Talk:Sovereign-class dreadnought

"Sovereign-class Star Dreadnought was to be the penultimate Imperial warship class" - wanted to check with whoever wrote that to see how you meant to use penultimate. The word means "second to last" - did you mean in size? Was it to be the second to last class of ship produced? I'm not seeing how it would work in there. Please explain. --SparqMan 00:10, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * It wasn't me, but the usage makes sense. The Eclipse was to be the ultimate Imperial warship class, in terms of power, capability, size, and prestige.  The Sovereign was designed to excel in all of those areas, but not to the same degree as the Eclipse; thus, penultimate.  jSarek 00:26, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * It makes sense: it's a distinctive usage I've seen one or two "Objectivist" (ie very pro-SWTC) fans use before; I don't mind it. But more to the point... do we accept the fan inference that "Star Dreadnought" applies to these ships? --McEwok 01:11, 7 Sep 2005 (UTC)
 * Since the firepower exceeds Executor-class Star Dreadnoughts, I´d say 'yes'. VT-16 11:01, 14 Sep 2005 (UTC)
 * So? The firepower of an Imperial-class Star Destroyer exceeds that of an MC80 Star Cruiser. The "frigates" built by the USN in the '60s and '70s were larger than contemporary destroyers, and some of them employed the state-based naming-pattern traditionally the preserve of battleships: although reclassified as cruisers in 1975, this only serves to prove that warship designation schemes are not fixed according to any one peramenent system. This means that we must base the designations we accord these ships on specific evidence, not, abstract theories. And there is no canon evidence for the Star Dreadnought classification being applied to Sovereign-class or Eclipse-class ships. The latest reference I know of, dating from April, describes the Eclipse and Sovereign as "Star Destroyers", and as larger than "Super Star Destroyers". This may change, or it may not. In the meantime, is there some formal procedure I should go through to propose changinmg these titles round to avoid these pages being headed by a fanon designation, which is the situation at present? --McEwok 13:31, 14 Sep 2005 (UTC)
 * warship designation schemes are not fixed according to any one peramenent system.
 * Exactly, so next time you complain about Super Star Destroyers being called Star Dreadnoughts, I´ll pull that quote on you. Thanks! VT-16 17:46, 14 Sep 2005 (UTC)
 * I know that "Star Dreadnought" has now been applied canonically to the Ex-class; but we're talking about Sovereign-class ships here, and Eclipse-class ones in the other thread. Where's your canon evidence for applying the "Star Dreadnought" designation to these classes... without depending on a hypothetical, non-canon extrapolation from the fact that it's one of the designations applied to other classes of similar tonnage? --McEwok 19:21, 14 Sep 2005 (UTC)

Seeing as you asked for it over on the Eclipse page...
 * Well, here's something to ponder, McEwok: If an Executor-class Star Dreadnought is, in fact, a dreadnought, wouldn't something larger than it also be considered a Star Dreadnought??? Cmdr. J. Nebulax 19:23, 14 Sep 2005 (UTC)
 * It's been a while since you asked, but not necessarily, no. We don't know that the terminological scheme under which the term "Star Dreadnought" was applied to Super-class ships was in operation when the Sovereigns were designed and built; we don't know that even if the term was in use, it would be appropriate for these ships simply because they're approximately the same size (no-one's going to call an MC80 a Star Destroyer, are they!!); and we do know that "Star Dreadnought" is not part of the standard Imperial classification, within which the Super-class is explicitly identified as a cruiser/Star Destroyer. For these reasons, I'd urge changing the main page here to Sovereign-class Star Destroyer, and similarly for the Eclipse-class; but I'm well aware that this is more contentious than, say, what I did with Supreme Commander: is there a formal way to discuss it with the webmasters?
 * In additon, can anyone give me a canon-evidence citation that the Sovvys are KDY designs? Thanks!! --86.140.249.134 16:21, 3 Nov 2005 (UTC)

'The Sovereign'

Craft: KDY’s Sovereign-class Super Star Destroyer

Type: Super Star Destroyer

Scale: Capital

Length: 15,000 meters

Skill: Capital ship piloting

Crew: 601,670. gunners: 4,075. skeleton: 86,000/+10

Crew Skill: Astrogation 4D+1, capital ship gunnery 4D+1, capital ship piloting 4D, capital ship shields 4D, sensors 3D+1

Passengers: 130,100 (troops)

Cargo Capacity: 400,000 metric tons

Consumables: 5 years

Cost: Not available for sale

Hyperdrive Multiplier: x3

Hyperdrive Backup: x8

Nav Computer: Yes

Maneuverability: 1D

Space: 3

Hull: 11D

Shields: 8D

Sensors:

Passive: 250/2D

Scan: 350/3D

Search: 500/4D

Focus: 70/5D

Weapons

Axial Superlaser

Fire Arc: Front

Crew: 75

Scale: Death Star

Skill: Capital ship gunnery: superlaser

Fire Control: 5D

Space Range: 5-25/75/150

Damage: Gradational Output can fire once every minute at minimum energy (1D Damage). It can also build a charge of 1D per minute up to 8D. Current reactor can only generate 8D total per day.

500 Heavy Laser Cannons

Fire Arc: 200 front, 150 left, 150 right

Crew: 4

Skill: Capital ship gunnery

Fire Control: 2D

Space Range: 3-15/35/75

Atmosphere Range: 6-15/72/150KM

Damage: 8D

500 Turbolaser Batteries

Fire Arc: 150 front, 125 left, 125 right. 100 back

Crew: 2

Scale: Starfighter

Skill: Starship Gunnery

Fire Control: 4D

Space Range: 3-15/36/75

Atmosphere Range: 600-1.5/7/15KM

Damage: 5D

75 Ion Cannon

Fire Arc: 25 front. 25 left. 25 right

Crew: 6

Skill: Capital ship gunnery

Fire Control: 2D+2

Space Range: l-10/25/7>0

Atmosphere Range: 2-20/50/100KM

Damage: 3D

100 Tractor Beam Emplacements

Fire Arc: 55 front, 20 left, 20 right, 5 back

Crew: 5

Skill: Capital ship gunnery

Fire Control: 4D

Space Range: 1-5/15/30

Atmosphere Range: 2-10/30/60 KM

Damage: 6D

5 Gravity Well Projectors

Fire Arc: 3 front, 1 left, 1 right

Crew: 10

Skill: Capital ship gunnery: gravity well projector

Fire Control: 4D

Space Range: l-/15/30

Damage: Blocks Hyperspace Travel

Hope that can be of use to you. :) --Jaymach Ral'Tir 00:19, 4 Nov 2005 (UTC)

"Star Dreadnought" over "Star Destroyer"
From the text: "...one of the largest Imperial warship designs, surpassed only by the Eclipse-class Star Dreadnought and the Executor-class Star Dreadnought". That makes it definitely not a standard Star Destroyer. From the Star Dreadnought page: "...a formal designation for some of the largest and presumably strongest warships in the starfleets of regional and galactic governments". It's a Star Dreadnought. Admiral J. Nebulax 00:09, 7 Jan 2006 (UTC)
 * You're citing a Wookieepedia page in support of itself?! You'll have to do better than that, not least because I just reverted again. Your only evidence just ceased to exist. As to the Star Dreadnought page, well... that's another Wookieepedia page... and surely I don't have to point out that just because the term "Star Dreadnought" is applied to some big ships, that doesn't mean it's appropriate to all big ships? --McEwok 00:30, 7 Jan 2006 (UTC)
 * It's at least a Super Star Destroyer. Maybe not a Star Dreadnought, but definitely not a regular Star Destroyer. Admiral J. Nebulax 00:31, 7 Jan 2006 (UTC)
 * I've locked the page until you boys figure this out the mature way: by discussing. --Imp 00:32, 7 Jan 2006 (UTC)
 * Thank you for locking it, Imperialles. Admiral J. Nebulax 00:33, 7 Jan 2006 (UTC)
 * It's DEFINATELY not a Star Destroyer, since it's a SUPER Star Destroyer, a slang term for ships larger than Star Destroyers. JimRaynor55 02:02, 7 Jan 2006 (UTC)

The basic question is: what should we call the Sovereign-class on Wookieepedia?
 * Imperiales: There's discussion further up this page, and the last comment came from me, more than two months ago. But if the Admins think more discussion is needed, then that's fine by me....
 * 1.) Sovereign-class Star Dreadnought? The term "Star Dreadnought" is only formally applied in canon to Prequel-era Mandator-class ships; there is not even a canon reference to "Executor-class Star Dreadnoughts", only the more ambiguous phrase "ultimate Star Dreadnoughts like the Executor" in Inside the Worlds. It is never used in any way of the Sovereign-class, and while it might hypothetically be correct, this suggestion remains at present only a fanon surmise. Comparable size does not automatically define a ship's class, or MC80s would be Star Destroyers; and even if LFL do some day give the Sovereign-class ships a Saxton-style designation, they might define them as, for instance, "Star Battlecruisers".
 * 2.) Sovereign-class Super Star Destroyer? This is, I believe, the term most commonly used in official material: the Dark Empire Sourcebook, which introduced the ship, calls it a "Sovereign-class Super Star Destroyer." It may also be used in other sources. I'd be entirely happy with it. However, Inside the Worlds associates the term "Super Star Destroyer" with "Rebel slang", and some fans are strident in their opinion that this excludes any formal classification of ships as "Super Star Destroyers".
 * 3.) Sovereign-class Star Destroyer? The most recent reference (April 2005) refers to "Eclipse-class and Sovereign-class Star Destroyers". An article at the Databank describes Eclipse and Sovereign as belonging to the "last generation of Super-class Star Destroyers", using an additional class-term which places them in a broad group of large "Star Destroyers". While some fans object to the very wide range of sizes of ship described by the term "Star Destroyer", this is merely their opinion. In an effort to "cap" the size-range denoted by the term, they cite a single source which says that the term "Super Star Destroyer" denotes "many warship classes larger than a Star Destroyer": against their interpretation of this phrase can be cited multiple examples of the term "Star Destroyer" being used on the one hand to denote specifically Imperial-class vessels, and on the other, its being applied to ships up to and including Executor and Eclipse.

In conclusion, then: it is possible that at some future time, a canon source might refer to a ship of this type as a "Sovereign-class Star Dreadnought", "Sovereign-class Star Battlecruiser", "Sovereign-class Star Battleship", "Sovereign-class dreadnought", "Sovereign-class Star Executor" or some other similar term. Until such time as such a source might come into being, however, the only canonical class-designations used for this ship are "Sovereign-class Super Star Destroyer" and "Sovereign-class Star Destroyer". The choice is between these two terms. No other option is currently avaliable. --McEwok 02:27, 7 Jan 2006 (UTC)
 * McEwok, enough with your nonsense. "Super Star Destroyer" is a slang term for Star Dreadnought. "Super-class Star Destroyer"s do not exist. And Inside the Worlds of the Original Trilogy is canon. You even said that it could be "Sovereign-class Super Star Destroyer", meaning it's fine here, since "Super Star Destroyer" is slang for "Star Dreadnought". So, enough with thinking you're right at everything you do and leave it alone. Admiral J. Nebulax 12:58, 7 Jan 2006 (UTC)
 * "Super Star Destroyer" is a slang term for Star Dreadnought
 * Um. It's a term used for ships that can be called by a variety of other terms, from "Star Cruisers" to "ultimate Star Dreadnoughts", probably including "Star Battlecruisers" and other different designations. The actual quote, given in full, says that an an Executor-class ship "is usually referred to in Rebel slang as a "Super Star Destroyer"&mdash;a term that covers many warship classes bigger than a Star Destroyer, from Star Cruisers to ultimate Star Dreadnoughts like Executor."
 * Now, personally, I'm not convinced that this actually excludes usage of "Super Star Destroyer" in more formal contexts than "Rebel slang": the reference to "Rebel slang" implies an in-universe timeframe before the establishment of the New Republic, or else a self-conscious, ideologically-motivated choice of terminology in the narrative voice; either way, we cannot assume in the face of other evidence that "Super Star Destroyer" never came to be used as a formal term, and we should also note that the real-world author Jim Luceno seems to take some delight in wordplay and narrative games. But even if this remark does exclude the usage of "Super Star Destroyer" as a formal designation, the passage implies that the term is applied to ships described by several different designations (one of which may simply have been "Star Destroyer"), and we have no way of saying that "Star Dreadnought" is the particular designation appropriate for Sovereign-class, or Eclipse-class ships.
 * What we do have, however, are empirical references to ships of this class as "Sovereign-class Star Destroyers" and "Sovereign-class Super Star Destroyers". In the absence of any alternative evidence, we must choose one of these two canon terms for use in the article here. --McEwok 15:00, 7 Jan 2006 (UTC)


 * It's definitely not a standard Star Destroyer, so, if you must have your way, move it to "Sovereign-class Super Star Destroyer". But I'm telling you, if the move was needed, it would have been moved a long time ago. Admiral J. Nebulax 15:03, 7 Jan 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, "Star Destroyer" and "Super Star Destroyer" are the terms used in the official storyline. "Star Dreadnought" isn't. I'll leave it up to the Admins to decide between the two canon designations, but, at the risk of repeating myself, I'll point out that "Star Destroyer" is a widely-used canon term for arrowhead-hulled ships much bigger than Imperial-class, including the most recent reference to "Sovereign-class Star Destroyers". --McEwok 15:52, 7 Jan 2006 (UTC)
 * The term "Star Dreadnought" is only formally applied in canon to Prequel-era Mandator-class ships; there is not even a canon reference to "Executor-class Star Dreadnoughts", only the more ambiguous phrase "ultimate Star Dreadnoughts like the Executor" in Inside the Worlds. Inside the Worlds FLAT OUT says the Executor is a Star Dreadnaught. Ambiguous my ass. JimRaynor55 17:39, 7 Jan 2006 (UTC)
 * It is never used in any way of the Sovereign-class, and while it might hypothetically be correct, this suggestion remains at present only a fanon surmise. Comparable size does not automatically define a ship's class, or MC80s would be Star Destroyers; Size isn't the end all, be all, because the TRUE determinant of type is function and role. Size is RELATED to the kind of functions a ship can perform. The Sovereign is bigger, and BETTER than the Executor. Furthermore, "Star Dreadnaught" is an actual canon type, while calling it "Super Star Destroyer" is using a known slang term.
 * and even if LFL do some day give the Sovereign-class ships a Saxton-style designation, they might define them as, for instance, "Star Battlecruisers". Riiiiight. They would really downgrade a ship which is more massive and completely better than the Executor, and mounts a freaking SUPERLASER. *rolls eyes* JimRaynor55 17:39, 7 Jan 2006 (UTC)
 * ::Now, personally, I'm not convinced that this actually excludes usage of "Super Star Destroyer" in more formal contexts than "Rebel slang": the reference to "Rebel slang" implies an in-universe timeframe before the establishment of the New Republic, or else a self-conscious, ideologically-motivated choice of terminology in the narrative voice; The in-universe motivation of the person in that ITW passage was to clear up confusion from slang. JimRaynor55 17:39, 7 Jan 2006 (UTC)
 * either way, we cannot assume in the face of other evidence that "Super Star Destroyer" never came to be used as a formal term This is a negative. Come back when you have proof that "Super Star Destroyer" WAS used in a formal manner. JimRaynor55 17:39, 7 Jan 2006 (UTC)
 * and we should also note that the real-world author Jim Luceno seems to take some delight in wordplay and narrative games. What does this matter? Should we take note of the fact that the WEG authors didn't know what the hell they were doing? JimRaynor55 17:39, 7 Jan 2006 (UTC)
 * Thank you, JimRaynor. Again, there is no need for a move. "Sovereign-class Star Dreadnought" is perfectly fine, as it is a Star Dreadnought. So, McEwok, just because you think everything you do is right, it's not. Admiral J. Nebulax 17:44, 7 Jan 2006 (UTC)
 * Inside the Worlds FLAT OUT says the Executor is a Star Dreadnaught.
 * I was under the impression that there was no reference except the remark that the largest SSDs were "ultimate Star Dreadnoughts like the Executor". Feel free to supply additional references to "Executor-class Star Dreadnought(s)" if there are any; if no such references exist, then "ultimate SDD" alone could be simply a rhetorical flourish to give an impression of the size and strength of the largest SSDs: I concede that it may indicate that the Ex-class is now a Star Dreadnought by designation as far as LFL are concerned, but I'd contend that it does not quite prove it, and that it's doubly unreliable when you try to extrapolate that term out to the other SSDs, since the passage clearly indicates that other SSDs are called by other terms.


 * Size isn't the end all, be all, because the TRUE determinant of type is function and role.
 * No, type is defined by what it's actually called. At present, we have canon references to the Sovvy as a "Star Destroyer" or "Super Star Destroyer". Nothing else.


 * Furthermore, "Star Dreadnaught" is an actual canon type, while calling it "Super Star Destroyer" is using a known slang term.
 * '"Super Star Destroyer" is said to be a term used "in Rebel slang" in Inside the Worlds; but it's used like a formal term in "Sovereign-class Super Star Destroyer" in the Dark Empire Sourcebook. You will note, of course, that my preferred option has always been simply "Star Destroyer".


 * They would really downgrade a ship which is more massive and completely better than the Executor, and mounts a freaking SUPERLASER.
 * They're not "downgrading" anything. "They" (the fictional characters, and the continuity people at LFL) can call whatever they want, really. Some day, they might give the Sovereign a designation like Star Dreadnought or Star Battlecruiser or Ultimate Battle Platform; but at present, the canon terms applied to the ship are "Star Destroyer" and "Super Star Destroyer". I assume you can understand this. But if the "slang" nature of "Super Star Destroyer" offends you... didn't "Dreadnought" and "Battlecruiser" originate as informal media terms for the latest battleships and armoured cruisers of the 1900s?


 * The in-universe motivation of the person in that ITW passage was to clear up confusion from slang.
 * How do you know? It could be that the in-universe motivation was meant to be left ambiguous for the reader, or that Mr. Luceno was imagining a character driving forward a particular agenda within the storyline....


 * Come back when you have proof that "Super Star Destroyer" WAS used in a formal manner.
 * Are the initial stats with which the ship was introduced (further back on this page) not good enough for you? Do you have proof that "Star Dreadnought" is used as a formal term for anything except the Mandator? Do you have proof that it's appropriate for the Sovvy? Can you deny that "Star Destroyer" and "Super Star Destroyer" are used for the Sovvy?


 * What does this matter?
 * It matters inasmuch as it reflects on the potential range of meaning for that passage. It's not central to the argument, though.


 * JackNebulax: Thank you, JimRaynor. Again, there is no need for a move. "Sovereign-class Star Dreadnought" is perfectly fine, as it is a Star Dreadnought.
 * No it isn't. It's a fanon designation with no canon support, but which you happen to like. --McEwok 23:29, 7 Jan 2006 (UTC)23:29, 7 Jan 2006 (UTC)


 * "Star Dreadnought" is not a fanon term, McEwok. Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it has to be your way. Why don't you go back to the ship classification talk page and go annoy VT-16 and everyone over there. Star Dreadnought is not fanon, your theories are. So shut up. Admiral J. Nebulax 00:18, 8 Jan 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm well aware that the term "Star Dreadnought" is canon. What's fanon is the claim that it's the appropriate designation for Sovereign-class ships&mdash;or Eclipse-class, for that matter... which is the crux of this discussion. --McEwok 00:24, 8 Jan 2006 (UTC)
 * Why wouldn't it be? They're definitely not standard Star Destroyers, as they are far too large to be. That leaves Super Star Destroyer and Star Dreadnought, which are the same. Admiral J. Nebulax 00:27, 8 Jan 2006 (UTC)
 * Where exactly does Sovereign-class Star Dreadnought come from? -- SFH 00:46, 8 Jan 2006 (UTC)
 * I'll have to check on that, but I assume it comes from it's size. Admiral J. Nebulax 00:50, 8 Jan 2006 (UTC)
 * Nebulax: They're definitely not standard Star Destroyers, as they are far too large to be.
 * If the people who decide such things for the Empire (or in the real world, LFL) call them "Star Destroyers", then, yes they are....


 * That leaves Super Star Destroyer and Star Dreadnought, which are the same.
 * "Super Star Destroyer"&mdash;a term that covers many warship classes bigger than a Star Destroyer, from Star Cruisers to ultimate Star Dreadnoughts like Executor"...?


 * SFH: Where exactly does Sovereign-class Star Dreadnought come from?
 * At guess, SWTC? I think Saxton changed it from "command ship" after ItW settled on "Star Dreadnought" for Ex, but there's certainly no canon reference calling a Sovvy a "Star Dreadnought". --McEwok 00:54, 8 Jan 2006 (UTC)


 * If you must, move it to "Sovereign-class Super Star Destroyer", or even "Sovereign-class Star Cruiser". But again, why wasn't it moved previously? Admiral J. Nebulax 00:56, 8 Jan 2006 (UTC)
 * Okay, I found this. While the "Imperium Ultra-class Star Destroyer" does not exist, and the fact that it comes from a fan site, it shows the (supposed) canon and proportional sizes of the Eclipse-class and the Sovereign-class. If the smaller Sovereign is really the actual size of it, it proves it's a Star Dreadnought. However, I doubt this, but I thought I'd bring it to everyone's attention. Admiral J. Nebulax 01:13, 8 Jan 2006 (UTC)

Let me ask all of you one simple question: With a size and mass comparable to an Executor-class dreadnought, enough firepower to break though shields that the Executor could not, and an intended use similar to the Executor, what is the Sovereign more like: a dreadnought or a destroyer? VT-16 02:47, 8 Jan 2006 (UTC)
 * A Star Destroyer. I call it that quite comfortably, as a matter of fact, for one simple reason: Star Dreadnought was not the official title, but the slang title. Every source outside the Inside the Worlds books use Super Star Destroyer instead of Star Dreadnought. EXAMPLES: in The Swarm War, on page 223, the hive ships used by the Killiks were said to be the size of a Super-class Star Destroyer, italicized as though Super was the proper term. And to consider SSD "Rebel Slang" is innacurate as well. Gilad Pellaeon, in the novel Dark Tide II: Ruin, on page 239, was informed by a subordinate that the Legacy of Torment was the size of a Super Star Destroyer. Pellaeon himself called the Knight Hammer a Super Star Destroyer in Darksaber, on page 155. Certainly a high ranking Imperial officer such as Pellaeon would use the proper designation, instead of the slang used by those who destroyed the New Order. And when the Databank refers to the Executor, it calls it a Super Star Destroyer, not a Star Dreadnought. VT-16, do you really want to say that ALL of those sources are inacurate? Are you seriously comfortable with that? Because I am unwilling to dismiss several years of canonical sources just because a few reference books say Star Dreadnought. -- SFH 03:33, 8 Jan 2006 (UTC)
 * I wasn't asking about it being called a Star Destroyer or Super Star Destroyer, and as there is no contradiction between all these terms, I'm not focusing on their canonicity. I was asking about what kind of ship it most resembled, a dreadnought or a destroyer. VT-16 11:24, 8 Jan 2006 (UTC)
 * It resembles a Star Dreadnought. If it has the firepower, meaning a superlaser, to crack a planet's crust, it's not a standard Star Destroyer. Admiral J. Nebulax 13:02, 8 Jan 2006 (UTC)
 * With a size and mass comparable to an Executor-class dreadnought, enough firepower to break though shields that the Executor could not, and an intended use similar to the Executor, what is the Sovereign more like: a dreadnought or a destroyer?
 * Well, your evidence that it's a "dreadnought" is its similarity to the so-called "Executor-class dreadnought"; this term is your own extrapolation from a reference to the largest Super Star Destroyers as "ultimate Star Dreadnoughts like Executor", which could simply be rhetorical. Referring to G-canon... let's look at what Executor is called in the scripts:


 * ESB
 * "Darth Vader's Star Destroyer" (2 times)
 * "Vader's Star Destroyer" (16 times)
 * "Vader's Imperial Star Destroyer" (2 times)
 * "the huge Imperial Star Destroyer" (1 time)
 * "Star Destroyer" (1 time, dialogue)


 * RotJ
 * "Super Star Destroyer" (7 times, 1 in dialogue)
 * "Vader's Star Destroyer" (2 times)
 * "Star Destroyer" (2 times)
 * "(the) command ship" (3 times, dialogue)
 * battleship (1 time; term also used for what appear to be Corellian corvettes in RotJ, and for ships including ISDs in ESB)


 * In both films, the term "Star Destroyers" is also used consistently, both in dialogue and script, to indicate Ex together with her Imperial-class consorts.
 * So, if Executor is a Star Destroyer... I guess Sovereign is too.
 * I was asking about what kind of ship it most resembled, a dreadnought or a destroyer.
 * It looks to me like a very large Star Destroyer. That's also what it's called in canon, as you well know.
 * If it has the firepower, meaning a superlaser, to crack a planet's crust, it's not a standard Star Destroyer.
 * No, it's a very large Star Destroyer.
 * The way I see it, it's a straight choice between:
 * 1.) terms that are used to designate this class in canon
 * 2.) terms that are not used to designate this class in canon
 * Clearly, fans personal opinions differ over which term is appropriate, and obviously, I have a POV on this; but I honestly can't understand how a fan theory can take priority over canon usage here. If there's a dispute, surely the canonical use of "Star Destroyer" and "Super Star Destroyer" to describe the ship is the deciding factor. --McEwok 03:27, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

None of your arguments mean anything other than to show that it's in the 'Star Destroyer' design family, which is says in the article already. These ships, along with the Eclipse-class, carry more weight and firepower than any Executor-class vessel. Since the term 'Star Destroyer' is used for a wide variety of ships, it serves no real purpose when specifying what kind of warship something is. "Star Destroyer" would make readers think it's a destroyer, since it has that word in it. "Star Dreadnought", or just "dreadnought" after the name, would connect these ships with similar craft, like the Mandator-class, Executor-class and even the Eye of Palpatine, all having "dreadnought" as part of their classification. I do thank you for providing a source for ISDs being used as battleships, although I'm not sure about that interpretation of Corellian corvettes as battleships, seeing as they are.. corvettes... VT-16 12:50, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I do thank you for providing a source for ISDs being used as battleships, although I'm not sure about that interpretation of Corellian corvettes as battleships, seeing as they are.. corvettes...
 * Happy to help! I'm not sure that the "dozen small Corellian battleships" are necessarily Corvettes, but those are the only Corellian ships in the establishing shots of the Rebel fleet; they are "small", and "battleship" can be a generic for "warship"...


 * None of your arguments mean anything other than to show that it's in the 'Star Destroyer' design family, which is says in the article already.
 * Well, that's your opinion. Personally, I thought the fact that variants of "Star Destroyer", and only variants of "Star Destroyer", are used in canon to describe ships of this class was fairly compelling....


 * Since the term 'Star Destroyer' is used for a wide variety of ships, it serves no real purpose when specifying what kind of warship something is.
 * The most important thing is that the Sovvy is called a Star Destroyer. Even if the term is ineffective at specifying what kind of warship she is, it's still the term that's used - and on the topic of whether the term is effective, I presume you understand the range of ways in which "Super-class Star Destroyer", "Sovereign-class Star Destroyer", and "Super Star Destroyer" are used just fine: the only problem is that it disagrees with an abstract non-canon model that you like.


 * "Star Destroyer" would make readers think it's a destroyer, since it has that word in it. "Star Dreadnought", or just "dreadnought" after the name, would connect these ships with similar craft, like the Mandator-class, Executor-class and even the Eye of Palpatine, all having "dreadnought" as part of their classification.
 * You're assuming that the average reader's perceptions of the are dictated by an awareness of a terminology that was starting to sound old in the 1920s (when "dreadnaught" faded out and "battleship" came back in). To the casual fan, "Dreadnought" might suggest 600m ships; to the casual non-fan, it might suggest World War I, and black-and-white photos of Edwardian ironclads lumbering along beneath clouds of coal-smoke. To the casual fan, "Destroyer" might suggest ISDs and Ex; to the casual non-fan, it might suggest modern combat warships, and destruction. There is no prima facie reason why "dreadnought" implies "better than destroyer".


 * Your denial of this canonical term for the Executor will of course be ignored, as it is based on nothing but personal opinion.
 * Uhh, the person who's doing the ignoring here is you... sure, the Ex is called an "ultimate Star Dreadnought" once; but does that mean she's an "Executor-class Star Dreadnought"? Perhaps, but not necessarily. You could call WW-II era battleships "ultimate ships of the line like Iowa", but that doesn't mean they're Iowa-class ships of the line. And there's a whole lot more evidence in favour of Ex being a Star Destroyer than there is in favour of her being a Star Dreadnought.
 * "But", I hear you protest, "Star Destroyer is a silly term for such big ships - it violates all rational classification". Well - I put it to you that that's precisely the point: these are insanely huge for their designation; in fact, they're insanely huge by any sense.
 * Which is scarier, which a better expression of the New Order's rule-through-fear philosophy - a staid, stately Star Dreadnought, or a monstrously upscalled Star Destroyer, bigger than any dreadnought ever built, casually violating expected order and imposing a new meaning on the very words and thoughts we use? --McEwok 16:25, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
 * they are "small", and "battleship" can be a generic for "warship"...
 * No, that is your assumption, as is the assumption that the ship talked about are the CR90 corvettes seen in the film.
 * Personally, I thought the fact that variants of "Star Destroyer", and only variants of "Star Destroyer", are used in canon to describe ships of this class was fairly compelling....
 * Not if they seem to imply the same roles for Imperial and Executor-class vessels, as both ships are wildly different in both design, firepower and serve different purposes.
 * the only problem is that it disagrees with an abstract non-canon model that you like.
 * Since when did proper ship-characterization become an abstract and non-canonical concept? This is a site meant to "educate" people on SW and hopefully concepts used in that universe relative to ours, that's what I'm interested in. You can lobby for a change back to "Star Destroyer" in this and the Eclipse article, but the text itself should reflect the RL basis for which the ships were modelled after.
 * Uhh, the person who's doing the ignoring here is you... sure, the Ex is called an "ultimate Star Dreadnought" once; but does that mean she's an "Executor-class Star Dreadnought"? Perhaps, but not necessarily. You could call WW-II era battleships "ultimate ships of the line like Iowa", but that doesn't mean they're Iowa-class ships of the line.
 * First of all, don't respond to deleted text.
 * Secondly, both terms are in the article, and the "Star Dreadnought" term actually narrows the use of Executor vessels further down than "Star Destroyer", as it's been consistently shown in the role of a heavily armed battleship rather than a destroyer. (Which is why your "ships-of-the-line" analogy isn't appropriate) And as I don't feel like underestimating the intelligence of the readers, I chose to link this class with very similar types of ship, namely the Sovereign and the Eclipse, therefore giving them the same naming pattern. If you feel compelled to change them into "Star Destroyer" in each respective title, fine, but don't cut out anything from the articles themselves, as you've had a habit of doing before...
 * And there's a whole lot more evidence in favour of Ex being a Star Destroyer than there is in favour of her being a Star Dreadnought.
 * Well, broadly speaking, most of everything the Empire has in terms of dagger-shaped warships are considered "Star Destroyers", so I don't see what you're getting at here. Of course, if you're suggesting that the Executor is a destroyer and not a heavily armed battleship (i.e a dreadnought), then you'll excuse me if I find that rather silly.
 * Which is scarier, which a better expression of the New Order's rule-through-fear philosophy - a staid, stately Star Dreadnought, or a monstrously upscalled Star Destroyer, bigger than any dreadnought ever built, casually violating expected order and imposing a new meaning on the very words and thoughts we use?
 * Since "destroyer" is connected to "destruction" and "dreadnought" might mean "has no fear" (having English as a second language, I'm not sure if this is the correct interpretation of the word), it's hard to say, though the second sounds more omnious.
 * However, I don't like this assumption that the "cooler" name gets to decide what the ship in question is or what it does. Changing "corvette" into "battlecruiser" doesn't mean the ship automatically gains bigger or more guns or heavier armor or that it can magically travel further or faster when it's engines stay the same. VT-16 18:51, 20 January 2006 (UTC)