Talk:Mon Calamari Star Cruiser

"In the literature" --I see the point you're trying to get across, but OUU material should be omitted where possible, or worked in to the end of the article. --SparqMan 05:43, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Good point, but going OUU is almost unavoidable in cases where the EU just doesn't make much sense or contradicts itself. -Vermilion 23:58, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
 * I don´t think Home One should be regarded as anything other than a call-sign, so I´ve changed the line under the picture. VT-16 12:59, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Home One could very well be the actual name of the ship, not just a call-sign. There's a Mon Cal Cruiser called Reef Home that's supposed to be named after a city on Mon Calamari.  There could be another city (perhaps the largest city, or capital) called "Home One."  Regardless, you were right to take out Home One-class. JimRaynor55 15:08, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

Split
What is the advantage of keeping the details of various types of Mon Cal cruisers here, as opposed to having this be about the general types of ships (the converted liners, the dedicated warships) and moving that content to the appropriate articles? --SparqMan 23:13, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * I agree, although this particular article should be kept, seeing as how inconsistent EU, movie, and game materials have been when using these ships. We should keep the bulk of the article to explain the multifaceted nature of Mon Calamari ships while moving the ships to their own article (and perhaps creating a simple list of Mon Cal ships in this article). -- Falmarin 04:31, 30 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Category placement
From what I've been given to understand, Mon Calamari Star Cruiser sounded like a production line much like Star Destroyer. -- SFH 00:14, 23 Nov 2005 (UTC)
 * I guess you could say that. Also, for this page, shouldn't it be more like the Star Destroyer page with links to the separate star cruisers? It would make it a lot easier. Cmdr. J. Nebulax 00:18, 23 Nov 2005 (UTC)
 * This page should be a general overview of MC cruisers, and maybe a catchall for the early, non-classified vessels. --SparqMan 00:55, 23 Nov 2005 (UTC)
 * Well, it should have a list of the cruisers and then a overview of the cruisers, like the Star Destroyer page. That way, it's a hell of a lot easier to find the cruiser you're looking for. Cmdr. J. Nebulax 00:57, 23 Nov 2005 (UTC)
 * Calamari Cruiser are not starship "production line". Each calamari cruiser is built to be unique. Only if two or more Calamari Cruiser are build to be identical(which is rare occasion) can they be called as production line. (for example: Mon Remonda class cruiser etc.) 88.112.82.148 17:55, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Wrong. Each MC80 is a MC80, therefore, a production line. Everything doesn't have to be identical to make it a production line. Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Implogo.jpg|20px]] 17:57, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Major Edit
This article was in poor form, containing alot of information that is not needed or not properly presented. I have been going through and trying to fix this. Note that in the "Behind the scences" section I detail the debate between WEGers and Saxton. I think that it is fair to mention both viewpoints. While I agree with some of Dr. Saxton's ideas, much of them in regards to Mon Cal cruisers are not canon and therfore had no place in this article. AdmiralNick22 00:54, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

What About the Ship from Star Wars: Battlefront II
None of these models match the Mon Calamari Star Cruiser from Battlefront II. This could be that it is a new class. It is defenitely larger than an Imperial Star Destroyer, not by much, but it is larger. It also has room for eight heavy cannons, even though it isn't used in the game. I think it is a class of its own.

do you have a picture or something? --BaldFett 10:13, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
 * It's probably meant to be a MC80. Battlefront and Battlefront II have been known to go against canon. Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Implogo.jpg|20px]] 13:35, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Can you please stop saying that? I'm getting sick and tired of hearing it every time something from BF comes up. Since other Mon Cal designs from games are canonical, this might be worth looking into (of course, its capabilities and total armament would be game mechanics and not canon, but the appearance itself might be). VT-16 20:58, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm not arguing that it's not canon, I'm just saying that the games go against canon for the sole purpose of game mechanics. Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Implogo.jpg|20px]] 22:20, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
 * again: do you have an image or something? most MonCals from the rebellion time are supposed to be MC80s. --BaldFett 20:57, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Yeah, but who knows. Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Implogo.jpg|20px]] 23:55, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't have a picture, but it looks like the Home One. It is larger than an Imperial I-class Star Destroyer. And Battlefront II only goes against Cannon because of the battles, not the craft. User:Super Destroyer 92
 * Battlefront II goes against canon in more places than just the battles. Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Implogo.jpg|20px]] 21:23, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I suppose so, but I still think something should be done. BFII is the reason I stumbled accross this website. Believe it or not, I was looking for stats on the ships used in the game. I guess I was a little too addicted to the game. I guess this conversation doesn't have too go on anymore. I think VT-16 is right. User:Super Destroyer 92
 * If this is truly a separate class, then what would we call it? Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) (Data file) [[Image:Implogo.jpg|20px]] 20:26, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I usually call it the MC100 Star Cruiser. Just because it follows the chain of how Mon Calamari Cruisers are ranked or classified, but it would probably be considered non-canon if we did put it in an article.User: Super Destroyer 92 (Super Destroyer 92 19:27, 20 August 2006 (UTC))