' or 'incorrect' when it disagrees with other canonic sources? No; as in any established reality, there is disagreement over names, capabilities and cheese toasties. To portray something as fact based on something which is contested is not a great idea. In summary: add information on why the terms are used and say that there both are acceptable. --Sanguinus 21:40, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Hmmmm, so it is a "fact" that the Executor class is a dreadnought. For this to be a fact, there would have to be such a thing as a dreadnought in space in the first place, which does not actually exist, this being a fictional universe.  Anything in the Star Wars universe can only be defined based on how it is described in that universe.  The Star Wars universe has grown so large that it is often self-contradictory.  The vast majority of sources refer to Super Star Destroyers and not Star Dreadnoughts.  For an encyclopedia to report on a work of fiction using an obscure name for something is riduculous.  A mention of the contradictory information is appropriate, but not the near complete eradication of the more common term.  The editors who refuse to acknowledge the more common term because they like the obscure term better are acting irresponsibly.  I personally wish that The New Rebellion and Planet of Twilight had never been written, but I am not going to expunge every reference to either of these books from wikipedia because they are among my least favorite pieces of Star Wars literature.  Indrian 03:39, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)

Actually, Wikipedia does use common names, and "Super Star Destroyer" is by far the most commonly used name. See Naming conventions (common names) for official policy. Having "Super Star Destroyer (sometimes referred to as "Star Dreadnought")" on it's subsection should be acceptable.
 * Yes, it uses common names, but not common wisdom: it deals in fact, and the facts are that both Executor-class Star Dreadnought and Super Star Destroyer can be used to refer to the same thing. --Sanguinus 22:55, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

Furthermore, the "official" website uses the term "super star destroyer". Shouldn't that be enough? -- tomf688 (talk) 21:54, May 28, 2005 (UTC)


 * It also says that the "Super Star Destroyer" is 12800m tall. --Kazuaki Shimazaki 12:31, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

The latest definitive source, Vader: The Ultimate Guide, confirms a 19,000 meter Executor-class Star Destroyer as does recent Databank updating. --Kudzu1 4:05, 11 December 2005 (UTC)


 * No, Complete Locations came out after Vader and it says star dreadnaught. --Lowkey13

Said source reprints ITW and is just a compilation. There is still no consensus, so I think it's only fair that Wikipedia remains neutral. --Kudzu1

I've read through roughly 70 different star wars novels into the expanded universe, and virtually all reference materials relating to vehicles in the Star Wars universe up until episode 3. The sources all claim the Executor to be either an "Executor" class or "Super" class of the Star Destroyer. Not once are they referred to as Star Dreadnoughts. There are however other capital ships which made up the backbone of the Old Republic which are known as Dreadnoughts. These range from everything such as local defense forces, to grand fleets (Katana Fleet in the Thrawn Trilogy), superweapons (Eye of Palpatine in the book Children of the Jedi) and were even the main parts of the research vessel "Outbound Flight" which appears through many of Timothy Zahn's works as well as other parts of Star Wars lore. The following is an excerpt from a conversation between Luke and Lando in Shadows of the Empire and can be found on page 229:

(Lando) "I didn't get close enough to read nameplates, but the lead ship is a Star Destroyer." "Victory-class?" "Bigger than that." "Imperial-class?" "Try again." Luke looked away from the controls at Lando, eyes going wide. "No." "Yep. Super-class." "Is it . . . Executor?" "Like I said, I didn't get that close. But how many of those are there? They Don't crank those babies up just for fun"

Hopefully, this gives clarity to both the class of Star Destroyer being "Imperial" as well as the "Super-class" being in fact, a Star Destroyer. Since this was published much earlier, and uses the most commonly accepted naming scheme, the section should be titled "Super-class Star Destroyers" and list "Star Dreadnought" as an alternate term, yet with a tag distinguishing it from the other Dreadnought ships. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.67.82.114 (talk) 09:44, 16 October 2007 (UTC)


 * There are also multiple sources that describe the Deutschland - class Panzerschiff as "pocket battleships". That is not, however, accurate.  "Pocket battleship" is simply a nickname, just as "super (or Super - class) star destroyer" is an in-universe nickname for the Executor - class Star Dreadnoughts. MartinMcCann 13:24, 16 October 2007 (UTC)


 * "dreadnoughts" are a completely different Star Wars vessel


 * The Dreadnaught-class heavy cruisers, like those of the Katana fleet are indeed completely different ships to the Star Dreadnaughts of the Executor, Eclipse and Sovereign classes. That doesn't change the fact that recently published canon has confirmed that the Ex's official type designation is "Sar Dreadnaught". MartinMcCann 21:52, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

If they are Star Dreadnoughts, what are they doing in the Star Destroyer article? Showers (talk) 21:57, 6 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Although the most recent sources have retconned them to "Star Dreadnoughts," the more likely search term is Super Star Destroyer, hence their presence here. --EEMIV (talk) 22:01, 6 December 2007 (UTC)


 * That's what redirects are for. Showers (talk) 22:24, 6 December 2007 (UTC)


 * My 2 cents: "Star Dreadnoughts" is absolutely ridiculous. They are called Super Star Destroyers in the movies, in the EU novels, in the X-Wing series of games, and just about everywhere else. Whoever insists on calling them Star Dreadnoughts is being quite irrational and ruining this article. Tonicthebrown (talk) 06:15, 15 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment on edits, not editors who are "irrational and ruining this article." As for your contention, see the previously cited print ref., and the third paragraph here. If you can find more compelling and more recent material, then cite it. --EEMIV (talk) 06:31, 15 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Point taken, my language was somewhat harsh, but I really am amused about this whole debate. I find myself agreeing with Indrian that it is incredible that people can be so anal about "factual" accuracy in what is, at the end of the day, a fictional universe. I find it hard to believe that a minority of references to "star dreadnought" can override an overwhelming majority of references to SSD. Even the starwars.com reference which EEMIV kindly provided says Though the name "Super Star Destroyer" is spoken in the films, it is now revealed that the correct nomenclature to describe the ship type is "Star Dreadnought. My question is: revealed by whom? Who or what is this (unnamed) authoritative source that can singlehandedly override George Lucas himself?!? Hilarious. I can't escape the feeling that the desire to use the term "Star Dreadnought" comes from a bunch of elitist self-styled Star Wars experts who want to prove how knowledgeable they are, even at the expense of popular wisdom and common sense! Tonicthebrown (talk) 10:37, 15 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Uh-huh. Anyway, before this article and the old Super Star Destroyer article were merged -- and cited, and given real-world information, and trimmed of trivia, and so on -- I'm pretty sure I reverted some uncited switches from SSD to dreadnought. However, given two citations to reliable sources, the content as-is seems appropriate. I'll personally stick to the old familiar term, but without a compelling source to substantiate my belief, what's in the article now stands. --EEMIV (talk) 16:40, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

The Executor
Executor class Star Destroyer is the acurate term, Star Dreadnaught was created within the last year or so. The Executor in ESB was called a Star Destroyer by Leia as they fled Bespin. It's a Star Destroyer plain and simple. (TracksZ06 09:38, 25 January 2006 (UTC))


 * If it's decided on a Star Destroyer, then why the Executor gets reverted to Star Drednaught now and then?
 * And why it's stated to be 17 miles long on Galactic Empire (Star Wars)#Organization of Power]? --DmitryKo 00:05, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

the term does not appear   in the original trilogy. It should not be here. Any material referenced is  material from expanded  universe. Every other part of wikipedia normally separates material from expanded  universe from original source. Thus as the term super star destroyer appears in the orginal source as well as expanded universe it should take priority. Can we perhaps do a poll or something like  we normally do on wikipedia? Do we have any evidence that the super star destroyer and star dreadnoughts are the same ships? Also i think we should note any guidelines for  expanded universe and  wikipedia's naming conventions  why  is  the star dreadnought in the  star destroyer  section  then it doesn't make sense? On a personal note i would like to apologise for accidentally using the wrong page to talk. However i am a little concerned at the speed at which the article was  reverted.Dr noire (talk) 19:49, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

I have never heard the term 'Star Dreadnought' ever before reading this article. Personally I don't agree with it. Though I would like to know who changed it and why. Up until that point the terms "Super-Class Star Destroyer" and some form of "Executor-Class Super Star Destroyer" coexisted almost peacefully. And the two remain common among the more casual Star Wars fans. Certainly, anyone looking up information about this class of Star Destroyer would not be searching under "Star Dreadnought", as the more common "Super Star Destroyer" would return more results and higher quality results. And restating my initial query, I would like to know where the term "Star Dreadnought" came from, and was there any particular reason for this change. Also, have any common and long established official sources, such as the Star Wars Data Bank, commented on, or used this name? Ub3rn008 (talk) 12:00, 28 December 2007 (UTC)


 * The Databank uses the dreadnought term. As for other search terms, that's what redirects are for. --EEMIV (talk) 16:29, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

i accsept that the data bank uses the term  star dreadnaught however i doubt the term should be used on wikipedia. or atleast used in to proper  contect. the article on the darabank  is called super star destroyer and not  star dreadnaught. also if you click on the link where it says star dreadnaught it goes stright to a general article about the developement of drednaughts in the prequel erea of expanded universe. i personaly think it should be titled super star destroyer..... with a foot note or small paragraph with the term star drednaught used.... perhaps makeing note on the fact it is only used on expanded universe and not in the film. perhaps linking to am i right in thinking some game desided to give various naval names to the different ships in the imperial fleet to distingish them? can we find an exact date when the term was first used?--Dr noire (talk) 23:33, 28 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Star Wars canon > your personnal opinions. Sorry.  The "Star Dreadnought" designation was introduced by Dr. Curtis Saxton, since it a) fits better with correct naval terminology, and b) the SSD term is only used in the films by Ackbar,in a stressful situation and in a foreign language. In calmer moments (Han while approaching Endor, the Emperor giving orders to Vader) the Executor is always refered to as a "command ship".  In-universe "Super Star Destroyer" is a corruption of "Super-class Star Destroyer, the name given to a set of false plans for the ships prepared to sneak authorisation past the senate by implying that they were a lot smaller than they actually were.  MartinMcCann (talk) 13:59, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Atmospheric-capable
Shouldn't the sections on Accalamators and Venators mention that both are capable of operating within a planetary atmosphere and landing as well? Astroview120mm 03:37, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
 * The Victoryclass was also described as being atmospherically capable. --SparqMan 21:03, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * That is explained already in the section on Victory.
 * If they say Victory Star Destroyer is the largest starship to have atmospheric capability, then why were there Star Destroyer on Coruscant in ROTS?


 * It looked to me like those Venators were in close orbit in space- only the Invisible Hand and the destroyed ones entered atmosphere. --maru (talk) Contribs 03:53, 6 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Actually, in ROTS, we see Venators on the ground in some other scenes. The Victory being the largest one to be able to go in the atmosphere is something that got retconned by the film, obviously enough. It happens. Balancer 17:44, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Italics
A question; shouldn't the sentence, "The name, Tector, refers to "a cavalry trooper equipped with large shield", befitting a warship with extra armor," have only Tector (it being the name of a ship) italicized, with the rest of the sentence in regular type?
 * I agree, that would make more sense. – Mipadi June 29, 2005 16:49 (UTC)
 * No, since the sentence is italicized to set it aside, as a note, Tector, which normally would be italicized, becomes regular type. M412k 30 June 2005 18:02 (UTC)
 * Does that sentence need to be set aside on its own? – Mipadi June 30, 2005 18:29 (UTC)

I don't believe the sentence was being set aside, since the author did not specify that they were quoting from a source material, although M412k would be correct if that were the case. Do those sentences on the meanings of the ship names add value to the article at all? --SparqMan 1 July 2005 20:25 (UTC)

Shield and sensor globes
This came as a surprise to me, that those two globes don't control the shields to the entire star destroyer. I, like many other, thought that when those were destoryed, all the shields of the destoroyer went down. This was the case in X-Wing and X-Wing vs Tie Fighter (though I only had the demo of the latter). The author's explaination made more sense, since what I and others thought would have left a serious design flaw in the Star Destroyer design. Though, there is one thing I don't get, and have never really understood for Star Trek and Star Wars shielding. What causes them to be depleated? And can the shields be put back up to full power imidiately if the energy is there? There seems to be a lot of discrepancy about the whole idea of "shields". I read the article, but still don't really understand them. Energy is fed back into the generators, causing the sparking you see in the ship, and when shields go down that's because the generator is destroyed?
 * The accepted version is, Ackbar told all ships to fire on the Super Star Destroyer - the assualt of so many ships at once overwhelmed their shields, which led to the sensor dome being vulnerable to attack, which was a very real signal to the people inside that, hey, our shields are down. As for how the shields work, no clue. =p You should look at radome for how a star destroyer's domes are very similar to terrestrial sensor domes. --Golbez July 6, 2005 00:08 (UTC)
 * Shields in Star Wars are of two types: particle shields and energy shields. The former protects against the small dust particles which would otherwise tear the ship apart when it jumps to lightspeed. The latter protects against attack from an energy weapon, 'deflecting' the shot away and causing the laser bolts to 'splinter'. When the shield takes a hit, some of its energy is lost in the area it was hit. It seems that the shield generators have a limited charge, which is slowly lost as it replenishes the shields back to full energy. The generators don't have to be destroyed for the shields to go offline - they simply 'run out' of charge, which replenishes slowly. Note: there is some disagreement over this, so what I've said is only one version of how they work. I'd advise you to see Dr Curtis Saxton's pages which will give you a lot more information about shielding. --Sanguinus 6 July 2005 03:40 (UTC)


 * New Comment: The EGVV, new and old, and the EGWT dispute Saxton's claims on the shield towers - the clearly distinguish the so called 'sensor globes' as Shield Generators, indeed the picture of the ISD tower is used as the EXAMPLE of deflector shields in the EGWT. I've updated that section to include the contradictory evidence, including the page references for the two works in question.


 * I can vouch for the Essential Guide to vehicles reference. It very clearly, in the schematics, indicates that the twin globes are "Deflecter-Shield Generator Dome". It also indicates that there are Imperial-class, not Imperium-class or whatever is listed. --Maru 17:34, 23 July 2005 (UTC)


 * I've added the contrary evidence to the Sensor Globe/Shield Generator controversy back in for the third time. Perhaps if the original entry were rewritten to indicate the topic header as Shield Generator and/or Sensor Globes?  The fact that the title entry states these are Sensor Globes that also have a tertiary shield function is misleading - or can anyone cite ANY official work that states they have sensor capabilities?  Incredible Cross Sections put the targetting array directly above the bridge, not as the Shield Domes....


 * Inside the Worlds of the Star Wars Trilogy. Some of the X-wing books also mention it. The shield function is already described in the section and the sources you cite are consistently wrong on many obvious things. -Vermilion 23:58, 24 July 2005 (UTC)


 * At the very least, the conflict should be mentioned. --Golbez 00:09, July 25, 2005 (UTC)


 * Of course it should. Regardless, we have four sources, three of which state they are specifically shield domes, one of which doesn't.  The three which state they are are specific to the topics of Star Wars Vehicles (including space ships), Star Wars Vehicles again, and Star Wars Technology.   The one that disagrees is specific to locations to the star wars universe according to its blurb.  The newest of the four sources states that it is a shield dome, the New Essential Guide to Weapons and Technology, which is seven months newer a source than 'Inside the Worlds of the Star Wars Trilogy.'  Yet it isn't even worthy of a mention?  Why?  Because they are 'consistently wrong about obvious things'.  Well, there is an obvious response to that.

Although possibly (even probably) a retcon, the dual-mode explanation makes far more sense than throwing out either set of official sources just because you like the other set better. WyldStallionRyder 08:59, 29 August 2005 (UTC)


 * (Just to be annoying) Some of the games (in fact all but like 2 that ive played) say that the domes are the shield generators for the bridge and that there is a large single dome under the ship that controls the rest of the shields. 70.105.106.147 22:02, 22 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Just looked at the SW Databank. It says they are communication/deflection domes. 70.105.106.147 22:15, 22 September 2005 (UTC)


 * The "shield generator" error is yet another of many travesties committed by West End Games in their hasty and sloppy research into the background material for their games. Why WEG sourcebooks were used by novel authors for numbers is beyond me, but original production drawings specify communications domes.  I'll have to do some digging to find them, but I'll take the original over the work of some hack game designers.  Rogue 9 02:44, 30 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Lucas has an irritating habit of scrubbing the original idea at the last minute, so the original may do no good. 68.238.12.8 20:53, 1 October 2005 (UTC)


 * A certain space battle I played in Battlefront 2 didn't really help the matter. The shields went down as soon as I laid waste to both globes. Woodrow Buzard 02:31, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

The globes are shield generations, the sensor globe thing originated from Geoffrey Mandel's blueprints. He told me they are fan work and not official. (TracksZ06 09:38, 25 January 2006 (UTC))

"Flagship of the Supreme Commander?" What?
Darth Vader was not the Supreme Commander of the Imperial Forces at the time of ANH; his importance in the Empire had not yet increased to the authority he held during TESB and later. The Devastator was carrying Lord Vader, but it was not a flagship in any sense, as he is not a flag officer, nor was it commanding a fleet. Note that Vader was subordinate to Tarkin, who wasn't even an authority throughout the Empire; he was governor of the Outer Rim. Also note that even the mid-ranking officers of the Devastator showed no fear in contradicting Vader ("She'll die before she'll tell you anything"), in stark contrast to his later authority in The Empire Strikes Back. Citing the Devastator as flagship is simply ridiculous. --Rogue 9 15:42, 18 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Tarkin was Grand Moff, was he not? As I recall, unless Vader was especially empowered by the Emperor for some task or other, Tarkin would then outrank Vader.  --Maru (talk) 18:39, 18 October 2005 (UTC)


 * He was a Grand Moff. A Grand Moff merely oversees several sectors, as opposed to being the governor of a single sector (the title for which is Moff).  Regardless, at this point Vader was plainly not in overall command of the Imperial forces, much less heir apparent to the Empire, because yes, he was subordinate to Tarkin who was nowhere near the line to the throne.  (Vader was, of course, next in line in the Sith Order, but the Sith were never officially the "royal family," so to speak, of the Galactic Empire.)  He was subordinate to Tarkin, and clearly did not have the authority to wantonly execute inconvenient officers like he did in TESB; on board the Executor the officer corps was plainly terrified of Vader, while the officers on the Devastator displayed no such apprehension of having their throats crushed, even while failing to acquire the Death Star plans.  Such failure would cause Vader to execute officers later on; why not then?  The readily obvious conclusion is because he didn't yet have the authority.


 * Vader was empowered at the time to prevent treason on the part of Tarkin or the Death Star staff; this is part of the reason he was assigned to the Death Star. However, except in that contingency, he did not have the authority to override Tarkin; something that the supreme commander would clearly be able to do.  Rogue 9 19:38, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Quickie
Is "Star Destroyer" a title or a super-class? The opening paragraph alludes to this question in its mention of real-life Naval destroyers, but it's not very clear on account of this being a Wikipedia article, written primarily by Star Wars fans some confusion. In real life the 1906 version of Britain's HMS Dreadnought was a Dreadnought-class dreadnought called Dreadnought; specific class, generic type, name. Is a Star Destroyer a named class of Imperial vessels, or a certain configuration of space fighting vessel used by various galactic organisations? --Ashley Pomeroy 17:10, 21 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I had always gone by the assumption that it was a general class of vehicles, with shared design features (such as the engine configuration, the dagger hull, the unique bridge configuration, the bay on bottom). --Maru (talk) 17:59, 21 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Except it isn't. And the example of the HMS Dreadnought is flawed by the fact that the dreadnought-as-a-ship-type did not come about until after the success of the HMS Dreadnought's design and other ship classes were based off the design philosophy (that being a ship of the line with guns all in one caliber, instead of having a mixed battery of heavy guns and "cruiser weight" weapons).  A Star Destroyer acts as a destroyer; it behaves in that manner throughout the original trilogy.  We have precisely zero movie instances of a Star Destroyer behaving as a battleship.  ANH was cited in an earlier version of the article, except that the Star Destroyers behaved as classic destroyers there too, being used to run down smugglers and in interdiction and blockade duties.  Trying to say that the Devastator firing on the Tantive IV is an example of it behaving in the heavy battleship role is ludicrous; it was a running battle against a blockade runner, classic destroyer duty.  Rogue 9 22:23, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

It's never explicitly stated, but everything that's not by Saxton that weighs in seems to point at it being the former. Personally, I think Saxton is thus overruled, but it's open-ended enough that it can be taken in a number of ways, so I won't try to force that opinion on anyone else. That, by the way, is what irks me most about certain participants in these sorts of debates. --Kudzu1 11 December 2005

VSD at Battle of Coruscant?
I know there was a promotion shot showing what appeared to be a Victory class Star Destroyer in the background on the official site, but I never saw the corresponding scene in the movie. 64.105.43.225, if you have seen this in the DVD, by all means, source your assertion. Take a screenshot and post; there's a lot of fans who would simply love to hear that news. I know there was quite a bit of excitement over what appeared to be a VSD in the background of a shot of General Grievous on the official site, but I never saw it in the movie. Rogue 9 08:01, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

I saw a couple of Acclamator ships,one of them through the window behind Palpatine's chair on The Invisible Hand,you can tell by the number of engines and the single tower. Dudtz 4/7/06 7:38 PM EST

Source for Venator Participation in the Thousand Years War

 * It was also Used on Mass in the Thousand year war with the, as the Republic Cruisers and Frigates of the Day were too old to effectively defend the Republic.

The sentence mentioning this is currently incomplete, and seems to contradict with the idea that it was based on the Acclamator. If the person who wrote it could cite and complete this sentence, that would be quite welcome.
 * its some fanfic stuff someone is trying to pass off as real. They didn't do their research. --Lowkey13


 * It is outta here then. If the person responsible actually got a source, he can always put it back on himself, WITH A CITATION! Kazuaki Shimazaki 15:16, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Why do some people insist on citing their fanon on Wikipedia? Great way to confuse people, guys...at least SAY whether or not it's fan extrapolation. Fanfiction period doesn't belong on here... --Kudzu1 11 December 2005

Kudzu's edits
Setting aside the issue of you making deletions while anon and then editing and reshuffling while logged in, justify your revisions of class designations inspite of what LFL puts out and your repeated deletion of the Providence and Invisible Hand entries despite them being star destroyers. --Lowkey13

Ah! The Prov deletes. Forgot about those. I'll put them back in for the sake of fairness. I honestly forgot that I had removed those. My apologies. --Kudzu1

EDIT Kudzu1 08:07, 12 December 2005 (UTC) : I created a new section called "Star Destroyers?" specifically for said ships. Aside from some very minor cleaning up (there were a couple spelling and grammatical errors, which I'm a positive nazi about, along with a wee bit of sentence reorganization for clarity), nothing from them has been removed, though a paragraph was tacked on to the end of each saying basically that the article is unbiased on whether or not they are in fact Star Destroyers, as they haven't been stated to technically fall into that category but it has been suggested. Well, I did also change the names of the sections to be technically accurate to RotS:ICS.

Do you think the Acclamator-class ships ought to be put into that category, too?


 * I again notice a reshuffling - even though I just fixed it THIS MORNING. Perhaps whoever reshuffled the article should justify his decision first. As it is, I have to sort through it in its present form. For now, I notice that the "anon" guy deleted the entire Imperator/Imperial section. Kazuaki Shimazaki 08:34, 12 December 2005 (UTC)


 * OK, Kudzu, let's compromise. I'd go and revert the article again. After that, I will try and find out anything useful you added despite your dozens of edits (how about not saving every minute?) and tack it on to the original organization. I am not deleting anything from the original. If I missed something, I would request that you first tack it on in the original organization. After that, I will request you delay the reorganization (should you still feel it necessary) by at least 24 hours so people have a chance to easily see and discuss what edits you have made. I know it may seem more convenient to you to reorganize first, but for the other people, we are finding it difficult. I'm sure this minor inconvenience on your part will greatly benefit us all. Thank you. Kazuaki Shimazaki 08:46, 12 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Attention. I am now beginning to do the inclusion. Justifcations for rulings are here and will be updated constantly as changes are made. Kazuaki Shimazaki 09:12, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

After some vacillation, I'll let you keep your version with only a few additions (single line for each Star Dreadnought, plus corrected spelling there) noting that they have been previously called by other names but that the most recent is currently the most accurate. -- Kudzu1 15:18, 12 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I see we may have reached a compromise. About the accept/reject bit, don't take it too personally. It is just that I happen to be the person reverting while trying to integrate as many of your views and data as I think possible. Naturally, this means not all of your ideas would be kept, and I simply wanted to tell you why I included some, modified others, and rejected the rest to facilitiate a possible negotiation later. Please be reassured that it is impossible for me to control Wiki content.


 * About the reorganization, it actually looks like a good idea by itself. However, I would propose that we first get some consensus on the basic content. The change-spotting system on Wiki gets very screwed up if you drastically change the organization, and it makes it nearly impossible to see what has been changed. When trying to integrate your ideas, I find myself running up and down.


 * About the supposed "neutrality" of your version, it is pretty obvious I do not agree. Neither does Lokey, or Rogue9. If you click on the link to my own little page on this board, you will see a rundown of the accepts/rejects. In the "rejects" there many specific proposed modifications that I rejected on biased grounds. Kazuaki Shimazaki 16:01, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

"(Invisible Hand-type, simply for conformity with Dominator-type, Harrow-type, Vengeance-type, Leviathian-type, Ravager-type et al. Precise technical class is unknown.)" It was referred to as a star destroyer in the Battle of Coruscant. I just watched it yesterday. Rogue 9 19:46, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

But we don't know what the class is. It should be noted that Star Wars ships do not seem to follow standard Earth naming conventions 100% of the time - perhaps most of the time, but not always - with regard to ships being named after the first of the line. I don't think it's even a separate class, just a modification subtype, and I'm not sure we've ever been clued in on how to designate that in the Star Wars system...

It almost makes Star Trek look simple! ;) -- Kudzu1 02:12, 13 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Just to make sure your reorganization does not alarm anyone, I'd just quickly confirm here that your major reorganization is purely that, with no changes in content. In fact, all changes from here] are relatively minor. Just to settle any paranoid nerves... Kazuaki Shimazaki 06:37, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Merging
Acclamator-class assault ship apparently redirects here. I've stumbled across the orphaned article Acclamator-class Star Destroyer  - it should probably be merged into this page, but I can't say I have much expertise on the subject - it might just be a straight redirect issue. If someone here could have a look at it and Deal With The Matter, it'd be helpful. Thanks all.

(PS:Is there a Star Wars wikiproject? I had assumed there would be one, but couldn't actually find it...) --sShimgray | talk | 14:31, 21 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Many who would be working on a Star Wars wikiproject have taken their efforts to Wookieepedia. Please join us! --SparqMan 18:04, 21 December 2005 (UTC)


 * You are a rebel and a traitor to the Wikipedia! Take your recruiting efforts elsewhere! --Maru (talk) Contribs 18:24, 26 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Looking a bit closely, it was an identical copy of the text here, so I've just redirected. Saves the bother of merging... --Shimgray | talk | 19:50, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Executor's Shields
How did the Rebel Alliance manage to destroy the Executor's shields?

Unless I'm mistaken, the ship's shields have an energy output of that of a medium sized star such as the Sun and Alpha [α]Centauri. Rebel ships don't have enough firepower to do that. I mean like, Mon Calamari cruisers and fighters may have good shields, but their weapons are weaker than Imperial weapons. A medium sized star typically has the power of several million nuclear explosions. George Lucas didn't do things right; he didn't do everything according to physics. --Astroview120mm 05:44, 26 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Working on an analogy to the operation of a torpedo sphere (since they are designed for attacking world shields, which should be able to handle even more than a "medium sized star"), my guess is that Ackbar's order to "concentrate all fire on that Super Star Destroyer!" overloaded one shield sector (since SSDs have a few independent shield generators for port and starboard, if the Rogue Squadron series can be trusted). Then that A-Wing got in, Nial Declann''s Battle Meditation broke, and all hell broke loose.
 * And where are you getting that statistic for how much energy SSD shields can absorb? --Maru (talk) Contribs 18:23, 26 December 2005 (UTC)


 * 1) They didn't beat down the whole shields, just those over the bridge. 2) Rebel weapons ae not weaker, in fact Mon cal cruisers, particularily the far larger Home One types, are more powerful then the standard ISD.  There were 8 liberty/Reef Home types and 2 Home One types wailing on the bridge shields for a litle over a minute.  This is far in excess of 10^26 watts, applied for a suficient time to overwhelm the heat sinks / burn out the projectors.  And the number comes from ITW Complete Locations --Lowkey13


 * Well yeah
 * I knew that Home One and some others can be stronger but the Mon Calamari Cruisers have less weapons than the ISD MK-2, which was used in the Battle of Endor. While Mon Cal cruisers have 74 turbolaser batteries the ISD2 has 100 of them.
 * And why couldn't the Empire have placed a crew in the the second control deck? If their millitary stratigists and scientists really were that smart, why didn't they see the design flaws in the Imperial ships before this happened? --Astroview120mm 02:24, 27 December 2005 (UTC)


 * There was a crew in the control deck... You apparently ignored my comment above. The crew in the auxiliary bridge screwed up, not in little part because of the cessation of Nial Declann's Battle meditation; their screw up sent the SSD into the Death Star. --Maru (talk) Contribs 03:42, 27 December 2005 (UTC)


 * After looking over the bit about the shields, I've removed all the "Others, however..." lines stringing on and on about the various arguments fans have used, on the basis that they don't seem the slightest bit encyclopedic, and make this section of the article next to unreadable. Balancer 02:17, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

HIMS
Does HIMS Stand for His Imperial Majesty's Ship?Astroview120mm 01:32, 27 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I believe so. I think the corresponding designation for New Republic ships, NRS, is just that. --Maru (talk) Contribs 03:42, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

There's no indication that the designation is anything but a fan assumption, insofar as I am aware, and as such it doesn't belong stated as "factual" in this article. I've never seen a source call an Imperial ship "HIMS". And I don't care how they do things here on Earth with regards to shipnaming; there are clear indications that not all of those same rules apply in the Star Wars universe. Kudzu1 06:57, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Venator Vs. Victory
Which VSD is stronger? Venator or Victory? I've heard that when the Venator SD was retired, the victory star destroyer wqas still in active service. Didn't the article say that the Venators were one of the strongest medium cruisers but didn't say that for Victory. Astroview120mm 02:05, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

The Venator was more of a ground assult ship,but still a good warship. They probably phased it out of service due to the change from AT-TE walkers to AT-AT walkers which were much taller. The Empire probably put them into reserve forces and gave/sold some of them to loyal systems and corporations. Dudtz 3/28/06 6:09 PM EST

The Venator is not a ground assault ship. It is a carrier. The Acclamator was the ground assault ship. The Venator was phased out of service because the Imperial class provided sufficent fighter support while the Victory remained in service because it still provided excelent firepower in a nice sized ship.Alyeska 00:40, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

The Venator is better than The Corellian Corvette and The Nebulon-B Frigate,it carries more fighters than a Mon Calamari Cruiser(Home One),so it is a good ship. Dudtz 4/7/06 7:35 PM EST

Shouldn't Super Star Destroyers be Super Star Battleships?

 * 1) The SSDs are too big to be destroyers
 * 2) SSDs are too heavily armed. --Astroview120mm 02:09, 27 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Why do you think Earth water vessel designations should be applied to interstellar warfare in "long long ago, in a galaxy far far away"? --Maru (talk) Contribs 03:44, 27 December 2005 (UTC)


 * First, because it's friggin' obvious. Secondly, the ICS refers to the Executor class as a Star Dreadnought, something that the movies never directly contradict.  It fills the role of a heavy battleship; it should be called one.  --Rogue 9 01:21, 28 December 2005 (UTC)


 * It's only "friggin' obvious" in your view. Your emphasis on what thing's "should be called" is rather glaring - and certainly less worthy than the WEG take, for example. Others prefer to concentrate on how things are - i.e. the Executor is called a Super Star Destroyer in the films, and so it is.198.151.13.8 19:03, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Star Destroyers are not destroyers. --Kudzu1 20:02, 8 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Correct. They are Star Destroyers. Has no one considered the possibility that the second word is not meant to be a naval classification but a hyperbolic description of the vessel's destructive prowess? The early drafts of the original Star Wars script are illuminating in this regard. --maru (talk) Contribs 22:15, 8 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Star Destroyers behave in the role of naval destroyers. The movies never show them acting as line battleships; they form escort screens, chase down and board fleeing ships, perform patrols, etc.  That is the basis for designating them as destroyers; that they're also named such is merely convenient.  --Rogue 9 07:38, 10 January 2006 (UTC)


 * That's strange- I seem to remember some battle where there were a bunch of Star Destroyers which did act as battleships, blasting away at enemy capital ships and such, much like battleships/dreadnaughts/(insert chosen Earth naval vessel whose value as an analogy is unclear). I suppose I could be mistaken though; I'm no longer as young as I used to be. --maru (talk) Contribs 17:59, 10 January 2006 (UTC)


 * What, you think destroyers don't participate in naval battles? A ship of the line is not wasted to hunt down fleeing merchantmen and smugglers; that's what escorts are for.  Oh wait...  Rogue 9 19:48, 11 January 2006 (UTC)


 * In the original draft, Stardestroyers were going to be small fighters. However, the original draft was replaced by the final version, so... :) --Sanguinus 11:02, 10 January 2006 (UTC)


 * It's clear enough that they did act like capital ships. I agree that it's almost certainly not being used in the naval sense of "destroyer," but more in the hyperbolic sense. Rogue 9 - you should note that the movies DO contradict the "Star Dreadnaught" designation. Additionally, if you're going to go over what the EU calls it - it's almost universally referred to as a "Star Destroyer" in the EU as well, leaving the ICS as a near-alone anomaly in regards to nomenclature. It is referred to in dialogue of the movie (as well as the scripts and novelizations) as a Super Star Destroyer.Balancer 04:24, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

I've been reviewing the matter, and it's looking curiouser and curiouser as I've checked over what we have on the wiki articles for particular ships. It seems as if Saxton has a particular designation system he's trying to fit into modern (well, WWI-II era) naval nomenclature (Star Frigate, Star Destroyer, Star Cruiser, Star Dreadnaught), while what the rest of the EU says is that a cruiser is something around 600-1200m long (Interdictors to MCCs), and then a few frigates at 250-600m, and corvettes/patrol craft even smaller.

Reviewing the articles, I'm wondering what would be a less grating way of saying "This ship is described as a cruiser, although it is smaller than ships that some sources call Star Frigates." Currently, most of the Star Wars ship articles have this phrase in one form or another somewhere, and it's a bit grating as currently written. Balancer 03:03, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

The generic names of the Empires' vehicles and weapons of destruction (Star Destroyer, Death Star, Sun Crusher, World Eater/Devastator, etc.) are so named, within the context or "fluff" of the SW Universe, primarily because of Grand Moff Tarkin's "Doctrines of Fear": To rule by fear of force, rather than force itself blah-blah-blah, so on and so forth; by these guidelines, all things military in the Empire are made to be as ominous and intimidating as possible, from their outward appearance, to their inner workings, and right down to the names. Sometimes the function of the machine serves as its' name (Sun Crusher, World Eater/Devastator, AT-AT), sometimes not (Star Destroyer). While here on Earth, in reality, military machines historically seem to carry a name synonomous with their function (battleship, jet-fighter, submarine), remember...we arn't talking about reality, and in creating a fantastically deep, rich, and complex "universe" it behooves one to run with the imagination a little bit. I don't know why Lucas (or who-ever) chose the names they did in creating this fictional reality, nor do I care. The point is that they (A)are different than here, not some lost branch of humanity, but an entirely different civilization in an entirely different galaxy; and (B)they sound menacing, esp. when looked at from within the context of the SW universe where there are as many (if not more)non-space-faring planetary cultures than there are space-faring ones. If you are a little Ewok and the massive shadow of a machine larger than any you have ever imagined partially eclipses your local star, and you are informed that this machine is a "Star Destroyer", you'd probably belive it could literally do just that. I mean, did dragons really exist a long time ago, or were people simply lacking in knowledge, unaware that the bones they dug up weren't a few months or years old, but actually millions of years old dinosaur bones. Without knowledge of such things, supposition, assumtion, and imagination will all begin to fill in the gaps. With this in mind, the generic names of these vehicles and weapons facilitates the effectiveness of Tarkin's doctrines; Also, with all due respect, "Super-Star Battleship" would have been a boring term, it sounds too obvious, too...contrived. We have battleships, we have destroyers, but only the Empire had "Star Destroyers" (Super or not).
 * While here on Earth, in reality, military machines historically seem to carry a name synonomous with their function (battleship, jet-fighter, submarine), remember...we arn't talking about reality, and in creating a fantastically deep, rich, and complex "universe" it behooves one to run with the imagination a little bit.
 * Although that is true, much of science fiction uses terms that are explained or shown as analogues to real life devices. I'm sure Lucas didn't have in mind that "Star Destroyer" would mean a "star-going destroyer" derived from the naval term, but that's how the SW saga evolved, both in the films and in EU. The only time the ISD functions as a battleship, is when it's the largest vessel in a fleet. Anywhere else, and they're being led by larger vessels, like the Executor. The Dorling Kindersley line of books both explained the use of naval terms with the "Star" prefix (which is more in line with rl, historic uses) and the WEG-derived classification system. (The ROTS:ICS mentions "downscaled cruisers like the Dreadnaught-class" on the Utapaun fighter page, which clears up the difference). So there's now a more unified system of scales, which appeals both to fans of the old WEG system and fans of rl naval terms, with a sci-fi twist. The additions didn't change or remove the old info, just expanded upon it.
 * you should note that the movies DO contradict the "Star Dreadnaught" designation.
 * No, they don't. Both Super Star Destroyer (Inside the Worlds of Star Wars Trilogy and Complete Locations of Star Wars) and Super-class Star Destroyer (Starship Battles Preview 1 on the Wizards of the Coast website) were terms used for different types of ships, starting with the Executor and its class and encompassing ships from Star Cruisers (Imperial ones, that were bigger than both Mon Cal Star Cruisers and Imperial Star Destroyers) to Star Dreadnoughts. Since the Executor was called "Star Destroyer" and "Super Star Destroyer" in the films, there's no contradiction. :)
 * It's clear enough that they did act like capital ships
 * Yes, but both destroyers and cruisers in real life are capital ships also, with destroyers being both independent and larger since the developments during WWII. Today they are the largest warship type alongside the cruisers, since the end of the battleship era. In SW, battleships are used in different fleets by different factions, and destroyers alongside them. That's the main difference in uses between our universe and the SW one. Captain Günsche 12:30, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * No, the main difference between our universe and the SW universe is that ours actually exists. The evolution of naval doctrine and naming conventions on Earth grew out of a natural progression with hundreds of years of history behind it.  The Star Wars universe was created by one man and his creative team, none of whom were interested in creating a universe based on real life.  I imagine Lucas chose the term Star Destroyer for his main Imperial ship because it sounded cool and powerful.  I am also sure that he added the SSD to Empire Strikes Back just to put more "wow" factor into the movie by basically saying, "you thought the SD was big, wait until you see this."  I am sure that the Empire is never shown using any other capital vessel besides the SD and SSD because there was no point in spending money on a dozen different capital ship models.  Of course I would never put any of that into the article because it is original research.


 * Since the original trilogy was produced, a large number of addtional works have been created in the universe, some with exacting faithfulness to previous canon and some not so much. Every author and artist has his own two cents about the universe, and as long as a source is in the canon, then every source is right.  If two sources contradict each other, then both positions are 100% correct unless a particular source repudiates or retcons the contradiction.  For this article to take one explanation over another would be to engage in POV and original research.


 * Furthermore, to even attempt to shoehorn the ships of the SW galaxy into traditional military roles is definately OR with no basis in the canon itself. All we can do is report.  We can state how the ships are used in the movies and books; we can state how the WEG Imperial Sourcebook views the Imperial order of battle; we can state Saxton's purely fanciful views on the SW universe to the extent his work has entered the official canon through the Incredible Cross-Sections, but we cannot choose one interpretation over another because every last one is correct if traceable to an official SW source.  I once again urge users to remember that this is a fictional universe and that spending too much time trying to equate Star Wars to real life could be a sign of some major issues. Indrian 17:18, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm not quite sure what you're getting at. Where did I say it was a real universe? I just compared the uses of naval terms with ours. Lucas may not have planned out a complete system of ships, but thanks to Expanded Universe materials that span 30 years of publishing, we have gotten plenty of opportunities to see the various navies unfold. Even looking at the movies themselves, the ISDs don't act any different than destroyer-analogs, since destroyers have become multipurpose vessels. Primarily, thanks to ESB and ROTJ, we see them accompany larger vessels like the Executor, which in itself is pretty clearly a battleship-analog.
 * to even attempt to shoehorn the ships of the SW galaxy into traditional military roles is definately OR with no basis in the canon itself
 * "Traditional roles" would technically be seagoing vessels, which is impossible with the size and scales of these vessels (:P). The only attempts made by canonical sources to mesh our naval terms with SW, have been to give them roles equivilant with naval warfare if it was conducted in space. I don't see how you can deny that, because that had nothing to do with Curtis Saxton when they were first thought up. Like I said, we now have two different scales for the navies of SW, the WEG-derived scale where Star Destroyers of every type count as battleship-analogs and the DK-derived scale where Super Star Destroyers are divided into sizeclasses analog to historic types bigger than destroyers. I really don't see any contradiction. Captain Günsche 10:05, 5 December 2006 (UTC)