Talk:Super-class Star Destroyer

Perhaps the 8k ships should be called the Mandator-class? At least that way we have a ship to hang Dr. Saxton's term on, and we get to keep the 8km ships at a reasonable amount for their expense and appearences. SSDs can be apportioned to a class as they are described, though I suspect the Executor and Lusankya should remain unique superships. As for the Super -class, use only as a general term for Imperial Warships above 5K in length.

The Swarm War
Denning confirmed the existence of the class in this book. Luke compares the size of a Killik Nestship to that of a S-class. Can somebody please dig up The Unseen Queen and check if it has something to say about how big they were? Charlii 07:39, 4 Jan 2006 (UTC)
 * Who needs books when you have Wikis? ;) They're 8km, I'd say we have something confirmed here... Charlii 07:40, 4 Jan 2006 (UTC)
 * Agreed...anyone else think we should fix this article to be non-conjectural but talk about an actual class? Thanos6 01:47, 5 Jan 2006 (UTC)
 * Star Dreadnought has never appeared outside the Inside the Worlds books, but you would be surprised at how readily people dismiss 15 years of canon sources for Curtis Saxton. -- SFH 01:52, 5 Jan 2006 (UTC)
 * So, anyway...should we make a REAL page for an 8km ship next to the 19km one (or however big the Executor is today)? Thanos6 01:54, 5 Jan 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, do we have any options? There is a compleately canon ship-class called Super-class Star Destroyer with an approximate length of 8km. This have to be in the wiki. Charlii 02:36, 5 Jan 2006 (UTC)
 * We should NOT assume there's an 8 km long ship that looks somewhat like the Executor-class because of The Unseen Queen. God, you're acting like this is some kind of new revelation or something that actually proves the 8 km length.  We've had over a DECADE of "Super-class" mentions.  We know that they always meant ships of the Executor's class, and OFFICIAL sources tell us that "Super-class is a general term most likely slang. JimRaynor55 07:11, 5 Jan 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually, it's not TUQ, it's TSW. Thanos6 07:11, 5 Jan 2006 (UTC)
 * As far as I know this is the first mention of a 8km Super-class Star Destroyer since they retconed the length of Ex. Charlii 10:26, 5 Jan 2006 (UTC)
 * You do realize that mistakes can happen, and that not everyone's always up to date with the latest retcon, right? Do you seriously think they intentionally decided to make an 8 km long Super-class that looks mostly like the Executor, except with WEG's sloppy deformities, after they just retconned it away? JimRaynor55 10:51, 5 Jan 2006 (UTC)
 * Of course, but this is such a big debate that it's unlikely that a fan-aware author like Denning would have missed it. This is a subtle wink to the fleet-junkies who have come up with this and similar concept to explain the ambigious length of SSD's. If we're discussing hard canon, we only know that there sometime existed a class called Super-class SD and that it was approx. 8km. I wouldn't say that we can just copy the old WEG stats and claim that this is the answer to every question before we have a official cofirmation, but I'm certain that was the intent. Should we split the article a little, separating what we do know from what we suspect? Charlii 11:05, 5 Jan 2006 (UTC)
 * Am I being very mischevious if I point out that "hard canon" contains lots and lots of detailed references to the 8km Super-class in the WEG stats and novels? I'm checking right now to see how many canon statements there are that explicitly identify Executor as an 8km Super-class ship from the POV of people who really should know, but from what I've found so far, most of these should be tweakable. For instance, Pellaeon's remark in Darksaber, "Only Executor was this big—and that one ship practically bankrupted the Empire", could be explained as a shocked reaction based on an inaccurate visual "eyeballing" of Knight Hammer, quietly corrected by Cronus' subsequent remarks that describe her explicitly as an 8km SSD; and we certainly can't assume that there aren't Super-class ships, either. The only thing we actually lack to make this is firm canon is a direct, explicit statement that the Ex was misidentified as an 8km Super-class, and if we ascribe any integrity to the in-universe sources and POVs that claim she is one, then such an assumption seems almost an inevitable inference. Though obviously, LFL could do something very different. --McEwok 16:05, 5 Jan 2006 (UTC)
 * Am I being very mischevious if I point out that "hard canon" contains lots and lots of detailed references to the 8km Super-class in the WEG stats and novels?
 * For sister-ships of the Executor, this has been retconned. I don't know how many times you have to be proverbially beaten over the head with an iron-rod before understanding the concept of "revisions". VT-16 21:59, 6 Jan 2006 (UTC)


 * Star Dreadnought has never appeared outside the Inside the Worlds books, but you would be surprised at how readily people dismiss 15 years of canon sources for Curtis Saxton.
 * The reasons for supporting this name has nothing to do with a specific individual and everything to do with the role and power of the ships in question. VT-16 21:59, 6 Jan 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't know how many times you have to be proverbially beaten over the head with an iron-rod before understanding the concept of "revisions"
 * I've always understood the concept; I'm just pointing out that your supposed "revision" doesn't exist. True, the length of Ex has been changed, but there is zero evidence that the retconn length for Executor applies to all Super-class ships; ranged against the purely theoretical fanon idea that it might be, there are all the old canon references to 8km ships, the Figurine mag. claim that there were only one or two 19km ships, and now, I hear, a reference in The Swarm War to 8km Super-class ships. It's possible that at some point, canon evidence might appear that unambiguously transforms all the 8km ships into 19km ones; but it's also possible that future canon clarificaton might support the distinction between an 8km Super-class and the 19km Executor, or even junk the 19km figure altogether&mdash;and while the evidence certainly isn't explicit, it remains at present clearly weighted in favour of the existence of an 8km "Super-class Star Destroyer.


 * The reasons for supporting this name has nothing to do with a specific individual and everything to do with the role and power of the ships in question
 * No, it has to do with a specific interpretation of how the role and power of the ships in question should be defined, largely confined to a specific clique of fans, and supported in canon only by one rhetorical reference to "ultimate Star Dreadnoughts like Executor". --McEwok 23:00, 6 Jan 2006 (UTC)

take a look at the Tarkin-superweapon on the wiki. In the bottom right there is a Super-class ship. The SD at a roughly 45 degree angle down to the left of it looks to be at about the same height. What is important is that it is nowhere near 19km in the picture and the 'rough' part of the hull where all the extras are kept, along with the command tower stops nearly a third of the shiplength from the bow. The pic being used as the Super-class pic right now also has the same. The important part here is the length of the ship and that the Executer had its crenulated area reaching much farthur forward, closer to less than a quarter of the ships length remaining before the bow. Doesnt that count as hard Cannon for the Super-class apart from the Executer class? Having not read that comic I don't know if that ship was ever named or classified.

Figurine collection info?
People, is this really necessary? Using a low-canon source to dispell the fact that the Executor has many sister-ships, just so the phrase Super-class can somehow become more valid, seems a bit excessive. It's the kind of behaviour I'd expect of McEwok, not other contributors. To prove a point, here's what the official site said (and you know things have gotten stupid, when I have to quote "Pablo's Playground"):

The Executor was the first of a new generation of immense warships, a Super''-class Star Destroyer. Constructed in secret at the starship yards of Fondor, the Executor was a crowning achievement for both the Imperial Navy and Kuat Drive Yards. During the construction phase of its existence, the whole operation was under the command of Admiral Griff.''

''The Executor's maiden voyage was both a military mission and a political one. It was a demonstration to the Rebellion and the galaxy that the Alliance's success over the Death Star was pure chance. This new weapon, of which there would be many, would be unstoppable.''

In other words, there's really no reason to do a massive, contrived revisioning of many of the Executor-class ships, simply to bring every single source into line. Unless actually stated to have a form dissimilar to the Executor, every 8km Super-class vessel should be considered a 19km Executor-class ship. Why is this so hard to accept? Why the incessant need for minimalization? Does the Empire's capacity to build multiple 19km vessels suddenly seem "unrealistic"? Is the intentions of the film crew hard to swallow after all these years of constant EU minimalization? I'm not against the notion of 8km ships, or even the Super-class name, but there has to be quite alot of proof behind this, not just reiteration of a revised length. VT-16 20:10, 6 Jan 2006 (UTC)
 * Databank text: The Executor was the first of a new generation of immense warships, a Super-class Star Destroyer.... This new weapon, of which there would be many, would be unstoppable.
 * Given that the databank elsewhere describes Eclipse and the Sovereign as belonging to the "last generation of Super-class Star Destroyers", I think it's pretty clear that Super-class Star Destroyer here refers to a variety of different hullforms, united by being gargantuan Star Destroyers. And no, this doesn't contradict the idea that Super-class can also specifically indicate 8km ships... it's just a nuance of meaning.


 * Unless actually stated to have a form dissimilar to the Executor, every 8km Super-class vessel should be considered a 19km Executor-class ship.
 * Why? What's wrong with the idea that unless actually stated to be 19km, they should stay at 8km?


 * I'm not against the notion of 8km ships, or even the Super-class name
 * So what's your objection to this page, exactly, given that the inferential nature of the evidence has been noted? There is recent evidence to indicate that even after the 19km revision of Ex, the 8km Super-class remains. --McEwok 23:10, 6 Jan 2006 (UTC)

VT-16: ''People, is this really necessary? Using a low-canon source to dispell the fact that the Executor has many sister-ships, just so the phrase Super-class can somehow become more valid, seems a bit excessive.'' There are no low-canon sources. All C-canon sources are equally valid, and the reconciliation of discrepancies between them is handled on a case-by-case basis. Additionally, the existence of a Super-class, should there be one (and I remind you that the page does still have a Disputed tag), does not automatically make all non-Executor ships a part of it.

''In other words, there's really no reason to do a massive, contrived revisioning of many of the Executor-class ships, simply to bring every single source into line. Unless actually stated to have a form dissimilar to the Executor, every 8km Super-class vessel should be considered a 19km Executor-class ship. Why is this so hard to accept?'' Because saying they should be the same doesn't make the old references go away. How should we deal with this? Should we abandon our suspension of disbelief every time we see a Super-class, or should we try to make it somehow fit *within* our SoD?

''Why the incessant need for minimalization? Does the Empire's capacity to build multiple 19km vessels suddenly seem "unrealistic"?'' It's not about minimalization. There could be fifty sister ships of Lady Ex, for all I care. It's a question of explaining past facts in the context of Star Wars - if we suspend our disbelief, then we must explain why, within the universe, we have these disparate facts. Does the Empire having *both* 19km and 8 km ships somehow make it a lesser organization than having 19km ships alone?

Is the intentions of the film crew hard to swallow after all these years of constant EU minimalization? Film crew intentions (besides those of George Lucas himself) aren't canon. They're good to reference when there's NO answer, but not a substitute from something that's actually published in-universe.

I'm not against the notion of 8km ships, or even the Super-class name, but there has to be quite alot of proof behind this, not just reiteration of a revised length. Well, we have the tweaked Imperial Sourcebook image you reminded us of; we have statistics and an armament loadout that doesn't fit well with that of the Executor; and we have the new reference in The Swarm War. I'd say that's plenty of evidence to at least have a page on the ship, even if it remains Disputed for the foreseeable future or is even eventually shown to be wrong. jSarek 00:33, 7 Jan 2006 (UTC)


 * There's no problem with having an 8km ship class, but it's obvious that the "Super-class" has always been intended to be the class of the Executor. Unless The Swarm War directly says the "Super class" is not the same class as the Executor, it's far more likely that it's just an ignorant author blindly repeating the old and incorrect name/stats for what's 'actually' a 19km ship. I do agree that there should be a page for the Super-class, and it should probably be marked as Disputed. --Vermilion 01:41, 7 Jan 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for giving me clear and consise answers, guys. It's apparantly a chore for some people to do that these days without adding a lot of personal spin, so I appreciate it when it comes along. As for the 8km/19km Executor ships, when a ship is said to be of Executor/Lusenkya stock (or whatever term was used) it is implyed to be the same type of ship. If it were not, then it would make as much sense to say that Imperial-class ships come from the Victory stock, just because they look superficially similar. If there's a reference to the Executor when a similar ship is described, then I'd say the revised length applies to this specific vessel. If no such comparison is used, then this 8km Super-class is a good placeholder. VT-16 02:40, 7 Jan 2006 (UTC)

Jedi Counseling 84
Here's the latest from WOTC: "Q: In Starships of the Galaxy, the Executor (Vader's Super Star Destroyer) is listed with a length of 8,000 meters, but in the text it's described as being eight times the length of an Imperial-class Star Destroyer, which would be 12,800 meters. Which is correct?

A: Actually, they're both wrong because the official size of Super Star Destroyers has been revised. Thus, here's some official errata: The Executor is 19,000 meters long, as are all Super Star Destroyers of the same class."

Time to get rid of this conjectural (translation: written in denial) article once and for all, and replace it with a short article explaining its true canon meaning, which is a general term that covers the Executor, Eclipse, and Sovereign-classes. JimRaynor55 03:57, 10 March 2006 (UTC) All the Jedi Counseling article says is that the Executor itself, as well as "all other Super Star Destroyers of the same class" are 19,000m. This doesn't discount the fact that there could easily be 8km SSD's, such as the one in new Dark Nest Trilogy and, quite possibley, any others stated to be 8km and not stated canonically to be either the same size as the Ex, or as being Ex-classes themselves. &mdash;Jaymach Ral'Tir (talk) 23:13, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I just want to run this by you guys before I change this entire article. So does everyone agree that it's obvious that the 8 km and 12.8 km lengths were retconned away, and are not for a distinct class of ship separate from Executor? JimRaynor55 23:03, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
 * 8km and 12.8km lengths were retconned as far as I was concerned; 19,000 meters all the way. --Danik Kreldin 23:06, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Vengeance?
Why does it say there was an SSD called Vengeance in Empire at War?

There certainly isn't a model for one in the game code, but I havent finished the campaign so I'm not sure.

There is not one, that should be corrected. Trucidar 10:30, 30 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Ok, i just wanted to check. Freaky dug 13:24, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Imperial Sourcebook
Going over this book, this profile and the picture is used for the Executor, which has "Super Star Destroyer" and "Super-class Star Destroyer" used interchangeably. It's clear that this is just an interchangable term, like Imperial Star Destroyer and Imperial-class Star Destroyer, so can't we just condense this article into being another term for SSD, and let that be it? VT-16 07:14, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Please, what is the problem with having a disputed article on the subject? The whole SSD-affair is a big mess as it is, providing explanations should be our priority. See this article as a place to keep the old stats around and to have a discussion about where they might be applieciable in the spirit of having a unified continuity whitout relying on out-of-universe explanations. Charlii 07:35, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
 * It's not a big mess anymore. Any additional mentions of "8km long Super-class SD" would easily be chalked up to poor research on the writer's part. They changed the length and armament of the Executor-class and that's that. No need harping on information that isn't canon anymore. And what was the reference in "Swarm War" anyway? Did they specifically mention the above or just "8km long bug ships, whatever, comparable with Super-class SDs" (a term used interchangably with Super Star Destroyers, anyway). VT-16 17:15, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
 * They compared the SSD which was in that book as being as large as the 8km-long bug ships...but I'll have to find the exact quote. &mdash;Jaymach Ral'Tir (talk) 17:17, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Ah, then it was the size of the bugship that was referred to first. A bit harder for it to be a repeat of the old 8km SSD fallacy, then. Alright, conceeded. :) VT-16 21:41, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Face the facts, the 8 km length was wrong from the beginning and retconned away. There is no separate 8 km Executor clone.  If that book said that a SSD was as large as an 8 km bug ship, take into consideration two things: that it was likely a mistake, and that large =/= long.  This article should be shortened to one sentence saying that "Super-class Star Destroyer" is a term known to apply to the the Executor, Eclipse, and Sovereign-classes, which is what we see in the official databank. JimRaynor55 22:59, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
 * The Super-class Star Destroyer, at the very least, exists on paper In-Universe, as the section of the Imperial Sourcebook which it was detailed in was written In-Universe. Now we can retcon away every single instance of the SSD's to be 19km, I couldn't really care less, but the fact that it exists on paper IU, at the very least, can not be disputed. &mdash;Jaymach Ral'Tir (talk) 23:24, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I was going to say that only a version of the sourcebook exists IU, and that the specific 8 km length only appears in a block of game stats which were presumably not in the report the Alliance got. Still, it does specifically say "...the Super-class Star Destroyer is the largest warship ever produced.  Five times the length of an Imperial Star Destroyer..." so that objection doesn't work.  However, the introduction says that although Arhul Hextrophon read and submitted it, he suspected some of it may have been misformation from double agents.  I guess they had to pencil in a few corrections after the Battle of Hoth. &mdash;Silly Dan (talk) 23:40, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't even know why this article is even allowed to exist, even with a disclaimer. It's intentionally deceptive, by saying that the 8 km Super-class was confused with the larger Executor-class.  No, the Super IS the Executor, only before LFL got around to cleaning up its own errors.  Everyone know's that's the case. JimRaynor55 02:58, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
 * If you want to put it on VFD, go ahead. It seems to me this should either redirect to SSD continuity issues, redirect to Executor-class Star Destroyer, or kept as an out-of-universe disambiguation page of some sort, but I don't much care which. &mdash;Silly Dan (talk) 03:12, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I know it's hardly any point in arguing this any longer, but this is my take on the debate: The only thing we should care about is canon. The official canon policy states that only G-canon can overrule C-canon and that all C-canon sources are equal. Since the Ex is seen in the movie as beeing far longer than five times an ISD, every C-canon source stating this are wrong and should be considerd errors, out-of-universe or preferably in-universe. But this policy does not give us any right to invalid the cases where the length is beeing used implicitly, i.e. where a ship is mentioned as beeing Super-class and 8km without directly comparing it to the Ex. Author intetion, in this case to make these ships sisters to Ex, is NOT canon. Charlii 05:43, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Hmmm, good point. The Super-class, or SSD, does cover a wide range of ships, so basically without any explicit mention of the Ex in its comparison, it could be referring to a genuine, separate class of SSD that is 8km long. The main beef I have with this article (and the "SSD continuity" one) is that most of their point have already gone into the Executor-class article's bts-section. Do we need to repeat this so-called "problem" over and over in three or four different articles? And if there's one or several 8km long ship-classes, that doesn't mean they'll have the stats given in this article (why are they there, anyway, couldn't they be put into the Ex bts-section as well, since they're no longer canon?) VT-16 09:39, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
 * To clarify, I think the SSD article and Executor-class article covers just about everything. This article and the "SSD continuity issues" article should either be intergrated into those (if there's anything more to put there) or just removed. "SSD continuity issues" is just McEwok's talkpiece he made last year, because he has a problem with the retcons. It has little value since most topics are covered in the two articles above. VT-16 09:50, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I vote for a complete rewrite of this page, removing all in-universe speculation and simply stating that it was a 8km imperial ship class of unknown specs and put up a short bts explaining these issues. The "SSD continuity issues" could probably be removed, it doesn't really add anything. Charlii 11:51, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
 * That sounds fine with me. The "SSD continuity issues" article has already been used up in several other articles, and even explained several times over. There's no need for it since it's essentially an opinion piece for one wookiepedian who's already made his opinions known in just about every ship-related discussion he's ever been in. VT-16 14:12, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Vote For Deletion
I've nominated this article for a vote for deletion. The way I see it, the old 8 km length is clearly intended to be for ships of the Executor's class, and has long been retconned away to fit with G-canon. It is not a separate ship class, as this article suggests. JimRaynor55 20:06, 19 June 2006 (UTC) Go outside.
 * The name is used in too many canon sources for it to be deleated. As I've said earlier: in cases where a SD is named S-class or said beeing 8km without any explicit comparision to Executor, the class-name and length must be taken at face-value. Even though the authors intention no doubt were to make it equal to Executor, that has no place in canon. Charlii 20:47, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I vote that this article stays. We can't pull a "we changed our minds" there has to be some ship(s) that were 8 km. Because for so long that was the official length even in the Essential Guide to Vehicles and Vessels. It only makes sense that there was a sub-class of ships built that were called super star destroyers even if they were only made to create more of a mystery around the Executor and her sister ships. I mean what could be more disconcerning for a soldier than to be expecting an enemy of one size and then seeing one more than twice that size. Plus the whole ssd issue is so confusing that the fans deserve to have a page explaining it. --Kyp-Durron 19:55, 14 July 2006 (UTC)Kyp-Durron
 * The SSD Continuity Issues article explains it. - Finlayson 03:40, 22 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I say delete. There never was a Super-class subclass, except as a front. The origins of the name has been made clear and it has also been made clear that all the ships belonging to the Executor-class were 19 kilometers in length. Northerner 19:43, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Time to delete this
Yep, time for this to go. WotC just confirmed that the "Super-class" and "Executor-class" are one in the same, Super-class being a designation for the Executor-class in budgeting documents prior to her construction. See here: http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=starwars/article/SBPreview1

I'll let someone nomiate it for deletion, though, because I'm lazy. :P Trip 18:50, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
 * They also called it "Executor-class Star Dreadnought" and mentioned the Sovereign and Eclipse being called "Super Star Destroyers" due to the Super-class name getting stuck with people. This will be a day long remembered. Also, nice to see the Mon Cals taking hints from the Empire. This would in turn mean the Mediator-class is approximately a little over 8.5 km long.
 * As for the article, the term existed in-universe, but it should be explained for what it really was. VT-16 19:10, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

The rumor sure rooted itself, as we have high imperial commanders refer to Ex-class ships as 8km long and Luke making the same comparision during the Swarm War... Charlii 19:39, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Anticipating Ewoks, I must point out that the text can be interpreted as if there really was a Super-class that was a public front for the secret and more powerfull Executor. I'm not sure if we should delete this article and redirect it to Ex-class or rewrite it to match the new information.
 * "The text can be interpreted as if there really was a Super-class that was a public front for the secret and more powerfull Executor": No, it can't. To quote:

"The ship was colloquially known as a "Super Star Destroyer" because the Imperial Navy listed it as a "Super-class Star Destroyer" in budget requests to hide its true nature from the Imperial Senate."

"Super-class Star Destroyer" is in quotes, as in, it's just a name. Compare: The Millennium Falcon was said to be an Andowyne freighter. vs. The Millennium Falcon was said to be an "Andowyne freighter". - Lord Hydronium 19:50, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I already changed the article to reflect the origin of the name and its relative popularity. Even kept the stats for the "fake" proposed vessel. :) VT-16 21:02, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I think this is a better solution than outright deletion. It may not be a real ship, but it is a real fake ship, if that makes any sense. jSarek 21:03, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Agreed. It was basically a good compromise to pull in all the sources and leave as little as possible behind. Fictional designs in a fictional universe also carries a certain appeal, makes it more "realistic". ;) VT-16 21:08, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks Charlii for anticipating my reaction. With respect to the rest of you, there's more than one way you can read this. Consider the following: "The Executor was said to be a large 'Star Destroyer' by many in the Navy" (where the quote marks indicate the inappropriateness of the Star Destroyer designation from the author's POV, not that the designation doesn't exist); or "The Falcon was said to be a Millennium-class ship" (where the designation is fake, but no quote marks are used). While I concede that " ' Super-class ' is a fake name" is an entirely possible interpretation, even the more probable interpretation if we consider this passage in isolation, the alternative option does remain open, and the page should acknowledge both interpretations, from a neutral POV.
 * I'd suggest something beginning: "The name Super-class Star Destroyer appears in a number of sources of uncertain reliability as the designation of a class of 8km Imperial battleships. It is now known that Imperial Navy officials used this designation in budget documents as a cover to disguise the true size and firepower of the 19km dreadnaught Executor, but it is possible that some or all of the other ships identified as "Super-class Star Destroyers" [note the quotation marks!] may actually have been 8km cruisers." --McEwok 10:51, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I think the comments can be taken at face value - the "Super" class only existed on paper, err, datawork. If some author gets a hair up his reactor to try and make a seperate Super, we can resurrect the old article, but until then I think trying to support the existence of a seperate Super-class when there is no longer *any* evidence left providing that support is POV itself. jSarek 11:12, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, this sucks. Thanos6 11:32, 20 October 2006 (UTC)


 * McEwok: Articles are not the place for unfounded speculation. If you have evidence that an actual Super-class Star Destroyer exists, provide it, but if the only support for that hypothesis is "it's possible", that's not enough.  As of now, we have the following facts:
 * A report on Imperial ships culled from Imperial reports calls the Executor an 8km Super-class Star Destroyer.
 * The Executor is a 19km Executor-class Star Dreadnought.
 * The 19km ESD was intentionally listed in Imperial reports as an 8km SSD.
 * The only canon instance we have of the "Super-class" name is a false claim that it's the class of the Executor. There is no proof that it exists outside that context, and therefore any supposition to the contrary is speculation. - Lord Hydronium 12:19, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
 * With respect, I don't follow the logic: the question of whether or not the "Super-class" exists (those pesky quotes again!) is an inference either way, working from the WotC text.
 * However, looking around the rest of canon, we find plenty of references to 8km Super-class ships.
 * "The daggerish hull of the Lusankya hung in the middle of the Bilbringi shipyard like a vibroblade waiting to be plucked up and used to kill an enemy. The eight kilometers of its length had been restored fully, with running lights burning around its edges, the prow returned to needle-sharpness, the armor restored, and the ship painted an even gray tone." (Isard's Revenge, Ch. 39).
 * "Their destination wasn't the planet at all but a Super Star Destroyer that stretched a full four kilometers left and right from the docking port, and which carried a crew larger than the population of cities." (Destiny's Way, Ch. 12)
 * "the eight-kilometre-long behemoth circling N'zoth had anything in the New Republic Fleet badly outgunned." (Shield of Lies, Ch. 15.)
 * "It is eight kilometers long, can carry a crew of up to a hundred thousand--and is plated with stealth armor. That's why it appeared as only a black shadow as we approached. Though gigantic, it is virtually invisible to enemy forces." (Darksaber, Ch. 20, page; admittedly, Pellaeon comments earlier on the same page that "Only the Executor was this big--and that one ship practically bankrupted the Empire." - but that shows that Pellaeon thinks Ex was a unique ship, which clearly isn't true of SSDs in general. Reading a quiet note of correction into Cronus' voice the obvious solution; Knight Hammer is another 8km SSD, not a sister-ship to the unique, 19km Ex.)
 * And those are just the ones that occurred to me off the cuff. I'm pretty sure there will be others --McEwok 14:33, 20 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Using arguments from sources prior to a retcon to disprove the retcon isn't the smartest thing I've seen, neither when it isn't even constructive, as the retcon explicitly had the Super-class as a made-up ship to hid the Executor and the term was in continued use afterwards, none of which go against the countless sources using SSD and Super-class. Then again, you didn't listen the last time I said that, instead starting your cycle anew. I guess the perpetual dishonesty and evasion of points is your one and only attribute. Please take your own advice from the TFN thread and stop posting anywhere on this encyclopedia, effective immidiately. You were incapable of providing evidence when asked, I don't see what you could possibly have to do on this site at all. Unless we need to stock up on smilies. Then again, that's only a tool for you to feign disinterest, so even it is useless. VT-16 14:44, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
 * No. There is nothing "explicit" about the "retcon" in the WotC material, merely a set of quotation marks that can be interpreted in more than one way. What we do have, however, are numerous canon sources citing 8km (Super) Star Destroyers, sometimes associating that size with a "Super-class" designation. There are two possible ways to deal with those references in the light of the Ex ' s length being retconned to 19km, and both should IMHO be noted (as neutrally as possible) on this page, especially as at least two canon sources (Pellaeon in Darksaber, and Star Wars: The Official Figurine Collection) imply that Ex was unique, or almost unique, in the 19km bracket. --McEwok 15:13, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Those smileys betrayed you, you've positively gone off the deep end this time. VT-16 15:39, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
 * McEwok, you know I've supported several thoughts of yours here in the past that others have wanted to quash, so you know I give due consideration to your ideas. I think this time, you've got a bad one, or rather are clinging to what was once a good one that has ceased to be good.  This retcon is pretty sweeping in scope, cleaning up many references to the old name and numbers, but of course it couldn't get all of them.  Should Lucasfilm have to retcon every single instance of the old number and name to make their retcon stick?  Even if the statement can be read two ways, its mere existence makes it clear what their intent is - there's only one Super/Executor-class, and only one size for it.  If some author in the future is allowed to take the inch that statement gives and swim all over, they can, and we'll revise this article accordingly, but for now . . . ding, dong, the ship is dead. jSarek 17:55, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I just don't see it. It's not as if it says: "The ship was colloquially known as a "Super Star Destroyer" because the Imperial Navy devised an alternative designation of "Super-class Star Destroyer" in budget requests to hide its true nature from the Imperial Senate. An entire technical readout for a non-existent eight-kilometer-long design was produced to conceal its role from oversight committees." If this is your decision, I'll respect it... with the caveat that I do think it's silly. I'm not arguing that the page should claim the 8km design is definately "real" in canon, merely that, alongside the interpretation that the entire thing was a cover for a 19km design, it should acknowledge the continuing possibility that there were 8km SSDs. I see no clear evidence for any other 19km SSDs except for Ex, though I'm happy to let the canon stay ambiguous on this matter. --McEwok 18:42, 20 October 2006 (UTC)


 * McEwok, you say "no clear evidence"? As I mentioned further above (I posted in the wrong place), it has been made clear that all vessels of the Executor-class are of the same size. There weren't any Super-class ships built. Get over it. As I mentioned above, I vote to delete the article. Northerner 20:01, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
 * There's no need to delete it now as it serves a new purpose. There's plenty of articles on the Wookieepedia about in-universe words and phrases, this now serves the same purpose. :)
 * I see no clear evidence for any other 19km SSDs except for Ex, though I'm happy to let the canon stay ambiguous on this matter.
 * That is hilarious.
 * To be quite frank, I really don't think anyone here cares about your personal interpretation of a straight-forward official article like that. To think that we would, seems to be quite overstating your importance. VT-16 20:56, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

"Although the official designation was changed by the time the Executor was operational, the phrase 'Super Star Destroyer' stuck, and it was even applied to later vessels such as the Sovereign-class and Eclipse-class." If a Super-class existed, wouldn't it say something more like "Although the completed vessel was clearly not of the Super-class, the phrase . . ."? And wouldn't it make more sense for the Super-class themselves to be the cause of the widespread use of the word for later vessels, rather than the Executor, if such a class actually existed? jSarek 21:32, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Northerner: bear in mind that almost all of the sources attributing sister-ships to Ex identify her as an 8km "Super-class", and are subject to the retcon making Ex 19km; the question at hand is whether this retcon applies to all of these ships, or just to Executor. There's only two pieces of evidence I know of that deal specifically with sister ships of a 19km Ex: WotC says "all Super Star Destroyers of the same class" are also 19km, but the question is whether the 8km Super-class is a different class; while Star Wars: The Official Figurine Collection suggests that Ex may have had no sister-ships, or possibly just Lusankya. I won't bore you with explaining why I, personally, think the best distillation from canon involves lots of 8km "Super-class" ships, because I don't want the page to be a vehicle for 'shipping my POV: I do believe, however, that until absolutely explicitly disproven, the possibility of their "existence" (in a fictional Galaxy) should still be represented on this page.
 * JSarek: not neccessarily; it depends what we understand by saying "the phrase... stuck". Does this mean that the term "Super Star Destroyer" entered usage purely by this means? Or does it mean specifically that it came to be used for the Executor, which was initially percieved by the Navy as a dreadnaught - leading in turn to Eclipse and Sovereign being classed not as dreadnaughts, but as "Super Star Destroyers" from the outset?
 * Whichever way we read it, there also seems to be an implication that an 8km ship (real or imaginary) was percieved as a credible (large) Star Destroyer in the way a ~10 mile dreadnaught really wasn't. If we ask what the formal designations of the 8km SSD in canon are, we find "Super-class Star Destroyer" and (in Tyrant's Test) "Executor-class Star Destroyer"; these are merely "Star Destroyer" designations, distinct from Executor-class Super Star Destroyer, Eclipse-class Super Star Destroyer, Sovereign-class Super Star Destroyer....
 * Does that make sense? --McEwok 22:42, 20 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, we can't forget "Big Tim." Lots of references in BFC, both from dialogue and narration, to it being 8-km and Super-class. Thanos6 00:41, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Give it up McEwok. Even if we were to say "everything official is canon" and accept that little FLUFF blurb from a figurine CATALOG that you love to keep harping on, the blurb was CLEARLY written from an uninformed in-universe perspective. That's evident because of the wording:
 * It is possible that the Executor was the only ship of its type that was ever constructed, although the Lusankya - the ship of the director of Imperial intelligence service, Ysanne Isard - may have belonged to this class.

Oh yeah, real authoritative source you have there. Let's not forget the blatant contradictions that toy-selling catalog has with canon books, such as the EGTVV which states that Executor was one the class's first four ships. I don't know why you're still fighting this. The SSD retcon was made a long time ago, it's now been reconfirmed in an explicit way, and what's more, you KNOW what the WOTC writers were doing. I find it hard to believe that even you think you're correct on this. JimRaynor55 01:27, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Any quote that could be found from any source referencing the SSD or the Super-class or the 8 km reference as a matter-of-fact would be inconsequential from now on. Most people who ever referenced the Super-class or even the 8 km length in-universe have had little to no experience with ship-construction or naval nomenclature or have bouts of delusions (Pellaeon for instance, a man who never had any command on-board a ship even nearing the Executor-class, who thinks that the Executor alone nearly "bankrupted the entire Galactic Empire"). If they're not Jedi or Rebel/NR operatives (with information gained from the already-falsified Super-class documents), they're Ysanne Isard, who ran an Executor-class ship as a landbound prison and was also not a naval officer. And even if naval officers made the same size-mistake (like Pellaeon above), blaming it on inattention to official documents/revisions isn't too farfetched. Many Imperial enemies in these stories have made idiotic mistakes, time and time again, coming across as downright incompetent or inept. And most of the time these large ships have so many batteries going off, I doubt the command personell would bother specifying more than "forward batteries, fire!" leaving the technical details down to the people among the gun crews and their supervisors. Now, those people would actually need to read up on what they're inside of. They're the ones essentially in charge of keeping the ship in order. Either way, this has been amusing long enough. Unless something happens on the actual article page, I say let the whiners let off steam here and get it through their systems. VT-16 09:50, 21 October 2006 (UTC)