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)