Talk:Star Destroyer/Archive 2

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

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)

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)

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)

A note on the "Frigate" issue

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

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)

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)

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. [1] 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

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)

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.

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

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)

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)

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)

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: [2]

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. [3] 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))

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

'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

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)