Talk:Star Destroyer

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Good article Star Destroyer was a nominee for good article, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
December 14, 2007 Good article nominee Not listed
Star Wars Portal
This article is part of WikiProject Star Wars, which aims to build an encyclopedic guide to the Star Wars saga on Wikipedia. To participate, you can improve this article or visit the project page for more information.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.

Contents

[edit] 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 Wikipedia: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)

[edit] 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 Image:StarDestroyer2.jpg could be used. // Liftarn

[edit] 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.


[edit] 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)

[edit] Handy data source

This site [1] 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)


[edit] 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)


[edit] 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)


[edit] 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)

[edit] 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.

[edit] 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))


[2] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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 [3] 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)

[edit] Heading style

From Wikipedia: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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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.

[edit] 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 Wikipedia: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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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?

    • 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- class|Victory Star Destroyer]] is the largest starship to have atmospheric capability, then why were there [[Venators|Star Destroyer]] on Coruscant in ROTS?

Astroview120mm 03:37, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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))

[edit] "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)

[edit] 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

[edit] 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

[edit] 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

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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[4]. 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)

[edit] 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 Declanns 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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

[edit] 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)

[edit] Imperial Star Destroyer Sublight speed issue

Since Imperial Star Destroyer has maximum acceleration of just 2300g, while the Millennium Falcon has an acceleration of 3000g. So how is it possible for a ship that size to catch up with the Millennium Falcon? Is it the use of tractor beams?

If the Avenger had a tractor beam on the Falcon, the chase would have been over. Where are you getting those numbers from, anyway? Rogue 9 20:39, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
It's an interesting problem. It's most likely that either one or both of the figures is in fact incorrect. Balancer 04:19, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
The entry in NEGVV is incorrect, 3000 Gs for ISDs is derived from ROTJ. Best rationalization is that the 2300 Gs is for the Victory class, as the entry discusses all star destroyers and not just Imperators or Victories -- Lowkey 13

[edit] Hey

This is what I would love to see the for the TIE fighter article: an article that encompasses all classes, which reduces the amount of stubs. Good work. Deckiller 18:12, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

All of us contributing to this article thank you... but I think this has gotten a bit bloated and meandering. Commencing tidying-up. Balancer 02:25, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WP:CITE

Source citing time. First off, the bridge tower globes are sensor domes. Now that that's out of the way, let's have the canonicity of Inside the Worlds from the man who's in charge of such things, namely Leland Chee. As the article notes, he has said outright that the Inside the Worlds books are on a canon level with the ICS and other reference books when asked a direct question about it. Screeching that it's written by fans and not endorsed by Lucasfilm isn't going to get you anywhere, because the statement is blatantly false. Rogue 9 11:09, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

That canon level is "C." Which, incidentally, happens to be the same as practically every other bit of published SW material, including the Essential Guides cited as labelling them shield globes. The backstage evidence is worth mentioning, although you seem to have written it in a very argumentative fashion. That mentioned, I see I'm going to have to go de-POVing in this article, which now reads like someone trying hard to convince. Balancer 01:45, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
I'm aware, but that wasn't what I was getting at, or did you miss the whole deal with all the yelling about how ITW isn't canon? Rogue 9 02:25, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
And here I thought you were talking about the article. Never mind the fuss, but thanks for pulling my attention to the article's current content and particularly the cleanup needs of that section. It read like several people were editing in their arguments about this and that into the article as it grew. Balancer 03:39, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Edits by User:70.16.226.247

Could some people who know the subject matter of this article better than I do take a look at the edits made by User:70.16.226.247. I know some of those have been blanking (which is wrong) but please assume good faith and see if they are valid points. As always remember to cite sources, and take note of the 3 revert rule. Thanks. --Petros471 18:19, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

None of his edits are in good faith. He was recently banned from Spacebattles.com for this very same subject. He refuses to discuss the topic and continues to make incorrect claims. He is vandalizing the article pure and simple now. Alyeska 18:22, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

He also changed all "Executor-class Star Dreadnought" to "Executor-class Star Boogie".--Elfwood 18:26, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A note on the "Frigate" issue

In real life, modern frigates are of similar size or even slightly larger than destroyers.

Most modern frigates are actually smaller than destroyers, due to having at most one helipad, if any. Most destroyers have at least one helipad, and more often 2. Destroyers are also larger in order to carry speedier engines, to aid them in their Anti Submarine Warfare role, whereas frigates are light anti-ship, and guided missile launcher platforms, thus allowing them to be smaller. (BTW the wikipedia entry doesn't accurately reflect this, as the US navy uses destroyers in an ASW and heavy strike role and frigates in a light strike/AAA role, the reverse of most other nations, due to the power of our Arleigh Burke class destroyers.) A Star Destroyer seems that it would not actually be a destroyer class ship, entitled Star. It seems that it's just a reference to containing the power to destroy a star. A destroyer in SW terms would be a carrack class or lancer class cruiser. A frigate by our naval standards, in the SW galaxy would more accurately be a corellian corvette. Nebulon-B class frigates more accurately correspond the the US light cruiser class.

Therefore SW terms ---> naval terms Star Destroyer- aircraft carrier (most likely a LHD class due to its ground capability too) mixed with cruiser Mon Cal- aircraft carrier mixed with cruiser (no clue what to call this one: maybe like the WW2 escort carriers?) Carrack class cruiser- destroyer (arleigh burke class/spruance class?) Lorenar Strike Cruiser (sic)- light cruiser (ticonderoga class?) corellian corvette- frigate (oliver hazard perry class) lancer class cruiser- destroyer (arleigh burke class?)

This is just my opinion though. Swatjester 08:04, 29 January 2006 (UTC)


Is this an oversight in the ITW's terms, or a redefinition?

Incidentally, the "cruiser" problem doesn't only pop up in the "spinoff literature," which is actually the only place where the Star Frigate/Star Dreadnaught terms show up. It's also present in the film canon, as in Mon Calamari Cruisers, the Trade Federation Cruiser the Invisible Hand, etc. Balancer 20:45, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

And as a footnote to this, this item of discussion - what naval class the Star Destroyer corresponds to - appears several times in the article. Perhaps we should condense those scattered references under their own sub-heading and shorten the other sub-articles? Balancer 20:51, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
Whoops, never mind that first item, I was misreading certain particular US examples of "frigates" as representative of the whole. I should know better than to rely on US designations by now. Balancer 20:56, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Star Wars ships clearly follow different rules on designations than Earth ships do, if they follow any strict patterns at all. That seems well enough established. Kudzu1 20:16, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

The Missile Frigates in Star Wars Starfighter appear to be smaller than the Nebulon-Bs Dudtz 3/31/06 5:47 PM EST

[edit] Picture of Interdictor

How is it that the picture of the Interdictor ship be one of those? The bridge is a different shape, like an Imperial star destroyer. It can't be the Dominator ships because it does not have a hanger. Thus it should be another unknown ship. Astroview120mm 03:22, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ascendancy-class?

I haven't yet read The Swarm War - is the Chiss Star Destroyer given the class name of Ascendancy in it or in another source? The Chiss Ascendancy is the governing body of what is regarded as Chiss Space, and when I added that section to this article, my intention wasn't to imply that the ship was called Ascendancy-class. Am I just confused here? Kudzu1 04:02, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Executor Size?

There have been a number of long debates quoting many sources about the actual size of the Executor. There's a great section on TheForce.Net's technical commentaries (http://www.theforce.net/SWTC/ssd.html#ratio), which concludes that the actual ship is between 17.4 to 17.9km long. Considering there is information on the length of all the other variants of the line does anyone feel like helping create an article which discusses the controversy over the size and the conclusion reached by certain individuals?

I'm also pretty bothered by the poor (and factually incorrect) comparison to the Executor-Class and Manhattan Island. The length of Manhattan Island according to census data is 21.5km. The largest suggested length (which is arguably not even canon) is 17.9km. There's a big difference there, especially when you factor in the ranges of suggested lengths from both canonical and fan sources are between 8km-17.9. Even if we don't feel like taking a side in the actual size debate we should change the comparison to Manhattan Island.

I suggest changing it to comparing it to the relative size of a standard Imperial Class Star Destroyer since that comparison has remained for the most part consistent and the size of the STar Destroyers for the most part are established. Any thoughts?

Comparing to Star Destroyers is precisely what's done. And you misread Dr. Saxton's page. What it says is that the lower limit is between those numbers; since we cannot gauge the distance between any given Star Destroyer and the Executor in any given shot in the movies, an exact scaling is impossible. 17.4 km to 17.9 km is what the size would be were the Star Destroyer seen in Return of the Jedi alongside the Executor were on the exact same plane as the larger ship; as we know it was closer to the camera (albeit not how much closer), it can be larger than that, but not any smaller.
I've noticed that much of the information about the valide size of the Super-class Star Destroyer are based on the visual confirmation. As mentionned above, the planes and camera angles cannot be relied upon. It is notoriously hard to used stereoscopic vision in space. This problme is further confounded by the fact that we must depend on spercial effects shots that may not be to the precision and scale that many conclusion are based upon. I am also sceptical as to the precision of comic strip plates, as used as precision work in analysing SSD size. As for situations where commanders have been quoted as saying that the SSD was ten times the size of opposing ISDs (or similar sized vessels), and barring the possibility of this being colloquial or adage, the size (length in this situation) most likly connotes mass and overall volume. The same way one speaks of a human being twice the size of his opponent rarely means that one of the combatants is actualy twice the height of the other. This leaves one last source of misconception, the famous type-O. This can be readly seen as a source for the 5x and 8x conflict. As to wich size it the correct? That would outside of my capacity to secure. In my opinion it would range between the 5x (8km) and the 8x (12,8km), but this ifs far from a closed debate in my esteem.Dryzen 19:00, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
Besides, the official databank, while notoriously inaccurate and minimalistic, says the length is 19,000m, or 19 km. [5] Rogue 9 14:39, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Hilton Head Island seems a better comparison, if you're intent on comparing starship Executor to an island. Kudzu1 20:30, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

It looks like it is 15 Imperial Star Destroyers long to me. An Imperial SD is about a mile long. Dudtz 3/31/06 7:02 PM EST

[edit] Dreadnought or Dreadnaught?

In IOTW the Executor class ships are described as Star Dreadnoughts. But in AOTC Internal Cross Sections I'm pretty sure the Mandator is referred to as a Star Dreadnaught. Which one is accurate, as I understand Dr Saxton was advisor on one while writing the other?

Star Dreadnought is the most recent spelling, so it's more official, I would think. Kudzu1 18:56, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

  • "Dreadnaught" is just the American-English spelling of "Dreadnought", I think. Captain Günsche 12:30, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Allegiance: No Hangar Bay?

I am fairly certain that Aaron Allston's novel, X-Wing: Starfighters of Adumar, is considered canon. If this is the case, then it contradicts the statement that Allegiance-class Star Destroyers do not have a hangar bay. In SoA, Wedge Antilles docks his fighter in the main hangar bay, confusing a lower-ranked control officer on the Star Destroyer Allegiance who cleared him for landing in hangar bay Alpha. Later, above the planet of Adumar, starfighters from Allegiance and several other ships attack an Imperial group of ships. It stated that a total of 106 starfighters from the New Republic and the world of Adumar participated, and it implied that most of the fighters were based on the Allegiance. Hell, the book even gives fairly detailed descriptions of Allegiance's bay. If this is true, then: 1): Allegiance was not an Allegiance-class Star Destroyer, or 2): The stats for Allegiance-class ships are wrong.


Oops...I took a closer look at SoA. As it turns out, Allegiance was an Imperial-class Star Destroyer. My guess is that the New Republic rechristened the ship-captured at the battle of Selaggis-in spite of the fact that Allegiance was already a ship class.

[edit] Stardestroyers At The Battle of Coruscant

I spotted 1 or 2 Acclamitor ships,one of them seen through the window behind Palpatine's chair on The Invisible hand. I spotted what might have been a Victory class ship. I spotted a ship with 3 large engines and about 4 smaller ones through the hanger opening when R2-D2 was sliding down the hanger bay. Dudtz 4/21/06 5:53 PM EST

[edit] Who the hell?

Who keeps adding Imperator as the class name? The lead ship might have originaly had that name, but the class name is Imperial and thats been represented in 99% of SW EU. Using Imperator is being dishonest. Have a section that details the name change, but the article itself should stick to the established name. Alyeska 01:04, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Keeping Perspective

I find the morass of arguments on different issues here to be perplexing as many of them stem from one single controversial decision taken by this Saxton guy: namely that in interpreting information from the movies, comics and novels the simple fact that errors creep in cannot be accepted. Thus every special effects error and every bad comic drawing must therefore be explained by creating a whole new ship class. The Tector-class Star Destroyer is clearly an Imperial (possibly with its hanger bay doors closed), but the model-makers forgot to install the lower globe on the ventral-surface model (which presumably was built specifically for that 'glory pass' as the MF and the fighters roar along its surface). The 'command ship' bridge is almost certainly meant to be a standard Imperial Star Destroyer tower, except that the model-makers installed too many bridge modules on it. The Allegiance clearly is a different class of ship (since the artist draws standard Imperials alongside it) and I'm not even going to touch the SSD debate (although the size of the SSD is consistent across multiple shots in two movies, clearing proving it is 11 times the size of an ISD). It just seems that many debates and arguments could be avoided by simply accepting the fact that model-makers make mistakes, CGI artists make mistakes and so forth. Otherwise next people will be pointing out that a Corellian Corvette smaller than a Y-Wing exists because of that screwed-up model shot in Return of the Jedi. Cheers. --Werthead 14:21, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

I see someone noted citations for the existence of the Tector-class Star Destroyers. Interesting and slightly disturbing that my point above - that a whole new class has to be invented to explain production errors rather than just say they were errors and don't worry about it - seems to have been proven. I now await the inevitable confirmation on the existence of the mini-Corellian Corvette in an Incredible Cross-Sections book.--Werthead 22:54, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Even if these things were mistakes or not, the fact remains that they exist. Someone had an opportunity to expand upon one simple scene that had not been noted one way or the other before, and did so, giving us a new surprise from a 23 year old film. I see no need to get so aggressive about it. Captain Günsche 19:23, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

You mistake sarcasm for aggression. This guy Saxton did do a funny job on the destruction of Endor thing but all of his other articles are pure twaddle. The fact that someone at LucasArts let him do some stuff in the official books for them is perplexing, but part of the rules that Star Wars canon has to live by. My point was that in, say Babylon 5 when their CGI fouled up and starships were shown as much larger than they should be next to the B5 station, they simply said, "Fair enough, the CGI went wrong," the didn't arduously go to the trouble of creating entire new ship classes, which to me is an disproportionate reaction. My central point is that either all special effects errors in the movies have to be explained away by some in-universe explanation or they have to be acknowledged as errors and left at that. If the former explanation is the one that is correct for this article (and it regrettably seems to be the path that has been chosen), that leaves the position of the tiny, fighter-sized Corellian Corvette at the Battle of Endor anomalous and requiring explanation.--Werthead 16:23, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] And round and round we go

Finally this page seemed to be free of disruptive attempts to impose POV as to the naming of Imperial-class Star Destroyers, but then Alyeska decided to come along and reopen the whole thing. Believe me, Alyeska, I am no fan of the stupid naming arguements that go on here, and I also think that Imperial is the better, more established name. Also believe me when I say that it used to be a lot worse on this page, with Imperator being used everywhere and the Imperial designation completely ignored. What exists now is a good compromise in which the Imperial designation is used throughout and a very short section exists on the naming issue. Your edits to this section are POV and disruptive. Using the word "claims" is inherently POV. Whether you (or I for that matter) like it or not, the Incredible Cross Sections books are official Star Wars literature. Therefore, anything they say, unless specifically repudiated by another source, is canon, subordinate only to the movies themselves. The Imperator designation, while having unofficial beginnings, is now completely official and cannot be ignored, at least not in a neutral encyclopedia article. Saying that Imperial is the only correct designation is not only POV, it is flat out wrong in light of this source. Just let the proponents of the Imperator name have their one section and focus on something more important in the world then an author deciding to use a name in a work of fiction that you do not like. Indrian 00:31, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

What stupid naming argument? The class was concieved as Imperator, but around the time the first ship or two came into service it was renamed Imperial and was called Imperial in offical literature for the majority of its history. Using navy naming conventions, the only proper name for the ship is Imperial. Thats the end of the argument. ICS is quite canon. Read the Original Triology ICS. It makes zero mention of Imperator and only calls the ship Imperial. The WEG books are also canon and they don't make use of the term Imperator. The EU is also canon and 99% of those books also use the term Imperial. Imperator only exists as a name in the very late stages of the Old Republic and then disapears completely. Imperial is the only correct name by traditional navy ship naming convention and by overwhelming weight of evidence. What Saxton did was settle the origin of the Imperator name, give it a name that matches established Republic convention of the time, and tie it with the class as we know it. But once again to make things very clear. The only proper designation for the class is Imperial. Alyeska 00:39, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

The stupid naming arguement I refer to is from before you started editing this page. At that time, only the Imperator designation was used on this page and no reference was made to the Imperial designation. Every attempt to change that was reverted. You are correct in the sense that once the ship changed names, Imperial is the only "correct" designation from that time period forward. However, the other name did exist and is just as "correct" for its time period. The problem with the statement you have put in the naming section is that it implies that the Revenge of the Sith ICS is "wrong" and the Imperator name was never the correct usage within the Star Wars universe. That gets back into the whole nasty issue of naming from before, even though I am sure that was not your intention. Quite frankly, Saxton's overly-obsessive attempts to categorize every ship in the universe without regards for other material vexes me greatly, but since Lucas Books decided to let him write some stuff for them officially, some of his ideas are now very much canon. It does not matter what 99% of the sources say. The Star Wars universe is large and was created by many different people. As such, there are numerous contradictions ranging from the trivial to the gigantic. As this encyclopedia has to report the "facts" as they have been developed in these many sources, it must also acknowledge the Imperator name and not dismiss it as incorrect. Indrian 00:50, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

And those who insisted on the Imperator name were wrong in every regard. Prior to the ROTS ICS, Imperator existed as a single name on a single set of blueprints which didn't even match the ISD. Imperial was used in every form of offical documentation as well as all of the EU novels. Those who clung to the Imperator name were people who couldn't see the reality infront of them. The ROTS ICS gave Imperator some legitamacy, but the fact remains that Imperial is the class name used for the overwhelming majority of the ships and remained the class name for more then 40 years. It existed in offical Imperial literature (WEG is effectively that) and was in use by everyone. Since we are examing SW from a documentary style perspective (its supposed we are watching a documentary years later), we use the most current names. Its the same position taken in other articles. Go look up the Thresher class submarine. Or how about the Russian aircraft carriers and aviation cruisers. From a historical perspective we must use the "current" name of the ship. Alyeska 01:03, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

It seems we are almost in complete agreement here, but not quite. You can peruse this very talk page to see how I have fought against information from a single source taking priority over information that has appeared in more numerous sources. I agree with you in every way that it should be Imperial and Saxton should have never used a preference for a different name as justification to try to make substantial changes to established canon. I disagree with you, however, on how the minority position should be examined. As the Star Wars universe never existed, there is no frame of reference in which to examine events within that universe. We are not examining events in a documentary style, we are listing facts from a work of fiction. One fact is that most sources use Imperial as the designation and that it should therefore be used as the standard name. Another fact is that another source gives it a different name. That name is just as "correct" in that it appears in an official source for a work of fiction. Deference should be given to the most common name, and the article does just that. However, that does not make the other name incorrect, and the article should not imply that it is wrong. SInce there are two different names for the same fictional object, any individual can use whichever name he or she wants without being "wrong." Indrian 01:34, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

From both a historical standpoint and a tradition standpoint, we can clearly pick one name over another. The position I am talking about doesn't ignore Saxton. It acknowledges his work, but points out that another name is clearly in primary use and gives the reasons why. Alyeska 03:23, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Fine, we are obviously not going to reach complete agreement, so how about a compromise. First, don't use the word "claim," which is POV. Second, modify your other statement to say something like, "as Imperial is the more current name, naval naming tradition dictates its use" (please don't copy that statement exactly, as it is not too well-written and only meant as an example) or something like that. That way, you get your point across without making it sound POV. Does that sound fair? Indrian 03:29, 24 May 2006 (UTC)



[edit] Stop Adding the Name Imperator

Imperator is a fan created name, stop adding it. If you wish confirmation email geoffrey mandel since he came up with the name Imperator.

  • If you are too lazy to do basic research on this matter and read previous portions of this talk page, I am not going to repost the same things that have been talked about over and over again. Suffice to say, if you continue to be disruptive on this page, your edits will continue to be reverted. Indrian 23:25, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Go and actually read the official source that mentions it (Revenge of the Sith: Incredible Cross Sections, btw) instead of doing something like that again. Captain Günsche 00:24, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Imperator might have been fan created, but it became established canon by Lucas Films when it was authorized in the ROTS ICS book and had further EU mentions in Old Republic era documentries. Try reading up on the subject matter before making a fool of yourself anon IP. Alyeska 00:41, 26 May 2006 (UTC)


Actually no it isn't Geoffrey Mandel himself debunks the name Imperator because he invented the name. Curtis Saxton thinks he can mess with star wars at his leisure. Do the right thing and stop adding Imperator.

(DarthJames 09:26, 26 May 2006 (UTC))

Anyone can say anything about anything in a book, Lucasfilm doesn't like Star Wars to be so scientific. Imperator is fanon therefore void. (DarthJames 09:36, 26 May 2006 (UTC))

  • Nothing that appears in an officially published Star Wars source is fanon by definition. The name Imperator appears in the ROTS ICS (which is written by Saxton) and in the Star Wars databank. While having unofficial origins, it is now canon subordinate only to the movies themselves. I share your frustration for Saxton, but cannot dispute the official nature of the Imperator name. As such, your actions constitute vandalism, and if you continue to engage in this activity, other steps may be taken against you. Indrian 14:38, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
  • It's referenced in ROTS:ICS and Dark Lord: The Rise of Darth Vader as well as the official SW site (SW.com). Don't remove it again. And, just for the record, while I might understand some people's frustrations with authors being overtly thorough, why is the name Imperial considered better than Imperator? Aren't all Star Destroyers in the Empire, per definition, Imperial Star Destroyers? We don't call English warships English class or Russian Russian class. It makes more sense with the alternate name. Captain Günsche 17:23, 26 May 2006 (UTC)


The name Imperator does not appear on the Star Wars Databank. Look again it says Imperial-I and Imperial-II. (AmericanMuscle 17:35, 26 May 2006 (UTC))

  • Yes it does, look harder: [6]

Captain don't use that same Curtis Saxton lame assed explanation about Japanese class and English class, it doesn't work. No it doesn't, all Imperial ships' so called nicknames are the classes. Victory Star Destroyer/ Victory Class Star Destroyer, Venator Star Destroyer/ Ventator class Star Destroyer and so on. Executor Super Star Destroyer/ Executor class Super Star Destroyer. (AmericanMuscle 17:38, 26 May 2006 (UTC))

  • "don't use that same Curtis Saxton lame assed explanation" Why? Because it's true? Try bullshitting someone else. Captain Günsche 17:40, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

One or two people in the blog say Imperator because they are pals of yours, the Databank itself doesn't say Imperator. Like you said bullshit someone else. It's not true, never has been. George Lucas' word including movies and the official databank automaticly debunk anything a fan says. (AmericanMuscle 17:45, 26 May 2006 (UTC))


Indrian don't threaten me over some stupid shit, why don't you ask Mandel himself about the name I did a while back. I don't mean to cause Mandel himself any grief over this bullshit but some people seem to think his created ship class name is official when it isn't. The hell with curtis saxton and anything he says is bullshit. Lucas' word is gospel in this area. (AmericanMuscle 17:51, 26 May 2006 (UTC))

    • I saw no threat. You are violating several wikipedia policies by your continued disruption and no doubt some action will be taken if you continue to be disruptive. Whining and using expletives in place of thoughtful dialogue and debate further weakens you position. No one has ever argued that the Mandel term was official at the time he wrote those blueprints (though I have yet to see a citation directly proving that point) and certainly no one here is arguing that anything Saxton made up and decided to use on his website was ever official either. However, newer sources, some written by Saxton and some not, do use the term, and as this has been cited and pointed out to you several times, your continued attempts to deny this point are disruptive and unconstructive. Feel free to vent your frustrations about that on this talk page as much as you like, but if you continue to vandalize the article, do not be surprised if your actions are examined further in another forum. Indrian 18:27, 26 May 2006 (UTC)


Actually I'm fixing false info, frustrated or not you are definitely siding with Saxton. Examine all you want, I input only correct information. Have fun examing me but if you do so just to harass me there will be consequences. (AmericanMuscle 22:04, 26 May 2006 (UTC))

Wikipedia is not here for pushing an agenda on this either way. The fact is that the Imperator/Imperial renaming was made canon by its inclusion in official literature. That's where this argument should begin and end - was it reported as being so, and can we cite that? If so, it needs to be included. That's as far as it goes; we're not making value judgments on the name. --Sanguinus 00:26, 27 May 2006 (UTC)


The other guy says the name Imperator is in the databank which it isn't. I've looked mutiple times he's wrong, If you wish to look for yourself go to the databank and look up Imperial Star Destroyer. There is no mention of the Imperator name at all. How can you include a fan created name that was never approved by Lucasfilm. LFL obviously didn't bother looking at the fine print on this subject, their problem not mine. I'll just provide you the link to the Star Destroyer topic in the databank that way you may judge for yourself Sanguinus. http://www.starwars.com/databank/starship/imperialstardestroyer/?id=eu (AmericanMuscle 15:04, 27 May 2006 (UTC))

Then you are blind. [7] Second to last paragraph. Alyeska 17:12, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Wait, he didn't even look at the link I posted? I saw him writing over it while I posted, but did he actually bother to click on the link? Good grief, man. It's at the bottom of the Venator EU page on the SW.com databank. And the novel Dark Lord: Rise of Darth Vader, as well as the technical guide to Ep.III vehicles, the ROTS:ICS. Three official sources. Now stop making an issue out of it. Captain Günsche 17:18, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

I see that, thats funny even the official site now conflicts itself. I wonder who hacked the site and put that in there. It's not in the ISD page itself, the Venator EU doesn't matter. Congrats Indrian your pal Curtis has succeeded in making a massive confusion. Not my problem. Imperial class from the start Imperial class forever. (209.158.220.33 19:48, 27 May 2006 (UTC))


Someone should create an Imperator article for the 400m long star destroyer that isn't the Imperial class. The Blueprints are fan work. Stupid people want to kiss Saxton's ass get some vaseline. (209.158.220.33 20:06, 27 May 2006 (UTC))

  • Oh, shut up. EU is part of official continuity, your opinion is not relevant in this. Stop vandalising this article or you will get reported. There is no "contradiction" on this issue on the official site, the Imperator was renamed Imperial and that's that. No hacking involved. Captain Günsche 21:49, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Don't let the guy get to you. He is just an immature individual who cannot come to grips with the ever-evolving and changing Star Wars universe. Someday he will realize that there are far more important things in this world than the name of a fictional space ship. Until then, there is no harm in letting him continue his childish ranting. Indrian 01:41, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Doesn't matter what you say capt, the official site contradicts itself so who gives a shit. At least Paramount didn't fuck up the technical stuff on Star Trek this bad by letting some dumbass fan fuck with everything. This is Lucasfilm's own fault for not keeping their eye on SW Tech. So they allowed some asswipe to mess with their property.

Lucasfilm editors had to sign off on Saxton's material. Whats more the Imperator itself is talked about on the offical site. Your opinion is irrelevent. Lucasfilm allowed Imperator as a means to connect two different naming styles. Your attitude prevents you from seeing that the setup Saxton himself came up with nicely explains two different things. Alyeska 03:58, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Authors must have their work approved by Lucasfilm Licensing. Ultimately, they are the ones who decide what is official and what isn't. What Saxton and others wrote in the Dorling Kindersley series of factbooks had to be approved by LFL before printing. That's company policy. Captain Günsche 14:05, 4 June 2006 (UTC)


Sloppy LFL editors. The word of Mandel himself stating his Imperator name was fan created stands. It will never originally be Imperator so get over it. Case Closed. (151.199.213.199 15:18, 4 June 2006 (UTC))

You still don't get it. What Mandel said is irrelevent. Saxton wrote the name into SW canon and came up with a plausible explination. Saxton's work had to be authorized by LFL editors (they were anything but sloppy, they went over Saxton's work with a fine toothed comb). Furthermore, the name Imperator shows up on the offical website. And EU novels taking place in the Clone Wars era make mentions of the Imperator. Sorry, but your opinion is contradicted by the facts. Alyeska 18:07, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

  • Yes, this isn't about whether the work done almost 30 years ago is or was canon (even though it followed the original, smaller outline of the ISD first intended by ILM and apparently had the LFL copyright on it). The fact is, it was added to official canon and referenced several times in the last year. Probably will get some more in coming works (just like how the Mandalorian language keeps getting mentioned from time to time, even though it wasn't even invented before a year ago). And as a funny trivia, Mandel, who's also done work on ST ships and their specs, also named the old TOS Klingon cruiser, thus he's now responsible for the names of famous ship-classes in both SW and ST. Captain Günsche 22:10, 4 June 2006 (UTC)


Yeah yeah, sorry Saxton bitches but anything you say is bullshit to me. and no shit I know Mandel worked on Star Trek its on his site. He's responsible for helping design ST ships only the Imperator was a fan effort. (AmericanMuscle 16:20, 5 June 2006 (UTC))

In other words your opinion is more important then the facts. Alyeska 00:05, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Good thing this article is about Star Destroyers and not your personal opinion, then. Captain Günsche 10:39, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

My opinion is similar to Indrian. The name Imperator is pretty lame. But you of course think of a stupid comeback that doesn't actualy mean anything. My position isn't opinion, it is fact. Lucas Film decides all SW canon per instructions from Lucas himself. The name Imperator had to go through a dozen editors and has shown up in several authorized sources since its ICS mention. So your opinions on the matter are irrelevent. The name is canon and thats the end of the story. How the name was created is irrelevent because its now canon and connected through proper technical specifications of the ship. Alyeska 18:11, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

The proper name for Imperial Star Destroyers used by the Empire is "Imperial." They never went by the classification of "Imperator" during the Galactic Civil War. However, when the I.S.D first came off the assembly line right after the end of the Clone Wars, they were called "Imperator-Class Star Destroyer", just like "Venator-Class". In the book Rise of Vader, which takes place right after episode 3, it mentions that the Imperator has been renamed Imperial, to reflect the new Empire. So though its not wrong to call them Imperator, it isnt properly called that. Anyways, when the artists were first designing them for the first Star Wars movie they were first called "Imperator" but renamed for the actual movie, that's where the term originally came from. So the assertion that the name has been made up by fans isn't correct either. Hibbidyhai 06:52, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Rise of Vader is outside of the movies canon so it has no precedence, The ships themselves are in the movies and such have always been referred to by name as Imperial Star Destroyer which also means Imperial Class Star Destroyer. The outside of the movies books are not canon nor are outside of the movies blueprints canon therefore they are not truely official sources of info that have any bearing on the movies what so ever. I did have to add the new bit of the naming debate but I suspect with good reason that someone who is pro Imperator will undo my effort. This article in general is unreliable primarily because its a one sided(pro saxton imperator) point of view instead of a universal view. Hell even the Executor has been called a Star Destroyer on screen, I'm going to see if the article on the SSD still says the laughable Star Dreadnought. (SnakeEyesNinja 22:19, 19 May 2007 (UTC))

[edit] Ideas... Imperator + Different Subarticles

The article is too long. I advocate splitting it up.

Number 2, Imperator is not fanon. It is in the Essential Crossections for Episode III. Alyeska, if you think it's a lame name, then think whatever you want about it. Argue with Lucas.

RelentlessRouge 19:07, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

  • The article is long, but I hardly think it is too long. To split it up would be to create either a large number of small, stubby articles, or several larger, overly detailed articles full of fancruft. As it stands now, this article (mostly) strikes a balance between these two extremes. While it is 53 KB in size, a large number of tables and pictures make this misleading. As to your second comment, I am confused why you are bothering to make it now, as there has been no arguement over the Imperator name for moths. I think it is very poor of you to revive a touchy arguement for no good reason. The article as it stands is correct in noting that the name began as fanon and then entered canon through several more recent books, and I think Alyeska agrees with that assessment, making your comment even more bizarre. Indrian 19:52, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
  • I have done a thorough cleanup of the article to whittle it down to 34 KB, which is a perfectly appropriate size when one considers this includes the tables and images. Indrian 21:49, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Yeah it did come from fanon originally but ended up in a book because someone didn't know when to stop obsessing over the name. Lucas himself has nothing to do with this naming debate at all although he stepped in once over the Super Star Destroyer name debate with added scenes in Empire. The licensing people are at fault for any bad information being allowed into books. (AmericanMuscle 03:29, 24 July 2006 (UTC))

The original bad information had more to do with the Super Star Destroyer and size issues. The issue of the Imperator is largely irrelevent. Saxton created a logical explination and fit Old Republic names in with established designs. The editors certain't aren't at fault because they have knowingly allowed the name Imperator into multiple Clone War era publications. This makes the offical LFL position very clear. They support Imperator and its not the work of rogue writers.Alyeska 18:51, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

  • Yeah it did come from fanon originally
Which is stated in a supposed conversation with Geoffrey Mandel for which there is no citation or evidence. Captain Günsche 19:36, 30 July 2006 (UTC)


Captain its very easy to find out for yourself by simply emailing him. Since you probably won't why bother. None of yall are interested in the truth you're only interested in supporting Saxton, thats why this article is not gospel. This article is not directly supported or linked to Lucasfilm and never will be with the erroneous information imposed by you saxtonites. nothing you people put on here will ever effect Star Wars. The Star Destroyers will always be Imperial/Imperial class from start to finish. LFL doesn't support the name Imperator so get a clue, it just slipped through the cracks. Wikpedia is a joke where the Star Destroyer is concerned.(AmericanMuscle 00:23, 23 September 2006 (UTC))

If LFL doesn't support the name Imperator, why does it appear in official publications? Face it, the name is in the canon, and this article must deal with that, not with what you or anyone else wishes the canon was. Rogue 9 20:13, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
You just don't get it AmericanMuscle. Lucas has granted canon authoriy to Lucas Films. LFL is the editing source of all SW material. Any material submitted to become part of the SW universe must be approved by LFL. Emailing Mandel is pointless. What Mandel did was non-canon. What Saxton originaly did was only his opinion. However, Saxton was charged with writing several pieces for the SW universe. This means LFL choose Saxton because they agreed with him. Whats more, what Saxton wrote was further reviewed and approved by LFL. This makes what Saxton published part of the SW canon. It gets even worse for you AM. Other SW authors took a look at what Saxton wrote and built upon that (ie, other authors used Imperator in Republic Era writings). These authors works were also reviewed and approved by LFL. This makes Imperator quite canon. The origins of Imperator are quite irrelevent. The end result is very clear. Alyeska 20:16, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Guys, please don't feed the trolls. If you keep responding to this silliness, he will keep posting it. Only when he is ignored and gets bored will he finally go away. Indrian 20:46, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't know, he seems fairly slow on the uptake. Took him 2 months to form this response. Alyeska 21:18, 23 September 2006 (UTC)


Took me a couple of months because I have better things to do than read erroneous wikipedia articles overrun with saxtonites. Sure yall have invaded and taken over this thing but thats where it stopped. Star Wars technical stuff will forever contradict itself. movies say one thing, books say another, games back up the movies' point of view. I've already figured out the naming thing anyway but I'm not telling you losers. It's beyond your comprehension. Nothing you dumbshits say will change my opinion to fit jackass saxton's. This article is useless shit. Imperator is fanon plain and simple, like it or not. Accept it or not, knowing you idiots the or not applies. I don't give a shit wikipedia has other stuff with acurate info in it this page means nothing. Get a life fuckheads. STAR WARS IS FANTASY, NOT EVEN REMOTELY REAL.

Good to know that you know more about SW then the people who run the liscense. I rather like your claim that you have proof to support your position but you refuse to post it. You want to show us to be wrong. If you actualy had said proof you would post it in an instant to prove us wrong. As it stands, we detailed how Lucas Films Limited works and how the authority works. You are wrong pure and simple. If you want to claim elsewise, you have to post proof. Except you refuse to post said proof. How do you expect to convince people you are right if you refuse to support your opinions? And a piece of advice. Don't insult those you are trying to convince. Also, don't falsely label people. Its a black and white fallacy. You assume everyone who disagrees with you must be a supporter of Saxon, and that is most definately wrong. Many people don't like Saxon or his work, but they acknowledge that LFL authorized Saxon. Alyeska 18:39, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
To all of those posting in anger above, especially but not exclusively the unsigned 68.xx dude, I will suggest that if you're getting angry about it, you probably shouldn't edit the article. You won't come off very well when you do; encyclopedic material doesn't come out of steamin rage, so cool it. Balancer 20:57, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Venator Picture

I believe that the Venator Star Destroyer picture is incomplete, and should be replaced. It is incomplete, and shows only the bridge and engines, whereas the best picture should show the entire thing.

Kingalex56 T C W U

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:ISD9275860.jpg

Image:ISD9275860.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 05:07, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cleanup

Having launched onto this week's obsessive mission of do-goodery, I'm now starting to bleed from the eyes and am going to, ya know, sleep. Still, I'd like to ask anyone else who jumps in here to add what they can to the Design and origin section, and to trim as much as possible from pretty much everything else -- it's in-universe plot summary, much of it minutiae. --EEMeltonIV 07:14, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

  • What's going on? Why was this article gutted to go from an informative article into a pointless jumble of words? --Darth Windu 13:33, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
    • It was "informative" from an almost entirely in-universe perspective, and therefore inappropriate for Wikipedia. --EEMeltonIV 15:57, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Good work trimming it up. It needs more work, though. — Deckiller 15:26, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Venator weapons

Darth Windu: You've changed the numbers to reflect a different source, but then kept a citation to the starwars.com page. This is careless, as the starwars.com page does not verify/align with the information you're presenting. If you're going to introduce a source that conflicts with starwars.com, please actually write out/articulate that source 1 says x, source 2 says y. --EEMeltonIV 11:07, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

  • Well I'd love to, but I had enough trouble putting the sources in originally ha ha. The cross sections book is specific about the weapons emplacements, so the starwars.com citation can go, and the film and the pic from starwars.com sith snapshots is evidence of the unknown number of turbolaser cannons. If you could add the proper citations, that would be great. --Darth Windu 01:53, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Info Box

An info box was added top this article, similar as to other articles about fictional starships and spacecrafts, and was then removed in less then five minutes by EEMeltonIV without saying more then :"rv - article is about more than just that class, and info box is unnecessary since it's just repeating prose in article"

Now I don't want anyone to run about shouting "vandalism" because I assume this was a good faith edit and the editor just needs some helping out.

As I understand it, this article is primarily about the Imperial Class Star Destroyer (it does mention other classes as well, not unlike other spaceship articles) so it seems to me an info box belongs here at best and at worse still adds value to the page. Quite frankly I can’t see any valid reason for its removal --The Matrix Prime 07:52, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

You placed it at the top of the article, which is inappropriate given the broader scope of the material. A more apt place would be in the section actually dealing with that class. Beyond that, though, the infobox information doesn't add any new information not already covered in the article prose; it doesn't add anything new. --EEMeltonIV 07:57, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
Ah, I see, you are unaware of the purpose of info boxes. Please allow me . . . They are (among other things) a quick overview on the information of the primary subject of the article in question (in this case, an Imperial Star Destroyer). Yes some (not usually all though) of the information does appear in the main body of the article itself - but that’s because it’s usually being expanded upon in greater detail. Does that help? --The Matrix Prime 08:04, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
Ah, I see, you are unaware that I've created and have helped maintain several infoboxes. Please allow me . . . if you want to add the inbobox in the right place, go for it. It is redundant, but my main reason for axing it was that it was misplaced. I won't delete it, although Deckiller (talk · contribs) might later -- if they do, I won't restore it. Does that help? --EEMeltonIV 08:08, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Venator.JPG

Image:Venator.JPG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 05:18, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Merge

I think Super Star Destroyer should be merged into this article. Both articles are relatively strong, and the merge will strengthen total content, comprehensiveness, and notability; thus, it gives the article a better chance of attaining GA/FA down the road. — Deckiller 00:23, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

I decided to be bold. The only section that needs significant work now is the cultural impact section (still need to find reception/criticism). — Deckiller 02:17, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Battle of Yavin

If Star Destroyer can be saved, I don't see why Battle of Yavin can't. At least keep it around until you get a "Battles in Star Wars" article up. Ichormosquito 10:31, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 'Reception and criticism'?

For some reason, there is a subtopic under the cultural impact section in this article with the title 'Reception and Criticism'. Now, aside from the fact that there is absolutely nothing under the title other than a notification requesting expansion of the subtopic, I simply don't think that a wikipedia article is the right place to be having a discussion about the Star Destroyer design. I suspect that what the title meant to say was something along the lines of 'in modern culture', followed by a paragraph on what the star destroyer has come to be identified with/by/about in our culture. 138.89.47.93 21:43, 6 September 2007 (UTC)G.A.Thrawn

[edit] Imperator

Who removed Imperator from the article? This was already settled quite some time ago. Imperator belongs in the article as an origin name for the ISD. Alyeska 05:57, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] GA Review

GA review (see here for criteria)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:

I'm actually quite surprised that such a decent article was written on this kind of a topic. I do have some concerns, however, before I can pass this as a Good Article:

  1. The lead must conform to WP:LEAD. Specifically, it must summarize all the major points/headings made the in the body of the article. As it stands, the lead is far too general and short for it to meet this criteria.
  2. The caption for Eclipse.gif needs more context to explain the picture. From what movie/game/book was it taken from, for example? Just something to better contextualize the image.
  3. All one-two sentence paragraphs must either be expanded or merged with surrounding paragraphs, as they cannot stand alone.
  4. "Ironically, these former symbols of Imperial terror helped liberate the galaxy from the Empire's tyrannical grasp. Although the New Republic eventually upgrades its starfleet with newer ship types, the Imperial-class Star Destroyer remains in service well into the New Jedi Order era and fights during the Yuuzhan Vong war." (Depiction under ImperialcClass) Aside from requiring a citation, the first sentence does not sound very neutral or encyclopedic.
  5. The third paragraph of "Depiction" under "Star Dreadnoughts" I believe requires more citations, as it seems that the citation at the end of the paragraph only covers the information from the Darksaber novel (although since I don't have the book, I may be wrong, so please let me know)
  6. "Designed by Rendili StarDrive in the Star Wars universe, the Victory-class is 900 meters long and features fewer weapons and cargo than an Imperial Star Destroyer." (Other types) requires a citation. Same with "Star Destroyers used by the New Republic include the Republic-, Nebula-, and Defender-classes; Star Wars fiction describes these variations are part of the New Republic's New Class program." and "The Legacy comics introduce the Pellaeon-class Star Destroyers, named after Gilad Pellaeon." in the same section.
  7. Reference #21 is not a reliable source for the material that it cites.

I will put the article on hold for a period of up to seven days, after which it may be failed without further notice. Cheers, CP 04:39, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I'll work on some of these suggestions. However, the paragraph about the Lusankya and other SSDs -- the result of merges from other articles -- I agree are uncited and not likely to be substantiated within seven days. Thanks, though, for the pointers for the rest of the article. --EEMIV (talk) 04:44, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
Unfortunately, not enough has been addressed to merit Good Article status at the end of the hold, therefore I am failing the article at this time. If you feel that this review is in error, you may take it to good article reassessment. Thank you for your work thus far. Cheers, CP 06:04, 14 December 2007 (UTC)