Talk:Star Dreadnought/Legends

Hmm. AFAIK, while Inside the Worlds has reduced "SSD" to slang, it doesn't provides proper proof that Star Dreadnaught was the standard technical designation of either SSD class; cf. the consistent use of "Star Destroyer" in ESB, and the identification of the Intimidator as an "'EXECUTOR-CLASS STAR DESTROYER" by the astromech of the Jennie Lee in Shield of Lies. Partially, my objection is that the whole Star Dreadnaught concept represents nothing more than the Freudian rape of continuity by the aggressive 'shipping of a fanon idea; but in pure technical terms, the evidence remains poor, at best. --McEwok 10:09, 17 Aug 2005 (UTC)
 * Stop whining. The statement that "Super Star Destroyer" is slang perfectly explains away any use of the term in the movies or in Shield of Lies. JimRaynor55 10:19, 17 Aug 2005 (UTC)
 * No. "Star Destroyer" isn't the same as "Super Star Destroyer". IFF displays don't use slang. There's an established body of EU material identifies SSDs as a massive upscaling of the Star Destroyer concept. In other words, established canon already implies that "Super Star Destroyer" is slang - but also suggests that "Star Destroyer" is the correct designation, no matter how much larger than most other Star Destroyers the Ex may be.
 * Beyond that, there's more than one way to explain the aberrant "Star Dreadnaught" designation in ItW. Saxton's attempts at a canonical rectonn are only valid in themselves, within the wider context of EU canon; they do not imply acceptance of his fan theories on which they are based, and they shouldn't be treated as if they do. For instance, his insistence that SW ships must conform to a scale-based classification system is simply wrong.
 * So, no I'm not 'whining' - simply imposing some necessary rigour on the material. I'll argue my point tenaciously - sometimes too tenaciously - but I always try to keep the difference between argument and fact, or fanon and canon, clear in my mind. --McEwok 13:20, 17 Aug 2005 (UTC)
 * For instance, his insistence that SW ships must conform to a scale-based classification system is simply wrong. No it isn't.
 * The exact quote from ITW is "Eventually designated the Executor-class after the vessel assigned to Vader's personal use and commanded by Admiral Ozzel, it is usually referred to in rebel slang as a "Super Star Destroyer" -- a term that covers many warship classes bigger than a Star Destroyer, from Star Cruisers to ultimate Star Dreadnaughts like Executor." From this quote, we can draw several conclusions: 1)The term "Star Destroyer" only truly applies to warships of a certain size.  2)There are a range of "Star" level warships, including Star Destroyers, Cruisers, and Dreadnaughts.  Saxton even got to add the Munificent-class Star Frigate in ROTS ICS, which, at 825 meters long, is larger than WEG's non-Star level "heavy cruisers."  3)The Executor IS a Star Dreadnaught.JimRaynor55 03:50, 19 Aug 2005 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the quote. Would you be surprised if I said I disagreed with your interpretation? There are, IMHO, two issues with this passage that make it untrustworthy.
 * Most importantly, what is meant by "Star Destroyer" in the phrase "bigger than a Star Destroyer"? At least one design, that of the Allegiance, seems to be accepted even by the most fanatical redesignator as both a Star Destroyer and a Super Star Destroyer: it is accepted as a Star Destroyer by SWTC, while being referred to as a SSD in narrative. "Bigger than a Star Destroyer" could thus be - perhaps even must be - a semantically clumsy phrase meaning "bigger than a standard Star Destroyer": at the least, it is problematic, and cannot be overinterpreted to provide an absolute Star Destroyer/SSD contrast. Thus: the terms "Star Destroyer" and "Super Star Destroyer" are not definitively shown to be mutually exclusive here. The only conclusion we can draw is that some "Super Star Destroyers" are (at least to some people) more correctly classified as Star Cruisers or Star Dreadnaughts.
 * Then there's the description of the term "Super Star Destroyer" as "Rebel slang". This is demonstrably inaccurate and pejorative. The term is used both in dialogue among Imperial officers (Darksaber, Ch. 20, hardback p. 141) and in narrative sections told from their POVs (HttE, Ch. 1, paperback p. 7). Moreover, we find simple "Star Destroyer" applied to Executor-class ships not only by the Recon-X astromech (SoL, p. 320) but also by Sorannan (TT, p. 312), and implicitly, Thrawn (HttE, p. 51 "other Star Destroyers" is an implied semantic contrast with the earlier reference to Ex in the same dialogue). These are neither Rebels nor are they using slang idioms: this mitigates against the superficially narrow usage implied by the text here, and raises further eyebrows about the accuracy of this section of ItW.
 * In short, rigorous semantic analysis reveals this passage as semantically unreliable and biased. The statement "usually referred to in Rebel slang as a 'Super Star Destroyer'" cannot be taken to mean that Rebel slang was the only idiom in which the term "Super Star Destroyer" was used (it wasn't); nor does the limitation of the SSD moniker to "warship classes bigger than a Star Destroyer" necessarily imply that no SSDs were really "Star Destroyers" (some, at least, would indeed seem to have been). So, similarly, the description of the Ex as an "ultimate Star Dreadnaught" cannot be relied on to be a literally and simplistically accurate report of her correct designation.
 * I rest my case. --McEwok 13:41, 19 Aug 2005 (UTC)


 * Most importantly, what is meant by "Star Destroyer" in the phrase "bigger than a Star Destroyer"? "Star Destroyer" in that sentence is referring to a general type of starship. The sentence is discussing a range of starship types, such as Star Destroyers, Cruisers, and Dreadnaughts.  Furthermore, the next sentence states (emphasis mine) "Over one hundred times more massive than a common Star Destroyer and almost 12 times as long, the Executor bristles with more than 5000 turbolasers and ion cannons, and carries wings of star fighters and two pre assembled garrison bases." The modifier "common," makes it clear that the sentence is referring to a certain class, or classes, of Star Destroyer (most likely the ISD), as opposed to the previous sentence, which did not use any modifier.
 * At least one design, that of the Allegiance, seems to be accepted even by the most fanatical redesignator as both a Star Destroyer and a Super Star Destroyer: it is accepted as a Star Destroyer by SWTC, while being referred to as a SSD in narrative. Resorting to fanon when it suits you? You have no canon proof what the Allegiance is exactly.  There have been some fans who have hypothesized that it was a light cruiser.
 * "Bigger than a Star Destroyer" could thus be - perhaps even must be - a semantically clumsy phrase meaning "bigger than a standard Star Destroyer": at the least, it is problematic, and cannot be overinterpreted to provide an absolute Star Destroyer/SSD contrast. Thus: the terms "Star Destroyer" and "Super Star Destroyer" are not definitively shown to be mutually exclusive here. This has absolutely nothing to do with the issue. The quote never says that a large Star Destroyer can't be a SSD, only that many ship types larger than a Star Destroyer (no modifier used) are referred to in slang as SSDs.  What IS relevant in that quote is that Star Destroyers are smaller than Star Cruisers and Star Dreadnaughts, and thus the term cannot be an intimidating-sounding name with no regard to size, as you would probably like to believe. JimRaynor55 11:03, 20 Aug 2005 (UTC)
 * All of what you offer is merely possible interpretation. (1.) You could equally argue that "common Star Destroyer" is as distinct from Executor-class Star Destroyer; (2.) I was pointing out that Saxton is elsewhere prepared to accept a SD/SSD overlap - so analysing his other work helps us analysis what that phrase may mean (and I'm pretty sure her sister-ships are called "Gauntlet Star Destroyers" in DE2); (3.) That's your interpretation, mere semantics: the idea of a rigid scaling-based designation system is merely implicit, and contradicted by multiple sources - to the evidence I cited already, I can add even Eclipse as a 'mere' "Star Destroyer", here. --McEwok 13:56, 20 Aug 2005 (UTC)

Regarding the latest edit: what, exactly, are these Marvel-era "Dreadnaughts"? I can think of the obsolescent 2km Dreadnaught in one of the Han Solo novels, which would certainly satisfy the literal meaning; and of course, there's the Eye of Palpatine. We also have fast ~2km "battlecruisers" used as flagships by Tagge and Vader. But none of these actually takes away from the combat primacy of the Star Destroyer, endorsed by canon evidence. --McEwok 00:27, 21 Aug 2005 (UTC)