Talk:Imperial Navy/Legends


 * "A sector group could be expected to contain at least 2,400 ships, 24 of which were Star Destroyers, and another 1,600 combat starships." vs. "A sector group could be expected to contain at least 2,400 ships, 24 of which were Star Destroyers (Imperial-class Star Destroyers were the norm, but some groups contained older model Star Destroyers), and another 1,600 combat starships." -- One of the defining characteristics of a Sector Group was its two dozen Imperial-class Star Destroyers. I'm sure that a few lacked the full complement, but lacking a specific example, the article should probably speak to the Order of Battle deployments. --SparqMan 06:50, 5 May 2005 (UTC)
 * I'd agree. As I understand it, the gap in legal status between an ISD and a lower warship (even a VSD) is massive. The ISD is a line and is escorted around in a battle squadron. The VSD is merely a ship of a heavy squadron (presumably in the attack line). The OOB of the standard, 4 superiority fleet Sector Group would therefore include 24 ISDs. One sector that is badly understrength is Elrood, which has only two ISDs Kazuaki Shimazaki 16:43, 20 Aug 2005 (UTC)

Starfleet vs. Navy
I'm finding more proper references to Imperial Navy than I am to Imperial Starfleet. My instinct says that when the latter term was used, it was not a proper noun. "We fought the ships of the Imperial starfleet." Thoughts --SparqMan 14:13, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * It's a proper noun in the G-canon crawl of The Empire Strikes Back. In fact, I think its use in the crawl is why this article is listed under Imperial Starfleet rather than under Imperial Navy, which has only been mentioned in EU sources.  jSarek 20:02, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * I am not certain, but I believe there are several references to the Imperial Navy in the movie. --SparqMan 20:32, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * I vote we change it to Imperial Navy. --User:SFH
 * "Starfleet" is used in AHN by Admiral Motti: "Dangerous to your Starfleet, not to this battlestation". As already mentioned, "Imperial Starfleet" is in the ESB title crawl. "Imperial Fleet" is used in ROTJ by Mon Mothma: "With the Imperial Fleet spread throughout the Galaxy in a vain effort to engage us". The word Navy is never used in any of the movies. --Vermilion 04:08, 5 Aug 2005 (UTC)
 * I would take fleet to mean only ships, whereas navy could also include personnel, bases, etc. So really the proper name depends on what you're talking about&mdash;either term is correct, given that it is used in its proper context. – Aidje talk 04:35, 5 Aug 2005 (UTC)
 * That is a very good point. So what do you all think this article is more about? User:SFH
 * Perhaps we should have separate pages for the Navy and the Starfleet. The latter comes under the former, which, as mentioned above, includes more than just ships. In the same way, the Republic Navy is partly comprised of the Open Circle Fleet, which is a close approximation to the Imperial Starfleet - Kwenn
 * First of all the Imperial Navy encompasses MORE than just ships, there are battlestations, there are research facilities, marines, etc just like navies in the real world. So both are applicable when referring to ships. When people are referring a group of units of a navy, you call that a fleet, when you are refering to the entire organization itself, you call it the navy. Within the Imperial Navy, there is the Imperial Starfleet which is the Navy's main component.
 * Very true. Admiral J. Nebulax (talk) 16:13, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Technical Commentaries
Why is it factually incorrect? --24.247.124.158
 * Basically, it contains losts of speculation. Some people think it gives the most reasonable answers and explanations, while others think it reads too much into things.  &mdash; Silly Dan  23:26, 2 Sep 2005 (UTC)

Picture
Where'd it go? Kuralyov 21:02, 22 Sep 2005 (UTC)

Move
I vote we move this over to Imperial Navy. Navy obviously refers to the entire Naval Military force, while Starfleet could refer to any simple fleet. -- SFH 19:25, 16 Oct 2005 (UTC)
 * Agreed. – Aidje talk 02:28, 17 Oct 2005 (UTC)
 * Would this article then be molded to focus more on the greater military organization, and have a subsection detailing the Starfleet? Or would the Starfleet still deserve its own article? --SparqMan 02:40, 17 Oct 2005 (UTC)
 * I suppose the Starfleet could get it's own article. -- SFH 14:54, 17 Oct 2005 (UTC)
 * Why hasn't this been moved to Imperial Navy? Admiral J. Nebulax 12:54, 8 Jan 2006 (UTC)
 * "Imperial Starfleet" is used throughout movie canon. "Imperial Navy" only appears in WEG and WEG-based EU.  Canon (the divine Word) trumps EU (apocryphal tradition). Luther Tyndale 15:22, 8 Jan 2006 (UTC)
 * So? "Imperial Navy" is a more appropiate term for this article. Admiral J. Nebulax 15:24, 8 Jan 2006 (UTC)
 * How so? If the terms are synonymous then "Imperial Starfleet" is the most authentic and authoritative in-universe term.  OTOH, if the terms have any distinction at all then it's only that "Imperial Navy" subtly refers more to the personnel than the ships.  This article seems to say more about fleets then men.  If enough people consider this distinction important, then I suggest inventing a new short article entitled "Imperial Navy", which simply says "The servicemen of the Imperial Starfleet." Luther Tyndale 15:39, 8 Jan 2006 (UTC)
 * The term you're thinking of is "navymen", not "Imperial Navy". Nonetheless, "Navy" is better than "Starfleet", as it is the navy of the Empire. The Republic's navy wasn't called the "Republic Starfleet", it was called the "Republic Navy". Admiral J. Nebulax 15:42, 8 Jan 2006 (UTC)
 * "Navy" is semantically no better than "Starfleet". In RL, on Earth, one talks of "The Fleet" just as much as "The Navy".  I'd agree to the EU's "Republic Navy" as there's no canon mention of "Republic Starfleet", however "Imperial Starfleet" has canonical priority in its era.  Better we stick closer to the true source of SW, and not wander into spin-offs except where canon falls silent.  Luther Tyndale 15:50, 8 Jan 2006 (UTC)
 * What, now are you saying that the movies are the only source of canon? Admiral J. Nebulax 15:53, 8 Jan 2006 (UTC)
 * No, "canon" = movies + movie adapatations (novel, comic, DK books, radio drama). EU is lower priority material viewed through a "foggy window" (e.g. Cerasi elucidation).  The EU is invalid on points where it contradicts canon.  Unfortunately this still happens, maybe because many EU authors refer to EU guides and a fallible corporate priesthood for reference more often than our true, original Source. :/ Luther Tyndale 16:26, 8 Jan 2006 (UTC)
 * Regardless of the fact that this particular understanding of canon is out-of-date, there is a place for both Navy and Starfleet articles. On Earth, a fleet consists of ships, but a Navy consists of ships, bases, bureaucracies, and personnel; so, though they're related, the two are most likely not synonymous in the Star Wars Galaxy, either. jSarek 21:41, 8 Jan 2006 (UTC)
 * "...the two are most likely not synonymous in the Star Wars Galaxy, either". Actually, I think they are. But Navy, as defined by jSarek, is the better term for this article. Admiral J. Nebulax 22:22, 8 Jan 2006 (UTC)
 * On topic: yeah, if you exclude bases and logistics from "starfleet" then a separate "navy" page maybe justified. Bless whoever splits the page cleanly. .... On the Canon: The real relation between canon and EU is unchanging.  A few lemming-like EU-supremecists cloistered in fan-forums twist their own personal interpretations, making a confused rumour of change.  At the other extreme, crazed EU-rejectionists like "DarkStar" construe theories justifying total dismissal of uncomfortable sources.  Both positions are heretical posturing, warped by bboard groupthink.  The only upheaval has been the completion of the canon in 2005: everything newer will be EU.  Luther Tyndale 22:35, 8 Jan 2006 (UTC)
 * This isn't a discussion about canon. So, keep it off of here. Admiral J. Nebulax 22:37, 8 Jan 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, then, if there are no other objections, I will move it. The reason I hadn't back in October was because I didn't know how to move pages back then, but I do now. -- SFH 21:36, 9 Jan 2006 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Admiral J. Nebulax 21:39, 9 Jan 2006 (UTC)

No proof
For many vehicles like the Actis and Acclamator, there is no proof that the Empire used them to my knowledge. If there is proof (and I doubt there is) then we will keep them. Perhaps we could split it into two sections, one for right after the Clone Wars and one for later on in the rebellion era. Sorry if I sound rude.--172.136.180.230 02:27, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Vader continued to use an Actis as of Dark Lord: The Rise of Darth Vader, but it mentioned that he had a new fighter in development. The Empire was still using Acclamators in Empire at War. &mdash;Darth Culator   (talk)  02:53, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Also, Acclamators were in Star Wars: Empire. -LtNOWIS 03:39, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
 * There you go. Proof. Admiral J. Nebulax (talk) 20:42, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
 * And there you go being boastful. =p CooperTFN 20:45, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I suppose so. ;) Admiral J. Nebulax (talk) 20:48, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, he does have reason to. ;) VT-16 18:59, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Me? Admiral J. Nebulax (talk) 20:22, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, I was just trying to be funny. Either way, issue's resolved. :) VT-16 22:45, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Just checking. Admiral J. Nebulax (talk) 23:00, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Known ships
The "Known ships" section of the article takes up a lot of space and is easily duplicated (if not more thoroughly noted) via Category:Imperial starships. Can we pull that section, or am I missing another value? --SparqMan 06:02, 29 May 2006 (UTC)