Talk:Star Destroyer/Legends

Gender
Should we refer to a S/D as 'it' or rather as a 'she'?MoffRebus 01:50, 6 Nov 2005 (UTC)
 * Technically, ships are referred to as "she" for some reason. Example: "She'll hold together"&mdash;Han Solo. I don't know why ships are referred to like that, but that's how it is. Cmdr. J. Nebulax 15:30, 6 Nov 2005 (UTC)

It's now called "it" in navies now, they removed that tradition -SWF
 * Well, it doesn't really matter as of now, I think. Admiral J. Nebulax (talk) 00:13, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
 * It's used often by captains when referring to their own ship. It is not a global pronoun and neither is it required. In other words, unless your talking about your own ship named "Star Destroyer" it's it.--OompaLoompa of DOOM 16:37, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

capitalisation
Should we begin to use the term 'star destroyer' instead of 'Star Destroyer'? Since more and more names are beginning to be reverted from capitalization? VT-16 15:49, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * To my knowledge, Star Destroyer is always capitalized in the source material, unlike the other things we've been decapitalizing. jSarek 16:26, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Star Destroyer not destroyer
Some sources--most especially the StarWars.com--cite that Star Destroyers are not destroyers, instead they are a type of crusier (i.e. why Han Solo called the Star Destroyers in A New Hope "cruisers"). It has been said that the term "Star Destroyer" was given to certain Imperial warships as a way of spreading authority through fear (the same idea as calling a planet-destroyer battle station a Death Star when it is clearly not a star). This would explain why the Venator-class was at first called "cruiser" but later came to be known as "Star Destroyer"; further, this would also explain why A New Hope and the official site call/classify Star Destroyers as "cruisers". This could also be taken to explain why such strange terms as Super Star Destroyer exist: a term for a battlecruiser or battleship/dreadnought. Again, the idea is intimidation, and the term "Star Destroyer" would obviously cause more fear than cruiser, battlecruiser, or even battleship. This would also go in line with Palpatine's tactics (as described by Grand Moff Tarkin in A New Hope). Basically, it is proposed the term "destroyer" and "Star Destroyer" are not one-and-the-same and, therefore, not interchangable.--SOCL 01:15, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * StarWars.com doesn't say that Star Destroyers aren't destroyers, it just calls them "cruisers" at times.  This really doesn't mean much, because StarWars.com's databank is known for using simplified names or nicknames for a lot of ships and vehicles.  "Cruiser" is also applied to civilian ships and small diplomatic corvettes there, just to show how meaningful it is.  Han calling ISDs "Imperial cruiser" also doesn't prove anything, he was excited at the time and could have just said something off the top of his head, or resorted to slang terms.  The idea that the term "Star Destroyer" isn't an actual type, but an intimidating nickname is fan speculation with no basis in official sources.  It has also never been stated that the Venator-class started out as cruisers, and were only later called Star Destroyers.  As for "Super Star Destroyer," Inside the Worlds of the Star Wars Trilogy clearly states that this is a mere slang term. JimRaynor55 08:54, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * This very site states that the Venator-class is also known as "Republic attack cruiser", so I'm not quite sure how else to respond to that.  Further, it may speculation, but it isn't quite as far-out as you make it seem.  Look, for instance, at the very example you showned concerning the "Super Star Destroyer", or, for that matter, the Viscount-class Star Defender in Vector Prime--there is, after all, now type of vessel known as a "defender", but this is a mere nickname given to this type of battlecruiser that stays in line with the New Republic's peaceful, defensive policies.  Granted, this does not say that the name "Star Destroyer" is a tool of intimidation, but it does establish a line of thinking along those same lines.--SOCL 17:32, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * This very site states that the Venator-class is also known as "Republic attack cruiser", so I'm not quite sure how else to respond to that. Don´t. It´s just another in a long series of naming mistakes made by people who are not familiar with military titles (this even includes the movies, but that can be justified by the use of military-slang, i.e calling everything above a certain size, "Super Star Destroyer"). Interestingly enough, the Imperial-class destroyer actually incorporates certain elements of RL aircraft-carriers and cruisers, making it quite versatile and not really a "true" destroyer. So "Imperial Cruiser" isn´t that far off, actually. But for clarity´s sake, we´re sticking to it´s primary role and calling it 'destroyer'. VT-16 08:25, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * A Cruiser is any ship that can opperate independant of the fleet. A SD certainly can, but when it is part of a fleet, it takes on the role of a destroyer.--Eion 14:44, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * There's an idea being thrown around the community that a Star Destroyer might actually be a destroyer despite the fact it simply out-classes vessels that are clearly cruisers, battlecruisers, or battleships (for instance, a Mon Calamari Star Cruiser). At the same time, we have a vessel like the Tector-class Star Destroyer, which is closer to a RL destroyer (the fact that it lacks hangar bays makes it quite vulnerable to starfighter attacks and, therefore, in Star Wars terms is not quite independant), out-sizing a regular Imperator-class, yet the Imperator is far more suited for "cruiser-like", independant operations.  One could say that the Imperator can do both a destroyer and cruiser's job, depending on how it is deployed, but the fact it function as a cruiser when deployed alone seems to be evidence enough that it is a cruiser.  Simply put--in RL (which is our only true basis for reference)--you can have a cruiser do a destroyer's duty (i.e. fleet escort and the like), but can't have a destroyer do a cruiser's duty (i.e. independant operations).  In the modern RL navies (such as the U.S. Navy's), this point is more-or-less debatable when you consider the fact a RL destroyer resembles a sized-down cruiser, but Naval tradition still holds true, and I can tell you for a fact from experience that is VERY rare to find a destroyer deployed independant of the fleet and/or battlegroup.--SOCL 16:57, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * *theatrical sigh* Do the real-world semantics matter?
 * Star Destroyers are Star Destroyers (are Star Destroyers). No further semantic complications required (except to work out why they're "Star Destroyers"... an excuse to reread HoT2)...
 * "Attack Cruiser" is George's term for VenStars, used in the script. Unclear who designated them "Star Destroyers".
 * Is there any evidence that the KDY Star Dreadnaughts are dagger-shaped?
 * Executor. --Vermilion 01:08, 19 Aug 2005 (UTC)
 * Oh-kay... Is there any evidence that the Executor genuinely belongs in the Star Dreadnaught design tradition, rather than being an up-scaling of the Star Destroyer concept to Star Dreadnaught scale? --McEwok 02:18, 19 Aug 2005 (UTC)
 * "up-scaling of the Star Destroyer concept"
 * You have just figured out how heavily armed warships are made in RL and in SW, congratulations, Captain Obvious. VT-16 10:32, 21 Aug 2005 (UTC)


 * Also, someone had added a (badly marked-up) link to SWTC in "sources". I removed it - or is it policy to allow Saxton!fanon (and if so, can I have it changed)? Personally, I respect the man himself, but his groupies are... well, groupies; their dogmatism and bias harms his credibility, which is a shame, and it also muddles fanon and canon, which is worse... --McEwok 00:49, 19 Aug 2005 (UTC)
 * No fan site should ever be listed as a source. Links to fan sites seem to be acceptable for the External links section though. --Vermilion 01:08, 19 Aug 2005 (UTC)
 * Thanks! --McEwok 02:18, 19 Aug 2005 (UTC)


 * With Lucas calling the Invisible Hand a "Star Destroyer" isn't it possible that the term Star Destroyer only denotes a type of warship rather than it's true function? For instance, a standard Imperial-class Star Destroyer is part of the Star Destroyer-type of warships, but functions more closely as a cruiser/battlecruiser.  In the same sense, a Carrack-class light cruiser is part of the cruiser-type of warships, but functions more as a frigate/escort vessel for larger vessels.  This would easily explain why we have vessels such as Star Destroyers that are clearly more closely related to real-world battlecruisers and even carriers being called "destroyers" while vessels such as Strike-class cruisers and Carrack-class cruisers that are clearly more closely related to real-world escorts being called "cruisers."  Does this make sense or should I clarify what I'm trying to say?  (And, yes, I realize I'm long-winded)--SOCL 05:33, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
 * This does make sense. Admiral J. Nebulax (talk) 12:56, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
 * The ISD functions a bit like a cruiser, but that's not surprising since it's the largest of the canonical Star Destroyers (not SSDs). It still performs destroyer roles like escorting the big battleship (Executor). The Carrack-class is a light cruiser in a smaller warship scale (ROTS ICS calls the larger Dreadnaught-class heavy cruiser "downscaled"). Furthermore, the Carrack is armed with 10 heavy turbolasers for combat against other capital ships, and it's not even always equipped for an escort role (the 20 laser cannons are optional, and can be replaced with ion cannons). JimRaynor55 13:52, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, it's a multi-function warship. I guess it could function as a destroyer. Admiral J. Nebulax (talk) 14:15, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Can we please stop calling some of them Star Dreadnaughts?
Anyone who tries to justify the Star Destroyer's larger types as being dreadnaughts is diving into semantics, semantics about a fictional universe at that. Star Wars is science FICTION, so therefore, real world specifications don't apply. Sure, things that large in real life may be considered dreadnaughts, but this is Star Wars. I mean, come ON people.

Super Star Destroyers are Star DESTROYERS. The Sovereign and Eclipse versions are also Star DESTROYERS.
 * The larger Star Destroyers known as Super Star Destroyers are in fact STAR DREADNOUGHTS. The term "Super Star Destroyer" would be considered slang for the technical term "Star Dreadnoughts". The Executor-class, the Sovereign-class, and the Eclipse-class are all Star DREADNOUGHTS. Cmdr. J. Nebulax 13:34, 3 Sep 2005 (UTC)
 * In Shield of Lies, the Super Star Destroyer is refered to as an Executor-class Star Destroyer. -- SFH 15:46, 3 Sep 2005 (UTC)
 * But the technical term for any warship larger than an Imperial-class Star Destroyer is a Star Dreadnought. Cmdr. J. Nebulax 17:02, 3 Sep 2005 (UTC)
 * No, there are several classes above it, including Star Battlecruisers and the biggest, the Star Dreadnoughts. Likewise there are smaller classes of Frigates and Corvettes. With the Star Destroyers (the classes that fit the term, not the general production-line) being in the middle. VT-16 09:53, 14 Sep 2005 (UTC)
 * You're going by the load of bull that is the Technical Commentaries. I'm telling you people, anyone who takes Curtis Saxton's "facts" to heart has serious problems. Star Wars is fictional and only the people who take Star Wars a little too literally (like the ones who consider the Force to be a religion) would try to apply our real world specifications to fictional warships in fictional novels.
 * I believe that people who obsess over names and phrases being changed have too much free-time and too much of a vested interest in said 'fictional universes'. This is an online encyclopedia, not a complaint department. Stop obsessing over the word 'Star Dreadnought', it´s not as if SSD has been erased from time and space. VT-16 09:59, 14 Sep 2005 (UTC)
 * I believe the Star Dreadnought thing is from Inside the Worlds of Star Wars, via Curtis Saxton - Kwenn
 * And the AOTC and ROTS ICS books. VT-16 10:01, 14 Sep 2005 (UTC)
 * But it is still from Saxon. And in SOL, it was a computer that reffered to it as Executor class Star Destroyer. Why would a computer use slang? -- SFH 17:44, 3 Sep 2005 (UTC)
 * I disagree with it being referred to as slang, and myself consider it the name of a production-line of large warships. The computer may have used that kind of definition. VT-16 10:08, 14 Sep 2005 (UTC)
 * You're still missing the point that Saxton is too literal. This "new name" for Star Destroyers comes from a man who's measured the hanger bay of a little Star Destroyer model and decided that it can only house something as big as a single shuttle. (When, going by novel references and even the original trilogy itself, they can hold many TIEs.)
 * Yes, but the ceiling is so low it can´t allow anyhting bigger than an AT-AT Barge from entering/exiting. VT-16 10:08, 14 Sep 2005 (UTC)
 * Anyone who tries to justify the Star Destroyer's larger types as being dreadnaughts is diving into semantics, semantics about a fictional universe at that. Star Wars is science FICTION, so therefore, real world specifications don't apply.
 * In that case, why bother applying the name "destroyer" to anything in the first place? Why "corvettes" or "frigates"? Why not "blippity-bloppity butt-nuggets"? After all, it´s just fiction? And the Executor fits the name, because it has loads of big guns, which is what Dreadnoughts were noted for, being large battleships with heavy guns. VT-16 09:47, 14 Sep 2005 (UTC)


 * Sure, things that large in real life may be considered dreadnaughts, but this is Star Wars. I mean, come ON people.
 * Yeah, COME ON PEOPLE, let´s start calling 'wheels' in SW "space-donuts". 'Repulsors' is such an icky tehnical terms, why not call them "magic, invisible pixie-balloons"? VT-16 09:47, 14 Sep 2005 (UTC)


 * Super Star Destroyers are Star DESTROYERS. The Sovereign and Eclipse versions are also Star DESTROYERS.
 * They belong to a long line of ships called 'Star Destroyers', a higher sub-line called 'Super Star Destroyers' and are designated 'Star Dreadnoughts', for outclassing other warships in terms of weight, length and firepower. Your definition excludes part of SW-canon and is misleading. VT-16 09:47, 14 Sep 2005 (UTC)

No. Your insistence on "Star Dreadnought" designations is based on a solitary, somewhat rhetorical reference to the Ex as an "ultimate Star Dreadnought", coupled with a claim that this designation is now applied to her in the Holocron (did you actually present proof for this?); this is then combined with an utterly uncanonical assumption that the system of warship designations employed in the GFFA must operate on a specific set of fixed and immutable principles presented at SWTC. The simple truth is this: "[Super] Star Destroyer" remains the majority canonical designation for the Ex-class and the only canonical designation for the Sovereign-class and Eclipse-class ships. At the very least, the 100% fanon designations used as primary headers for the Sovereign-class and Eclipse-class pages should change: is there a formal procedure to propose this? --McEwok 14:17, 14 Sep 2005 (UTC) As to Executor-class Star Dreadnought, I can just about swallow that as a page title, since it is at least implied (though not, I understand, stated outright) by Inside the Worlds, and it has been claimed that it is currently be LFL's preferred "technical" term; but proof of this second claim would be nice, and I will note that, in similar situations of real-world warship-designation confusion, Wikipedia goes with the "popular" name and uses the technical one as a redirect. Thus, Panzerschiff leads to "pocket battleship" and the Kirov-class is described using "Western slang" as a Kirov class battlecruiser, as it was in at least one edition of Jane's Fighting Ships. --McEwok 14:17, 14 Sep 2005 (UTC)
 * Your insane denial of any source related to Curtis Saxton is quite laughable, I must say. And next time try getting your facts straight. The 'Star Dreadnought'-designation is in AOTC:ICS, ROTS:ICS and the ITW:OT. Oh dear, that´s three sources, isn´t it? I also found your use of RL examples of classification changes on another discussion quite humorous. Since, you know, it´s sci-fi and doesn´t matter? ;P VT-16 17:57, 14 Sep 2005 (UTC)
 * You do realise that this discussion isn't about the entirely canonical "Star Dreadnought" designation (which, as I'm sure you know, is based on SWTC's adaption of an out-of date real-world system) but about whether it's the best term to refer to certain Star Destroyer classes? Yes, there are three occurences of the term "Star Dreadnought"; but it's only applied to Ex in one of those instances, and never to Sovereign-class or Mandator-class ships. --McEwok 19:35, 14 Sep 2005 (UTC)
 * I can just about swallow that as a page title, since it is at least implied (though not, I understand, stated outright) by Inside the Worlds
 * Don´t embarass yourself any further by posting lies, ok? It is stated, just like Mandators are stated in AOTC:ICS and ROTS:ICS. But then again, I don´t expect trolls like you to pay attention to icky, messy details like that. VT-16 17:57, 14 Sep 2005 (UTC)
 * I've never seen ItW, so forgive me if I'm wrong: is the phrase "Executor-class Star Dreadnought" given specifically anywhere in the text; or is "ultimate Star Dreadnoughts like the Executor the only reference? And, proof of your claim about the Holocron, while you're at it? If you're right, if there is proof, then post it, and don't waste my time and yours by flaming? --McEwok 19:40, 14 Sep 2005 (UTC)

Personally, my preferred solution would be to reorient Executor-class Star Destroyer, Eclipse-class Star Destroyer and Sovereign-class Star Destroyer as the main pages linked-to from the others. But maybe that's just me? --McEwok 14:25, 14 Sep 2005 (UTC)


 * reads own remarks* Um, was that too harsly-put? Don't take it personally, people.... *worries* --McEwok 14:36, 14 Sep 2005 (UTC)

and I will note that, in similar situations of real-world warship-designation confusion, Wikipedia goes with the "popular" name and uses the technical one as a redirect. That may be what the rebular Wiki does, but it's not how things are done in SW Wiki. We don't use databank retard-speak like "Jedi fighter," "Republic Gunship," or "Turbo Tank" for article titles. We use the actual technical names like "Delta-7 Aethersprite-class starfighter," "Low Altitude Assault Transport," and "A6 Juggernaut Heavy Assault Vehicle/wheeled." We're not going to make an exception for the Executor-class just because you don't like it. JimRaynor55 18:53, 14 Sep 2005 (UTC)
 * And the formal designation "Executor-class Star Dreadnought" is given clearly and unambiguously in which canonical source, please? I know of one phrase, "ultimate Star Dreadnoughts like the Executor"; on the other hand we have "IDENTIFIED: EXECUTOR-CLASS STAR DESTROYER", "This is Major Sil Sorannan, acting-captain of the Star Destroyer Intimidator", and every other source that ever called a Super-class ship any sort of Star Destroyer. --McEwok 19:35, 14 Sep 2005 (UTC)


 * I know of one phrase, "ultimate Star Dreadnoughts like the Executor"
 * Yep, there´s your source. And Star Dreadnought has alreday been established as a classification, so there´s no escaping it. But it´s nice to see you´re still pretending it isn´t canon. VT-16 09:10, 15 Sep 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm not denying the canonicity of the Star Dreadnought classification - just poining out that the current grounds for applying it to the Ex-class are based on one canon reference (in a passage of disputable terminological precision); this is a very slim evidence base, and massively outweighed by the evidence for the being for [Super] Star Destroyer, unless it's true that it's in the Holocron. Even worse, direct evidence for applying the "Star Dreadnought" designation to the Eclipse-class and Sovereign-class designs simply does not exist. Your claim that they are SDDs is based not simply on a designation pattern that is not explicitly oulined in any canon source, but, worse, which you have no evidence should apply to these classes even if it were'. -McEwok 21:51, 16 Sep 2005 (UTC)

And the formal designation "Executor-class Star Dreadnought" is given clearly and unambiguously in which' canonical source, please? I know of one phrase, "ultimate Star Dreadnoughts like the Executor";' Are you intentionally trying to be dense? ITW calls it Executor-class. In the same sentence, it says it's a Star Dreadnaught. We know Star Dreadnaught is a ship type from the Episode II and III ICS, which mention Mandator-class and Mandator II-class Star Dreadnaughts. It's not that hard to put two and two together. JimRaynor55 20:29, 14 Sep 2005 (UTC)
 * It is outlined in the ITW:OT, you lying piece of shit. You haven´t even read it, have you, you fucking moron? VT-16 01:10, 17 Sep 2005 (UTC)

Yes. But that's not a formal designation. If someone said "ultimate Dreadnoughts like the Yamato", or "ultimate Star Cruisers like the Imperial Star Destroyer", that would not mean that "Dreadnought" or "Star Druiser" were the correct or formal designations of the ships in question. Would it? --McEwok 21:51, 16 Sep 2005 (UTC) on the other hand we have "IDENTIFIED: EXECUTOR-CLASS STAR DESTROYER", A mere text message from an R2 droid to its starfighter pilot. R2s have been known to develop personalities and act like people, and this R2 droid has been serving the New Republic. There's absolutely no reason to believe it was being formal, and plenty of reason to believe that it has picked up Rebel slang. JimRaynor55 20:29, 14 Sep 2005 (UTC)
 * Star Dreadnought was the designation of the Mandators, Star Dreadnought was again used for the Executor in ITW:OT, you misleading, lying piece of shit. VT-16 01:10, 17 Sep 2005 (UTC)

There's absolutely no reason to believe that ItW is providing a formal designation either. We have to go on the majority evidence. [Super] Star Destroyer. Live with it. --McEwok 21:51, 16 Sep 2005 (UTC) "This is Major Sil Sorannan, acting-captain of the Star Destroyer Intimidator", Higher ranking Imperials than this Major have used slang terms like SSD before, and I assume this guy was speaking to New Republic characters (was he?). Again, no reason to believe he was using technical terms. JimRaynor55 20:29, 14 Sep 2005 (UTC)
 * The formal designation was given there, but you haven´t even read the book, so why should you care, you trolling bastard? VT-16 01:10, 17 Sep 2005 (UTC)

There's still absolutely no reason to believe that ItW is providing a formal designation either. We have to go on the majority evidence. [Super] Star Destroyer. Live with it. --McEwok 21:51, 16 Sep 2005 (UTC)

and every other source that ever called a Super-class ship any sort of Star Destroyer. You're relying on supposed guides that make use of corrupted slang, imply the existence of a ship (the Super) that never existed, and state that the Executor-class' length is 8 km? Real reliable source there. JimRaynor55 20:29, 14 Sep 2005 (UTC)

Well, I was simply using Super-class informally as a term that everyone knows the meaning of; but while we're here, the Aegis-class cruiser, the Surveyors of the Navy-class ship of the line, and the Weapon-class destroyer all had name ships called... oh, wait, no they didn't. And before you start saying I can't use real-world analogies - where else did Saxton get his idea about the supposed incorrectness of "Super-class" except by real-world analogies? --McEwok 21:51, 16 Sep 2005 (UTC)

The Inside the Worlds and Incredible Cross Sections books had one common thread...Curtis Saxton was the author on those books. -- SFH 02:28, 15 Sep 2005 (UTC) Never the less, Saxton is the common thread. I do not believe we should except a designation from a man who is selective on issue's of cannon. -- SFH 14:28, 15 Sep 2005 (UTC) Despite abundant evidence that the Ewoks survived the battle of Endor, Saxton continues to insist that the Endor Hoolocaust happened. This really stretches his credibility. -- SFH 19:23, 16 Sep 2005 (UTC) VT, you really think the people at LFL care as much about this as we do? I tend to suspect they don't have the background or the inclination, and they have better things to do; but ICS is irrelevant here. Whatever your view on the advisability of allowing them through the gate, Mandy-class and Mandy-II Star Dreadnoughts are now canon. The question is - is one reference in a passage of questionable terminological precision enough to justify calling the Ex-class a Star Dreadnought here, still less Eclipse-class and Sovereign-class? Why should a solitary reference to one SSD class as an SDD be extrapolated to using this unfamiliar designations for three classes? Why not just call them all "Star Destroyers" in the page headers? --McEwok 21:51, 16 Sep 2005 (UTC)
 * Wrong. James Luceno wrote the ITW: OT, with Saxton as a consultant. Saxton wrote the AOTC and ROTS ICS. And they all have to go through Lucas Licencing editors before being published, so don´t try to skirt that issue. VT-16 09:10, 15 Sep 2005 (UTC)
 * In other words, contradict an official source. Thank you and goodbye. VT-16 17:47, 16 Sep 2005 (UTC)
 * Has this view been published? No? Then it has nothing to do with this discussion. VT-16 01:10, 17 Sep 2005 (UTC)
 * Read the passage I quoted on the Star Dreadnought and Executor Star Dreadnought. And I called them by their popular name on each name-tag below their pictures.
 * And for the record, I don´t believe you really care that much, either. This site has become nothing more than a soapbox for you, and the only thing I´ve seen you do here is try to start some shit with other people. Btw, nice attempt at deflection, by trivializing the issue. I´ve seen your type in debates before, and don´t fall for it.
 * In fact, here´s my patented, un-ambiguous, "objective" advice I like to give to people like you: Fuck. Off. VT-16 01:10, 17 Sep 2005 (UTC)


 * Okaaaay....... I thought I was a Star Wars nerd..... Call them what they are labeled as in the most officious source no matter how uninvolved that source is. Just interchange the title used between Star Dreadnought and SSD throughout the article. P.S: Anger is an enemy of thoughtful debate (I realize I'm a little late).

Chart
How about this: []
 * Perhaps someone should make or find a chart that compares the sizes of the major star destroyers like: Executor, Eclipse, Imperial, Victory, Venator and stuff like that. It would be a great edition for this article in someone could make\find that to post it here. --24.247.126.44 21:02, 16 Nov 2005 (UTC)
 * I have found many, but they are all fan-made and crappy and show fan-made creations (like a "Grave-class heavy cruiser" or something like that). Cmdr. J. Nebulax 21:08, 16 Nov 2005 (UTC)
 * Now, the hard part&mdash;you'd have to name all of the ships in the image. Cmdr. J. Nebulax 21:17, 16 Nov 2005 (UTC)
 * Not neccesarily:. It's actually an image map created by Curtis Saxton. There's also one copied from The Imperial Sourcebook here, but the Executor size is of course disputed-LtNOWIS 22:47, 16 Nov 2005 (UTC)
 * Well, itsn't it true that the sizes of the Eclipse and Sovereign were disputed once as well? Cmdr. J. Nebulax 00:18, 17 Nov 2005 (UTC)
 * Someone should upload the picture in the article.
 * Exactly, because the last two times, it only screwed it up. Cmdr. J. Nebulax 00:51, 19 Nov 2005 (UTC)
 * Would copying Saxton's images qualify as "fair use", though? 01:01, 19 Nov 2005 (UTC)
 * Probably not. Cmdr. J. Nebulax 01:04, 19 Nov 2005 (UTC)

Identity
Can anyone identify this type of Star Destroyer?





Razzy1319 08:28, 15 Dec 2005 (UTC)
 * Unnamed. See: Flagship (Admiral Giel's). --SparqMan 08:36, 15 Dec 2005 (UTC)
 * We seriously need authors/artists to be more specific on things when they write/draw their books/comics. Admiral J. Nebulax 19:05, 15 Dec 2005 (UTC)
 * I've heard that the Hyperspace "What's the Story" competition will eventually move towards EU material as they run out of film stuff. This might lead to some more classes being properly named. 25 years isn't long to wait for something in this fandom. :P VT-16 15:26, 22 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Bakura-class
These ships are Star Destroyers. Cracken's Threat Dossier designates them as such. 130.68.73.51 01:52, 16 Dec 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry but that's just a flat out lie. Nowhere in Cracken's Threat Dossier does it name them Star Destroyer's. It only ever calls them Bakura-class Destoyer's. -Jaymach Ral'Tir 02:07, 16 Dec 2005 (UTC)
 * Take a closer look. The ship is named "Bakura-class Destroyer", but the actual type they give is Star Destroyer. CTD treats the Bakura-class the same way The Imperial Sourcebook treated the Victory-class. In the ISB, the VSD was simply named "Victory-Class Destroyer," with later text and the info box stating that it was a Star Destroyer. JimRaynor55 06:59, 16 Dec 2005 (UTC)
 * I still don't think it's a Star Destroyer. They might say "Star Destroyer" there, but who knows, books get things mixed up all the time. They probably meant "Destroyer" instead. Admiral J. Nebulax 12:44, 16 Dec 2005 (UTC)
 * We shouldn't assume the books got it wrong unless there's actually evidence of it. Their Star Destroyer status is canon, and they weren't treated any differently than the VSD was in the ISB. JimRaynor55 20:59, 16 Dec 2005 (UTC)
 * Who knows. Admiral J. Nebulax 21:03, 16 Dec 2005 (UTC)
 * According to the books, the authors do. ;P VT-16 15:26, 22 Dec 2005 (UTC)
 * Good point. Admiral J. Nebulax 19:43, 22 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Orbital Bombardment
Wasn't one of the primary roles of this class of star ship to subjugate worlds by bombarding them? I think it came up several times in the Essential Vehicles guide as well as in a few of the books (one of the NJO books has the Lusyanka (spelling error on my part probably) bombarding a platoon or so of Yuuzhan Vong and mentioning it as one of the roles of the ships), yet it doesn't seem to be in the article itself.
 * Any ship with turbolasers can bombard a planet. The Acclamator, mere transports, can easily melt the surface of a planet in less than an hour. There's no need to point it out in this article as if it's a special feature of Star Destroyers. JimRaynor55 07:25, 9 Jan 2006 (UTC)


 * Excatly. Any ship with the turbolasers capable of doing it can pound a planet into subjugation without ever launching a transport. It's not specific to Star Destroyers or any other type of captial ship. --AdmThrawn 07:29, 9 Jan 2006 (UTC)
 * "There's no need to point it out in this article as if it's a special feature of Star Destroyers". Well, it should still be added anyway. Admiral J. Nebulax 21:50, 9 Jan 2006 (UTC)
 * Then we'd have to mention the Invisible Hand as well, evne though it's not usually regarded as an SD. =/ VT-16 17:44, 12 Jan 2006 (UTC)
 * That's true. Admiral J. Nebulax 20:17, 12 Jan 2006 (UTC)
 * But doesn't it say somewhere that a Star Destroyer is specially designed to be able to bring nearly all of it weapons to bear in such a bombardment whereas other ships tend to lack the profile?--OompaLoompa of DOOM 17:02, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Obvious Omissions
While Star Destroyers were the heaviest combatants in many fleets composed of standard cruisers and frigates, they perform an escort role when in the presence of larger warships Is this really necessary? When isn't a warship capable of switching to an escort role in the presence of larger ships. If you can think of a ship designed for combat that is incapable of an escort role, please mention it here. To me it's just too obvious.
 * Obvious or not, I think it's fine and should stay in the article. Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Implogo.jpg|20px]] 19:16, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
 * It's necessary only because certain individuals refuse to believe their different roles in Starfleet. WEG focused on small-scale operations, where Star Destroyers were the biggest ships around, and there was no mention of all the times they served as escorts for many different types of larger ships. Some individuals then took these sources (which were written from an in-universe POW and were self-admittedly incomplete) to be absolute and complete (which is nice, when you think others will never actually read them and discover they're not).
 * Basically, months of bitter and wasteful debating (which I found out a few months ago had been on-going for years) necessitated writing certain things down in detail, to avoid any personal assumptions from being automatically accepted instead, this being an encyclopedia and not a soap-box. I think I'll go back one of these days and rewrite or remove redundant parts from certain articles, since it's clear now that only a handful ever objected in the first place. VT-16 13:16, 2 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for clearing that up. Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Implogo.jpg|20px]] 19:20, 2 May 2006 (UTC)