Talk:MC80 Liberty type Star Cruiser

You people are kidding me. The pic up there is the best that can be found for the MC80? Definitely better ones out there. Let's try for a screenshot.--Erl 23:46, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
 * That's not a bad picture. Admiral J. Nebulax (talk) [[Image:Implogo.jpg|20px]] 23:48, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
 * No, it's an accurate representation, but I think the page would be more interesting with a full color, 3-D image at an oblique angle.-- The Erl of the  talk  What I do 16:13, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
 * If an image is accurate, that's all we need. Color and 3-D doesn't matter that much. Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Implogo.jpg|20px]] 17:26, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Don't we? Shouldn't an image grab the attention and interest the mind?-- The Erl of the  talk  What I do 00:17, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
 * If it's fan-made, no. Accuracy is far more important. Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Implogo.jpg|20px]] 00:50, 3 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree We should change it :User:Gavin Galicnar
 * If a good canonical image presents itself, maybe. Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Implogo.jpg|20px]] 21:29, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Yep, change it - mayby for shot from Episode VI ? Or Empire at War screenshot would look nice too. And that scan should be moved down as image from other source. SkywalkerPL 12:35, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, we should still keep this current one in the article. Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Implogo.jpg|20px]] 13:29, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

60 MGLT?!
I cannot believe the MC80 has an acceleration of 60 MGLT while the Rebel Blockade runner is listed as 22 and the X-Wing at 80.

It cannot be that this thing can accelerate almost as fast as a Y-Wing, how about 6 MGLT?
 * If a canon source says it's 60 MGLT, it's 60 MGLT. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Implogo.jpg|20px]] 21:03, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Canon sources also state that the Rebel Blockade runner is one of the fastest ships, and common sense would say a cruiser is never as fast as a fighter, as also seen in the battle of Endor.
 * The Battle of Endor doesn't show the CR90s trying to go at their fastest speed. If canon says the blockade runner is as fast as a fighter, then it is. Plus, as a blockade runner, it would be fast. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Implogo.jpg|20px]] 19:06, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

"Downscaled"?
--McEwok 02:22, 10 January 2007 (UTC) "Darth Vader adds to the blunder by being so fixed on capturing Luke Skywalker alive that he orders his flotilla of Star Destroyers to pursue the Falcon rather than hunt down the escaped Rebel transports."
 * An explanation of why I believe VT-16's reverts to describe the MC80 as a "downscaled" crusier are inaccurate.
 * VT-16's argument is based on a reference to MC80s in "Rebel flotillas" on page 170 of Star Wars: Complete Locations, although he does not provide the actual quote. He claims that "Flotillas do not incorporate cruisers".
 * However, it appears that real-life groups of ships designated as flotillas can include cruisers. A quick web search finds me the following:
 * 1) The light cruisers HMS Champion, HMS Fearless and HMS Castor as the leaders of destroyer flotillas in the British Grand Fleet during World War I.
 * 2) The Royal Navy's "5th Light Cruiser Flotilla", based at Harwich, also during World War I, including the light cruisers HMS Centaur and HMS Concord.
 * 3) The Austro Hungarian k.u.k.Kreuzerflottille, again in World War I, consisting of the light cruisers SMS Helgoland, SMS Novara and SMS Saida.
 * 4) A US Navy squadron designated Cruiser Flotilla 4, around 1950..
 * Moreover, a single reference to "Rebel flotillas" including MC80s cannot be regarded as technically precise. I doubt that VT-16 would regard the reference to Iron Fist as a destroyer in The Courtship of Princess Leia as indicating her technical designation. I understand that VT-16 isn't a first-language English speaker, so perhaps things are different in his native language, though.
 * If any doubt remains, the "standard Imperial classifications" as established in Star Wars canon define the cruiser designation as including all proper gun-armed warships above ~400m. While some other classification systems may exist in which MC80s are not large enough to count as cruisers, these must be upscaled compared with the standard.
 * I've reverted your edit for the time being, McEwok. Let's wait to see what VT has to say before changing it. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Implogo.jpg|20px]] 12:26, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * You are using singular uses such as the A-H navy during WWI ("rapid cruisers" which were lightly armored scout cruisers), and destroyer leaders when the issue isn't about them, but about the flotilla itself. The Executor leads a flotilla at Hoth, the Home One leads a Rebel flotilla at Endor.

- p.142

"At Endor, pounded mercilessly by the capital ships of the Rebel Alliance flotilla, the ship's shields fail."

- p.170

And, yes, the "standard Imperial classifications" which are not specified and does not cover the use of frigates over 400 meters in length, nor the terming of Star Destroyers as battleships. I'm sorry, but that's not good enough, there are more classification systems involved, as explicitly said by the Dorling Kindersley series of fact books. (Which I need to add to a certain article in need of extensive rewriting.) Oh yeah, Jack, it appears that "the" is used in front of shipnames, I guess the use is arbitrary. VT-16 10:29, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Where does that thing on "the" being used in front of ship names come from, VT? Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Implogo.jpg|20px]] 12:12, 11 January 2007 (UTC)


 * VT: You are using singular uses such as the A-H navy during WWI ("rapid cruisers" which were lightly armored scout cruisers), and destroyer leaders when the issue isn't about them, but about the flotilla itself.
 * Why is that relevant? The point is that even if SW:CL was using the term "flotilla" in a precise technical way (which I don't think you can prove), cruisers can operate as part of flotillas, and therefore there is no evidence to call an MC80 "downscaled".
 * The Executor leads a flotilla at Hoth, the Home One leads a Rebel flotilla at Endor.
 * So you're saying that the "star dreadnaught" Executor can be part of a "flotilla of Star Destroyers"? I think you just demolished your own argument.
 * And, yes, the "standard Imperial classifications" which are not specified and does not cover the use of frigates over 400 meters in length, nor the terming of Star Destroyers as battleships.
 * The standard classification of cruisers is discussed extensively in The Heir to the Empire Sourcebook, and we already knew from The Rebel Alliance Sourcebook that the category includes ships up to the size of "the Super-class Star Destroyer". There are certainly alternative systems in use, and imprecise or inaccurate terminology being used&mdash;for instance,references to Corellian Corvettes as "battleships" and comparably-sized Ugor ships as "dreadnaughts".
 * However, references to large "frigates" don't affect the fact that the MC80 is a cruiser according to the standard designations. On the use of this term, bear in mind that the 1950-1975 US Navy usage of "frigate" denoted modern cruiser-sized ships later recategorized as cruisers, and we also have references to MC80s as a "Headquarters Frigate" and a "winged Medical Frigate". Someone ought to add "frigate" to the roles cited on the page, actually.
 * I'm sorry, but that's not good enough, there are more classification systems involved, as explicitly said by the Dorling Kindersley series of fact books. (Which I need to add to a certain article in need of extensive rewriting.)
 * No, that's not good enough. The existence of alternative classification systems was established back in The Rebel Alliance Sourcebook, in the first description of the standard system; the point is that these other systems are not the Galactic standard system. If any of them exclude a 1200m ship from the "cruiser" category (something that there's no solid canon proof of), they are, therefore, "upscaled" from standard.
 * But to reiterate the main point: one non-technical reference to "Rebel flotillas" attacking the Executor does not make the MC80 a "downscaled" cruiser, especially when she fits into the "cruiser" category according to the canonically defined "standard" system. --McEwok 16:51, 11 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Here we go again... Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Implogo.jpg|20px]] 22:15, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Okay, are there any *explicit* references to these ships as anything other than cruisers, or referring to them being upscaled or downscaled? If not, I don't see why there's even an argument.  Call 'em what existing canon calls 'em. jSarek 06:42, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, the Dorling Kindersley series of books are consistent in their description of two scales, one that encompasses both WEG's old system and adds "battleship" as an alternate designation for Star Destroyers, and another with Star frigates and Star Destroyers fulfilling the roles of frigates and destroyers, as well as dividing Super Star Destroyers into further types, consistent with naval use (ITW:OT, SW:CL). ROTS:ICS refers to cruisers like the Dreadnaught-class as "downscaled", which is logical, as they're comparable to most larger frigates in the SW universe. Further, the Rebel Fleet over Endor (which at the time had MC80 cruisers and battleships as their biggest vessels) is referred to as a flotilla. Likewise with the ISDs that accompany Executor over Hoth (ITW:OT, SW:CL). Flotillas consist of smaller warships, the largest being either frigates or destroyers. Of course, the Mon Calamari standards would vary from the galactic norm, so from their POV, their cruisers and battleships are just that. Like most things in SW, the warship category references in-universe rl names and words, and I find it strange that out of all areas of SW lore, this is the only one that gets scrutinized and debated to an incredible degrees. I'd like to see something like the "fashion" category go through this level of second-guessing. VT-16 15:55, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I think the MC80 was called a frigate once or twice in the RotJ novelization. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Implogo.jpg|20px]] 12:26, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
 * The ship we now know as Home One (identified as an MC80 in The Rebel Alliance: Ships of the Fleet, but that's a whole other level of rewriting) is frequently called the Headquarters Frigate (or sometimes, especially in the earlier sources, "the Headquarters Frigate" as if it's a name; "Home One" or "Home-one" generally seems to be a callsign rather than a name in the early material). The Essential Guide to Vehicles and Vessels also refers to "the winged Medical Frigate". What frigate means in this context isn't exactly clear, but Star Cruiser remains the standard designation, and there are plenty of sources describing the Mon Cal ships as the main Rebel cruisers (often specifically in terms of the specific "standard" definition of cruisers as large capital ships). --McEwok 14:36, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I wasn't actually talking about Home One. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Implogo.jpg|20px]] 20:44, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Nebulax: Home One is the only Mon Cal ship referred to as a "frigate" in the RotJ novellization (once as "the Headquarters Frigate", once as a "frigate"; "Star Cruiser" is used rather more often), unless you count the ambiguous reference to "the Medical Frigate", which is generally taken to be the Nebulon-B from ESB, though the EGtVV does show that there is a MC80 Medical Frigate, too.
 * VT-16: I don't think you've made your case here...
 * Even if your interpretation of the terminology used in ICS/ItW is correct (it seems to be your own non-canon analysis of the specific terms used&mdash;why do you identify "battleship" as "as an alternate designation for Star Destroyers", for instance, rather than a vague generic term?), then the use of another system doesn't affect the fact that the standard designation system still defines the "cruiser" category as containing all gun-armed warships above 400m.
 * Even if the passage in RotS:ICS means that the 600m Rendili design is a "downscaled" dreadnaught (which I'm not convinced of), this doesn't affect the standard cruiser designation. The Dreadnaught Cruiser is a heavy cruiser by the standard system, not a dreadnaught.
 * Even if the Mon Calamari standards vary from the Galactic norm (pure speculation), there's no evidence that the "Star Cruiser" designation for the MC80 is a distinctly Mon Calamari one.
 * Even the technical meaning of the term "flotilla" automatically defines a group of ships excluding cruisers (which it doesn't), the non-technical usage in ItW doesn't affect the technical definition of "cruiser" in Star Wars.
 * Your speculation and extrapolation can't override standard canon. MC80s fall into the "cruiser" category under the standard system; they're also called "Star Cruisers", which reinforces their "cruiser" deisgnation, and suggests that they'd be cruisers under the "Star" designations used in ICS too. The only non-crusier designations I know of are references to a Headquarters Frigate and Medical Frigate, but we can't assume that these imply an "upscaled" system where each designation applies to larger vessels: "frigate" has been used in very different ways in the real world, and "Medical Frigate" is used in canon for ships from 32m to more than 2km. --McEwok 20:36, 13 January 2007 (UTC)


 * McEwok: I'm pretty sure there's something along the lines of "A Mon Calamari frigate moved in to engage a Star Destroyer..." Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Implogo.jpg|20px]] 20:51, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
 * What difference does it make if I quote and reference the same books year after year, when I know full-well you will never bother to read them? Unless more people request information, I think I've justified the reasons enough. It's not my fault other people can't bother to search through the same sources themselves. I write from official sources on these articles just like all other articles that don't get constant second-guessing. VT-16 00:23, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Nebulax: being "pretty sure" isn't really enough, though; can you be more precise, or might you have misremembered?
 * VT: I think I've justified the reasons enough. Uhh... where, exactly? You've presented no evidence to explain why the 1200m MC80 should be a "downscaled" cruiser when she falls clearly into the 400m-8km cruiser category according to "standard" designations; no evidence to explain why she shouldn't still be a Star Cruiser under the non-standard system that calls a 825m ship a Star Frigate and 900m and 1137m ships Star Destroyers; and no evidence to show exactly what's meant by the handful of "frigate" references.
 * You support a fan-theory that ship classifications should be different from what canon gives us, which you back up with an interpretation of ICS/ItW evidence. But as I said in my last reply, even if every one of your basic arguments is right, and even if the SWTC system unambiguously exists as an alternative in canon (both of which are IMHO debatable at best), that still wouldn't change the fact that the MC80 is a cruiser according to the canonical "standard" designations. --McEwok 02:37, 14 January 2007 (UTC)


 * What, McEwok, can't I say "pretty sure" if I think I am? Haven't you been "pretty sure" about things as well, or is your memory so perfect that there is only a "yes" or "no" answer? Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Implogo.jpg|20px]] 02:48, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
 * You support a fan-theory that ship classifications should be different from what canon gives us
 * You keep ignoring sources that do not support your fan opinion, this is a common technique for people who have no standing in a debate. I have time and time again posted sources and quotes for what I write in articles. Your continued ignoring of these have no consequence unless the articles are messed with, so I see no further need to argue. I can only once again point out that you are a liability to this site, which is meant to be an encyclopedia for canonical subjects in SW, not McEwok's opinions, which are apparently frozen in a 1989 perspective. VT-16 11:13, 14 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Yeah, especially since I have to have a "yes or no" memory on the subject. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Implogo.jpg|20px]] 15:05, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Nebulax: hey, easy! My remarks weren't intended harshly. Obviously, my memory is imperfect; that's why I'm asking if you can provide a more precise quote. I'm pretty sure there are no other "frigate" references in the RotJ novellization beyond the ones I already mentioned (or any specific references to "Mon Calamari" ships, either); but I'm prepared to be convinced otherwise. What we have here is a difference of opinion, and if you can show that there is a reference of the sort you think, then I'd be delighted by the new information.
 * Also, if anyone reading this has access to the Return of the Jedi Official Poster Monthly, I'd be very interested to know if it says anything on Mon Calamari ships. I've been trying for a couple of months now to establish what the movie-era information on the Rebel Star Cruisers actually says, and that's the one source I know about that I've not yet got any info on.
 * VT-16: so where's the hard evidence to justify your claim that the MC80 is a "downscaled" cruiser? Your whole position seems utterly untenable when the canon's "standard" cruiser designation begins at 400m.
 * Even within the alternative system you've infered from ICS/ItW, I know of canon evidence that proves that "Star Cruisers" have to be larger than 1200m. I know that Saxton claims this at SWTC (based on the inaccurate, if perhaps honest, belief that a cruiser must be larger than a destroyer), but even if Chee, etc., did knowingly allow Saxton to add echoes of his SWTC fanon classifications to ICS/ItW, they may not have approved this particular idea, and we certainly can't assume they did. And even if they did, this provides no more than an "upscaled" alternative.
 * So, to get back to the point, there's no justification for calling the MC80 a "downscaled" cruiser. She should simply be a Cruiser and maybe a Frigate; is there any justification for Destroyer? --McEwok 17:16, 14 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I just need to ask you one question, McEwok: Is this going to turn into one of those extremely long discussions that take over a week to end? Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Implogo.jpg|20px]] 18:58, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I checked out my copy of the ROTJ novelization. The only time Mon Cal cruisers are refered to as a frigate is Headquarters Frigate. AdmiralNick22 19:03, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Then I must have seen it somewhere else. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Implogo.jpg|20px]] 19:08, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Classification(s)

 * This is for anyone seriously interested in the case: The standard classification systems are clear on the matter. One of the so-called "Imperial classification systems" (which did not start out in the Empire) has cruisers from around 400m to about one mile in length, anything above that is not defined other than a "sub-set of cruisers" (ISB, RASB). That would presumably include even non-Imperial ships like the MC-series. Another contemporary scale has ships from the Victory-class to multi-mile long vessels as destroyers, while bigger vessels are cruisers and the heaviest are battleships. (AOTC:ICS mentions miles-long Star Destroyers, ITW:OT and SW:CL define Star Destroyers as ships smaller than Star Cruisers and Star Dreadnoughts, the same two books also describe Executor leading a flotilla of Star Destroyers and a Rebel flotilla attacking Endor.) There are also different scales and standards going from culture to culture. For instance, the Trade Federation constructed cruisers and destroyers centered around core ship modules, like their battleships were. Apart from being much smaller than Star Dreadnoughts and other Super Star Destroyers, the Federation's ships followed relatively similar classifications, with their destroyers being smaller and less powerful than their cruisers and their battleships (AOTC:ICS). Then there's the Mon Calamari, who constructed corvettes (RASB), frigates (RASB, EAW), cruisers and battleships (Home One was among the latter, according to the Rebel Alliance Scrapbook).
 * Since the various Star Destroyers are often shown going up against comparable Calamari Star Cruisers, these vessels in turn would either be frigates or destroyers when seen from one scale, and cruisers and battleships when seen from others. Furthermore, as an addendum to the "Imperial classification system" first mentioned in various West End Games books, the Dorling Kindersley book-series actually adds to this scale as well, by describing Star Destroyers also as battleships (instead of simply "expanding the cruiser-term" as the older books had). The Imperial- and Victory-class being battleships is described in SW:ICS, and the Venator-class is described as both a battleship and a medium-weight vessel, capable of escorting large battleships during the CW, according to ROTS:ICS. The same book also mentions the relationship between different scales, as the Dreadnaught-class heavy cruiser is described as a "downscaled" cruiser rather than a cruiser, period. For something to be downscaled, there must be other scales to measure against.
 * Adding to this again, is the Dark Empire SB and one of the Cracken books of the Rebellion era, which mention the wide dispersal of Super Star Destroyers (having them as sector-level commands). VT-16 20:17, 14 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Well said. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Implogo.jpg|20px]] 20:33, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
 * VT: Thank you.
 * One of the so-called "Imperial classification systems" (which did not start out in the Empire) has cruisers from around 400m to about one mile in length, anything above that is not defined other than a "sub-set of cruisers" (ISB, RASB)
 * This is inaccurate and misleading. The Rebel Alliance Sourcebook presents (in-universe) what it calls "the standard Imperial classifications of capital ships", defining cruisers as "the most powerful ships in space", apparently including all ships with a crew of more than 1,000 and explicitly extending up to the 8km SSD, here described as "the biggest cruiser yet built"; the only exceptions are "a few bizarrities such as the Death Star battlestation". Mon Calamari Star Cruisers are repeatedly and explicitly identified as cruisers within this chapter.
 * I'm not aware of any further references directly pertaining to cruisers in The Imperial Sourcebook as cited by VT-16 (though it does define a 100-250m bracket for system patrol craft, and I'd be grateful to be pointed to any further ship-classification references here).
 * The classification is further eaborated on in The Heir to the Empire Sourcebook, however, which says that under the Old Republic, cruisers were "the largest class of ships in service", but that the introduction of Star Destroyers led to the designation being revised to include "any combat-oriented ship over 400 meters long and emphasizing heavy weaponry over starfighters", with Star Destroyers forming "their own sub-category" within the larger class.
 * Another contemporary scale has ships from the Victory-class to multi-mile long vessels as destroyers, while bigger vessels are cruisers and the heaviest are battleships. (AOTC:ICS mentions miles-long Star Destroyers, ITW:OT and SW:CL define Star Destroyers as ships smaller than Star Cruisers and Star Dreadnoughts, the same two books also describe Executor leading a flotilla of Star Destroyers and a Rebel flotilla attacking Endor.)
 * This owes something to the fanon definitions used at SWTC, but in canon terms, the definition of "Star Destroyers as ships smaller than Star Cruisers" is entirely founded on a single line in Inside the Worlds of Star Wars Trilogy, where Super Star Destroyer is defined as "a term that covers many warship classes bigger than a Star Destroyer, from Star Cruisers to ultimate Star Dreadnoughts like Executor". This shows is that some smaller "Super Star Destroyers" (perhaps the weakest ships so designated?) are known alternatively as "Star Cruisers", and that these "Star Cruisers" must be bigger than a 1.6km ISD; it doesn't specify that all Star Cruisers are bigger than Star Destroyers, which is VT's own interpretation. Even if it did, this would of course be a different designation system from the "standard" one outlined above.
 * I'd be interested in the direct quote on "multi-mile long" Star Destroyers in Attack of the Clones: Incredible Cross-Sections, though. My memory of the passage in question is imperfect, but I thought that the "multi-mile long" reference here applied only to "Star Battlecruisers" and "Star Dreadnoughts".
 * As to flotillas, the references occur in Star Wars: Complete Locations, where (according to quotes provided by VT earlier on this page and discussed by me in response) Vader "orders his flotilla of Star Destroyers to pursue the Falcon" at Hoth (page 142) and "the capital ships of the Rebel Alliance flotilla" bring down the shields of Executor at Endor (page 170). I don't know if these lines adapt text from Inside the Worlds, as VT seems to imply, but in any event, they cannot be assumed to employ technically precise terminology that constrains the formal designation of the ships in these "flotillas"; indeed, the "flotilla of Star Destroyers" at least arguably includes the 19km dreadnaught Executor, since she actively entered the asteroid belt in pursuit of the Millennium Falcon.
 * As already noted, the "standard" system defines the "Star Destroyer" designation as a "sub-category" of cruisers, though the precise origins of the term are unclear; the simple term "destroyer", which is not part of the "standard" classification system outlined in RASB, etc., is nowhere given an explicit definition in canon. It is used generically in The Courtship of Princess Leia, for ships including the Iron Fist, and arguably also for Hapan Battle Dragons, but I'm not sure if that's really directly relevant to the discussion.
 * There are also different scales and standards going from culture to culture. For instance, the Trade Federation constructed cruisers and destroyers centered around core ship modules, like their battleships were.
 * I don't actually disagree with this, though I'm not sure how relevant it is...
 * Then there's the Mon Calamari, who constructed corvettes (RASB), frigates (RASB, EAW), cruisers and battleships (Home One was among the latter, according to the Rebel Alliance Scrapbook). 
 * This is highly misleading. The Mon Cal shipyards are described in The Rebel Alliance Sourcebook as producing ships of the "perhaps one frigate or corvette every month, or one cruiser every six months". This doesn't limit the types produced, but it doesn't offer any evidence for others; and the designations used here are presumably the "standard" ones defined later in the same chapter, anyway, which between them cover all capital ships capable of independent operations, except for a few "bizarrities" larger than an 8km SSD.
 * The idea of a Mon Cal "battleship" designation, and the entire MC80 battleship page, which needs to be merged with this one, depend on a single quote about Home One from The Rebel Alliance Scrapbook: when pressed, VT-16 finally produced the canon quote in question: "the cruiser served as both a battleship and command post". There's nothing to say that "battleship" here is any more than a generic term for "combat warship", in contrast to "command post", and the same sentence also identifies Home One as a cruiser.
 * Furthermore, as an addendum to the "Imperial classification system" first mentioned in various West End Games books, the Dorling Kindersley book-series actually adds to this scale as well, by describing Star Destroyers also as battleships (instead of simply "expanding the cruiser-term" as the older books had). The Imperial- and Victory-class being battleships is described in SW:ICS, and the Venator-class is described as both a battleship and a medium-weight vessel, capable of escorting large battleships during the CW, according to ROTS:ICS.
 * Again, it's VT's own unsubstantaited interpretation that the usage of "battleship" is "an addendum to the 'Imperial classification system'". Once again, there's absolutely no evidence that "battleship" is used as an additional term within a variant of the "standard" system, rather than a more generic term. Also, I could be wrong, but if memory serves, the "battleships" that the Venator is said to escort are not described as "larger"; arguably, they could even include Victory-class Star Destroyers; historically, dreadnaughts were typically smaller than escorting battlecruisers, but slower and better armoured.
 * The same book also mentions the relationship between different scales, as the Dreadnaught-class heavy cruiser is described as a "downscaled" cruiser rather than a cruiser, period. For something to be downscaled, there must be other scales to measure against.
 * Again, this is misleading. In Revenge of the Sith: Incredible Cross-Sections, we're told that "Utapauns rely upon self-made, downscaled ships&mdash;their biggest anti-pirate Rendili Dreadnaught is one-fifth the size of a Trade Federation Battleship", and that "Sienar will also produce the Empire's primary space-superiority craft, the TIE (Twin Ion Engine) fighter, as well as downscaled warships built to patrol remote sectors". I'd argue that the first passage doesn't clearly imply that the Rendili Dreadnaught is "downscaled", but even if (for the sake of argument) it does, there's no reason to assume that the ship in question isn't a downscaled dreadnaught, rather than a downscaled cruiser. At best, this merely provides an alternative POV, and (once again) it's VT's assumption that if a 600m cruiser is "downscaled" (a claim that contradicts the "standard" definition of the term), a 1200m one must be, too. The second reference to Sienar ships need only refer to miniature ships like the 42-metre Guardian-class and Warden-class "light cruisers", which might give an idea of the scale of the "downscaled" craft that are "self-made" at Utapau, as well.
 * Phew!!! I hope that makes my position, and the actual content of the canon evidence, clear.... --McEwok 23:57, 14 January 2007 (UTC)


 * And that answers my earlier question: Yes. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Implogo.jpg|20px]] 01:04, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
 * McEwok, you have provided no evidence for your claims, and your continued ignorance of canonical sources marks you as a troll. I will watch these articles closely and report any vandalism by you. This is not a place for fanon, and you will be punished if you can not adher to these rules. VT-16 06:53, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Okay, I'm going to try to stay neutral now. Let me ask you both this: Can there be any compromise? Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Implogo.jpg|20px]] 14:51, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Not unless McEwok accepts other sources that include different classification systems, which should thereby be implemented in each respective ship infobox, as has been the norm (with the different roles displayed, i.e "battleship, cruiser, destroyer" for the ISD, "corvette, troop transport, cargo vessel" etc. for the CR90 and so on). As for the "class" entry in the infobox, how about writing the technical designations of each class into it, so that it may be showcased against the actual "roles" these ships are known to have had? It would be alot more informative than the WEG-derived "corvette-frigate-cruiser" system Wookieepedia has now (Which isn't even used consistently). VT-16 16:15, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
 * McEwok? Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Implogo.jpg|20px]] 19:05, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Most important things first: I like the tag. I agree with the sentiment, too.
 * However, nothing VT's said has juistified calling the MC80 a "downscaled" cruiser, which is the point under debate here. What he calls "the WEG-derived "corvette-frigate-cruiser" system", is identified as the primary in-universe standard in Star Wars canon, the "standard Imperial system", corvette-frigate-cruiser-Star Destroyer-"bizarrity".
 * I'm not denying that there are many, many other systems in the GFFA, but (a.) they're implicitly non-standard, and (b.) most of them are not explicitly detailed in canon. There is no clear evidence for what the "frigate" designations applied to a few MC80s mean, and no clear evidence to say that they can't be Star Cruisers in the system that makes the Executor a Star Dreadnought.
 * I hope anyone who has the willpower to read my extended post above can understand the detailed basis of my POV here&mdash;though if anyone have any questions or points to raise, then I'm happy to hear them, either here or on my own "talk" page&mdash;or by Private Message to my TheForce.Net screen-name. --McEwok 20:38, 15 January 2007 (UTC)


 * McEwok and VT-16, work together to find a compromise. Neither of you ever accomplish anything when you get into this type of debate. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Implogo.jpg|20px]] 00:06, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * On my user talk page, VT-16 indicated that the "(downscaled)" could be removed if necessary. As I'm inclined to see this as an informal descriptor rather than a formal one, and since it seems to be the crux of the debate here, I think removing it would be the best course of action. jSarek 00:43, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I concur. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Implogo.jpg|20px]] 01:30, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * That was the main issue for me, so I have no complaints. That said, I really think we ought to merge MC80 battleship and MC80a Star Cruiser into this page.
 * Can anyone tell me if they have any reference to a generic MC80 (as opposed to MC80a or Home One) carrying starfighters, or the MC80 stats for Home One that are apparently given in the Special Edition version of The Movie Trilogy Sourcebook (which I assume means Star Wars Trilogy Sourcebook - Special Edition)....? --McEwok 15:21, 16 January 2007 (UTC)


 * We're not merging this article, MC80a Star Cruiser, and MC80 battleship. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Implogo.jpg|20px]] 20:44, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Why not? I'm not that bothered by a seperate MC80a Star Cruiser page, but MC80 battleship seems to be a term with no canon support, especially when there's no clear evidence about what differentiates a "normal" MC80 from the Home One type. What are your reasons for keeping the pages separate? --McEwok 01:20, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Since the Rebel Alliance Scrapbook termed the Home One as a Star Cruiser used as a battleship, the Return of the Jedi novel refered to this ship as the largest of the Rebel Star Cruisers, the Q&A section on the official site explicitly refered to the Calamari vessel Invincible from the SW:CCG as being of the same design (ergo, the reason why the Home One model was used to depict both it and Defiance in that game) and the Starship Battles game refers to the Home One unit as a "rare" Light Side vessel, while the MC80 cruiser unit is only listed as "uncommon", I combined the words to better seperate it from the main MC80 Star Cruiser article, and generously called it an "off-shoot" of the MC80 Star Cruiser line. VT-16 08:42, 17 January 2007 (UTC)


 * McEwok, I think you need to look over the "Sources" section of articles... Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Imperial Emblem.png|20px]] 12:14, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Nebulax: where, exactly? If you're referring to the tag attached to The Rebel Alliance Scrapbook on the MC80 battleship page, see below....
 * VT: the Rebel Alliance Scrapbook termed the Home One as a Star Cruiser used as a battleship
 * This quote was cited by you as: "the cruiser served as both a battleship and command post". As I already said further up this page, this isn't evidence that the "battleship" role for MC80s was restricted to the Home One type, nor does "battleship" here necessarily indicate anything more than "combat warship" in contrast with "command post". If we do keep a separate page, "MC80 command post" or "MC80 command ship" might be a better name for the page than MC80 battleship, which gives an impression of a specific "battleship" role for the Home One design as distinct from the Liberty, a separation that's not supported by the canon.
 * the Starship Battles game refers to the Home One unit as a "rare" Light Side vessel, while the MC80 cruiser unit is only listed as "uncommon"
 * A fair point, suggesting that the Home One type is more unusual than the Liberty type. Not completely convinced that this warrants seperate pages, but still, fair enough.
 * And adding replies from here:
 * Since the cruisers like the Dreadnaught-class are part of the Utapauns defense force of "downscaled" ships, this shows the "standard Imperial scale" is one of several standards, as it would be pointless to point out it being scaled down from another standard scale if this did not exist.
 * As I've already said: even assuming that "self-made, downscaled ships" on which the people of Utapau "rely" actually include "their biggest Rendili Dreadnaught" (something I'm not completely convinced the passage proves), there's nothing to say that this means the "Rendili Dreadnaught" in question is a downscaled cruiser, rather than a downscaled dreadnaught. Even if it is, it's possible that the ship in question is in an overlap where it's a "cruiser" by both "downscaled" and "standard" definitions.
 * a years-long vendetta against one specific author and the books he wrote for LFL
 * I have nothing against Dr. Curtis Saxton, to whom I assume you're referring. I actually think that his designation system (implicitly used by Kuat Drive Yards) should get a fair and thorough presentation on this wiki (along with, for instance, the Corellian designation system represented by PB patrol-boat, CR corvette and CC cruiser/"frigate" designations); I just think that as part of that fairness and thoroughness, the lack of explicit canon definition and the difference from "the standard Imperial system" both need to be noted. We don't know what this system defines an MC80 as, for instance, or a Sienar Fleet Systems Vindicator-class heavy cruiser, or even KDY's own EF76 Nebulon-B escort frigate.
 * Inside the Worlds of Star Wars Trilogy and Star Wars: Complete Locations both explicitly designate Super Star Destroyer as a term used to cover several ship-classes bigger than Star Destroyers, from Star Cruisers to Star Dreadnoughts...
 * This is true enough, though it's not what I was trying to ask about (I think I didn't make my point quite clear): what I mean by "canon evidence that explicitly defines the categories" is evidence showing exactly what defines the meaning of designations, rather than simply the names of designations.
 * Turning to the evidence, I understand that substantially the same line is used in both ICS and SW:CL: Super Star Destroyer is defined as "a term that covers many warship classes bigger than a Star Destroyer, from Star Cruisers to ultimate Star Dreadnoughts like Executor"&mdash;but correct me if I'm wrong, and quote the other version if you can! From this, I think we can say with some confidence that there was a designation system which included Star Dreadnoughts, Star Cruisers and Star Destroyers, to which we can add Star Battlecruisers from ICS, and perhaps Star Frigates and other designations. We can also say that some Star Cruisers were bigger than "Star Destroyers" (1.6km Imperial-class ships?). What this doesn't seem to provide us with, though, is evidence that all Star Cruisers are bigger than Star Destroyers (the widespread use of the term for the 1.2km MC80 suggests otherwise, too). In fact, it doesn't give any precise information to show just what defines a ship as belonging to one designation rather than to another.
 * For instance, there's nothing in canon to prove that this isn't actually a variant of the "standard" system, with Star Cruiser beginning at 400m, Star Destroyer indicating a subset of cruisers, and Star Dreadnought and Star Battlecruiser either being other subsets of large cruisers, or else larger "bizarrities".
 * Furthermore, Attack of the Clones Incredible Cross-Sections mentions two large ship classes, Star Battlecruisers and Star Dreadnoughts, making these terms older than "Super Star Destroyer"...
 * I'm not disputing this, but again, there's nothing to tell us what, precisely, defines these terms, except that they denote large ships. --McEwok 14:01, 17 January 2007 (UTC)


 * McEwok, I tried to end one conflict, yet you bring me in to another. You don't make canon. The MC80 battleship and MC80a Star Cruiser are different from the MC80 Star Cruiser. We're not merging them, no matter what you think. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Imperial Emblem.png|20px]] 20:24, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
 * nor does "battleship" here necessarily indicate anything more than "combat warship" in contrast with "command post". 
 * The problem is, it's your burden of proof that the term "battleship" is a generic rather than specific term. If you can't show this, then there is no reason to assume it is so, when there is already at least two generic terms in use: "warship" and "capital ship".
 * I see most of your questions stem from some kind of misinterpretation of certain sources. The Mon Calamari Star Cruisers are what they are, so are the Imperial Star Cruisers that are larger than Imperial Star Destroyers. Where you are getting the notion that the two terms mean exactly the same or that one is part of the other, I don't know, there is nothing in canon that says this. So far, the Mon Calamari have their own system for designating their own warships, the majority of which are called 'Star Cruisers'. They're a culture from the fringe of the Outer Rim Territories, some difference in military standards should be expected. The Utapaun's use of downscaled warships should be straight-forward enough, without any loopholes. I've noted in appropriate articles how the Super Star Destroyer classes differ, with sources. I've done everything to make it clear to anyone reading, where the official information comes from and what it means. I have no further obligation to provide even more evidence than what has already been written by me or by others throughout this site. As for "bizarrities", these do not exist beyond moon-sized battlestations. Official sources tell of the relatively common sector-level deployment of Super Star Destroyers (from Dark Empire Sourcebook and Cracken's Threat Dossier, but which types they were was not explained) and the prevalance of battle groups centered around a Super Star Destroyer (Dark Forces: Jedi Knight, where the SSD Vengeance and her battle group were treated as a large, but expected formation during a high-priority operation). The reactor of an Imperial-class Star Destroyer and the reactor of a Procurator-class Star Battlecruiser are directly compared in ITW:OT and later in SW:CL (speaking of reprints, much of WEG's material has been reprinted and repackaged by it and other book companies for almost 20 years now, so this is not something "unique" by Dorling Kindersley that somehow "weakens" the sources). The ISD's reactor gives enough power to a Rebel base's defenses to be able to hold off one battleship at Yavin IV (0 BBY, and therefore meaning a pre-Executor battleship). The PSBC's reactor fullfills the same purpose at Hoth (3 ABY), but the Rebels this time are protected both from an Executor-class Star Dreadnought and a flotilla of ISDs. So the reactor power is significant in Star Battlecruisers, apart from that, the only thing that seperates them from Star Dreadnoughts, would be the same specifications as their rl inspirations. Lesser armor on a battlecruiser than on a battleship. As for the seperation between Star Destroyers and the larger Star Cruisers, there is a mention of multi mile-long Star Destroyers in AOTC:ICS, so the border area between these classes might usually be from 3,2 km to something less than 8,0 km. If the Super-class hoax (Starship Battles Preview 1) was to be successful, the plans couldn't exaggerate a Star Destroyers dimensions too much, or else risk suspicion. But all of this has been written elsewhere. There, that should clear up a few things. I even made a list of different navies and some representative ships in each class (it's not by any means complete and I didn't follow any standard classifications other than with regards to the names). It's just meant to show people the similarities in usage and composition of all the great navies in "modern" SW time. VT-16 22:15, 17 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Nice work on the list, VT. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Imperial Emblem.png|20px]] 23:52, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Nebulax: The MC80 battleship and MC80a Star Cruiser are different from the MC80 Star Cruiser.
 * If you mean that each page currently deals with a different design, you'd be right. However, the Home One type is only ever identified as an MC80, never an MC80 battleship, and this similar type is called an MC80a; the Liberty type dealt with on the MC80 Star Cruiser page is given the designations MC80 and MC80a in different places in canon, while the related wingless type, also dealt with there seems to have no canon designation, and if ships using the same basic hullform can be known by both MC80 and MC80a designations, then we can't quite be sure that the standard "Expanded Universe" type or the Nauritus type are only represented by MC80a Star Cruiser types, rather than also earlier MC80 designs.
 * In short, there are at least four design types, and only two designations. At least one type, and possibly two, seem to be identified as both "MC80" and "MC80a", so I'd argue that all of them are best represented on the same page. I'll put together a temp page for discussion, to show the sort of structure I'm thinking of.
 * VT: The Mon Calamari Star Cruisers are what they are, so are the Imperial Star Cruisers that are larger than Imperial Star Destroyers. Where you are getting the notion that the two terms mean exactly the same or that one is part of the other, I don't know, there is nothing in canon that says this.
 * Nor is there anything that says they're not representatives of the same definition. Why can't the MC80 and the "Star Cruisers" bigger than Star Destroyers both represent a single Star Cruiser designation&mdash;and one that may in fact be no different from the standard "cruiser" definition?
 * So far, the Mon Calamari have their own system for designating their own warships, the majority of which are called 'Star Cruisers'.
 * What's your evidence for of a seperate designation system? We have 500m Mon Calamari "light cruiser" design and a variety of related 1200m (and up) "Star Cruisers", which is no real surprise, considering that ships over 400m are "cruisers" as standard.
 * They're a culture from the fringe of the Outer Rim Territories, some difference in military standards should be expected.
 * Why? Whatever some Rebel propaganda might say, they're a member world of the Republic with a long tradition of providing Captains and Admirals for the Navy; they were the world that was primarily responsible for some major Separatist capital ship designs, and they also built civilian ships with a Galaxy-wide reputation, like the 500m Kuari Princess (which is illustrated at one point with a photo of the Liberty model; you could almost use this to argue that the Liberty might be an MC40a....).
 * The Utapaun's use of downscaled warships should be straight-forward enough, without any loopholes.
 * What does that mean? Are you rejecting my analysis of the passage on the grounds that you think it's not "straightforward" enough? I can't see anything "straightforward" in drawing a confident inference that the standard cruiser designation doesn't start at 400m from the line "Utapauns rely upon self-made, downscaled ships—their biggest anti-pirate Rendili Dreadnaught is one-fifth the size of a Trade Federation Battleship", a passage which doesn't mention cruiser designations at all.
 * I've noted in appropriate articles how the Super Star Destroyer classes differ, with sources. I've done everything to make it clear to anyone reading, where the official information comes from and what it means. I have no further obligation to provide even more evidence than what has already been written by me or by others throughout this site.
 * Could you provide a link to a direct quote in one of the "appropriate articles", if there's evidence beyond the quote I already quoted and discussed? We can certainly infer that certain ships are called "Super Star Destroyers", but I don't see how that's very relevant (especially if the term is "Rebel slang"). There's nothing to define the precise meaning of "Star Cruiser", "Star Battlecruiser' or "Star Dreadnaught", except to know that some Star Battlecruisers and Star Dreadnaughts are "multi-mile" and some Star Cruisers and Star Dreadnoughts are "larger than a Star Destroyer" and (thus?) classed as SSDs.
 * As for "bizarrities", these do not exist beyond moon-sized battlestations.
 * Not necessarily true. Because the "standard" designations in The Rebel Alliance Sourcebook 8km SSD are part of "a handful of bizarrities". This implicitly includes the 19km Executor and the Eye of Palpatine.
 * I don't unerstand why the subsequent discussion of the relative numbers of SSDs is relevant to the argument, so I've ommitted it for now.
 * (speaking of reprints, much of WEG's material has been reprinted and repackaged by it and other book companies for almost 20 years now, so this is not something "unique" by Dorling Kindersley that somehow "weakens" the sources).
 * I'm not quite sure why you think I'm suggesting this. I made a point that ICS and SW:CL apparently had the same single reference to there being "Star Cruisers" larger than Star Destroyers. The point I was making wasn't that the repetition "weakens" the quote, but that the version of the quote I know does not imply that all Star Cruisers are larger than Star Destroyers. I'm highlighting the possibility that there might be another version of the quote, and my request still stands: correct me if I'm wrong, and quote the other version if you can!
 * The ISD's reactor gives enough power to a Rebel base's defenses to be able to hold off one battleship at Yavin IV (0 BBY, and therefore meaning a pre-Executor battleship). The PSBC's reactor fullfills the same purpose at Hoth (3 ABY), but the Rebels this time are protected both from an Executor-class Star Dreadnought and a flotilla of ISDs. So the reactor power is significant in Star Battlecruisers, apart from that, the only thing that seperates them from Star Dreadnoughts, would be the same specifications as their rl inspirations. Lesser armor on a battlecruiser than on a battleship.
 * Do you have the exact quote on the Yavin reactor, please? As I noted more than a year ago, the Imperial-class Star Destroyer's reactor is supposed to be the largest single reactor ever mounted on a spaceship. It's true that in the real world, we would expect that battlecruisers would be faster and less heavily armoured than battleships, but we still have little to define the "Star Dreadnought" class, and even if the drives of a Praetor were more powerful than those of an ISD, that doesn't kick her out of the same size-bracket: historical battlecruisers had much more powerful machinery than contemporary dreadnaughts, for a few extra knots of speed.
 * As for the seperation between Star Destroyers and the larger Star Cruisers, there is a mention of multi mile-long Star Destroyers in AOTC:ICS, so the border area between these classes might usually be from 3,2 km to something less than 8,0 km.
 * I'd appreciate the quote on multi-mile Star Destroyers, if you (or anyone else) could supply it. I'd also point out, yet again, that you've provided no evidence that Star Cruisers must by definition be larger than Star Destroyers.
 * If the Super-class hoax (Starship Battles Preview 1) was to be successful, the plans couldn't exaggerate a Star Destroyers dimensions too much, or else risk suspicion.
 * Am I right to think that this is speculation? The 8km Super-class is described as the largest proper capital ship ever built, and that may equally be the constraint: I know of no real evidence that the standard "Star Destroyer" designation has a fixed size-limit, rather than being defined by, for instance, role and hullform.
 * I even made a list of different navies and some representative ships in each class (it's not by any means complete and I didn't follow any standard classifications other than with regards to the names). It's just meant to show people the similarities in usage and composition of all the great navies in "modern" SW time.
 * Thorough, but perhaps a littlle misleading. You've used some designators in ways (deived from SWTC?) that I no know real canon backing for, and some, like the Geonosian Dreadnaught, seem out of position. This means that the seeming "similarities in usage" are perhaps a little misleading. --McEwok 02:04, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
 * EDIT: after all that long point-by-point stuff, there are a few simple questions that it would help me if VT-16 (or anyone else) could answer.
 * Is there any clear evidence that calling 1200m Mon Cal ships "Star Cruisers" is a specific Mon Cal designation? This is suggested at SWTC, but I think it's just a hypothesis there (connected with the proposal made there that the minimum limit for "real" cruisers should be above the 1.6km "destroyer").
 * Is there any evidence to define the size of "Imperial" Star Cruisers beyond the Inside the Worlds of Star Wars Trilogy/Star Wars: Complete Locations quote discussed earlier; and is this quote the same in both books?
 * What are the exact quotes in ITW/SW:CL on the size of the Star Destroyer and Prateor reactors used at Yavin and Hoth?
 * Is there a reference to multi-mile Star Destroyers in AotC:ICS, as VT claims?
 * Thanks! --McEwok 02:18, 18 January 2007 (UTC)


 * McEwok, we're not merging MC80 battleship, MC80a Star Cruiser, and MC80 Star Cruiser. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Imperial Emblem.png|20px]] 12:27, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Quotes
If any administrator or moderator with the books AOTC:ICS, ITW:OT, SW:CL and ROTS:ICS read this, please validate the quotes I am writing here, so I am not accused as a liar again.

"A NEW MENACE. To compensate for the destruction of the first Death Star at Yavin, the Emperor - urged on by Darth Vader - orders KDY engineer Lira Wessex to rush into production a new class of gargantuan ship. Eventually designated 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 Dreadnoughts like Executor."

- Star Wars: Complete Locations, page 171

Same page has one of the highlights note that Tower is standard module used on many warship classes built by Kuat Drive Yards (KDY).

Now, before moving on, I'll post this little visual aid, so that there is no mistakes made:


 * Star Destroyers are smaller than Star Cruisers.
 * Mon Calamari Star Cruisers are smaller or equal in size (Home One and any multi-mile SD) to Star Destroyers.
 * Mon Calamari Star Cruisers are not called Super Star Destroyers.
 * Imperial ships are called Super Star Destroyers.

A Mon Calamari Star Cruiser is not the same as an Imperial Star Cruiser that the Rebels refer to as a Super Star Destroyer, this is not stated anywhere in a canonical source and can not be taken as such. These are two different systems, made by two different militaries. Moving on.

"Tariff barriers and embargoes between the galaxy's sectors prevent direct competition between Kuat Drive Yards, Republic Sienar Systems, Incom, and other military shipbuilders. In years to come, Kuat will gain a near monopoly on warship contracts for Palpatine's centralized fleet, although rival Sienar will win most government business for starfighters. Thus the technically excellent Delta-7 Starfighter will be extinct in ten years, while its miles-long cousins, the Star Destroyers, will continue to fill KDY's bountiful catalogue."

- Attack of the Clones: Incredible Cross-Sections, page 11

"The Vengeance was not one of the Empire's larger Star Destroyers, nor was such a vessel required for the matter at hand. After all, why use a sword when a dagger would suffice?"

- Dark Forces: Soldier for the Empire, page 12

The Vengeance in question here is Jerec's first Imperial-class Star Destroyer, used in the attack on Sulon in approx. 1 BBY. Jerec contemplates using a larger Star Destroyer, but an ISD is deemed sufficient. That's two accounts of multi-mile Star Destroyers, that I know of.

As for Star Destroyers vis-a-vis other warship classes:

"The Galactic Republic's new Venator-class Star Destroyer is fast enough to chase down blockade-runners and big enough to lead independent missions such as the liberation of Utapau. A flotilla of these medium-weight, versatile multi-role warships can blast through the shields of a Trade Federation battleship with ease. The hangars of the Venator-class are much larger than older Star Destroyers like the Victory-class, and can support hundreds of fightercraft. The ship is also capable of planetary landings as a military transport and can be an escort for battleships in the Republic armada. However, the primary function of the Venator-class is its role as a fighting ship and starfighter carrier, making it a firm favorite with Jedi fighter aces."

- Revenge of the Sith: Incredible Cross-Sections, page 4

"THE KUAT LEGACY. Kuat Drive Yards, the manufacturer of the Venator-class, claim the Republic is winning the Clone Wars with this ship and their other powerful, wedge-shaped vessels. But the construction of Venator-class vessels is already slowing in favor of more robust, mile-long Imperator-class (renamed Imperial-class after the Jedi Purge) and hangarless Tector-class Star Destroyers. These ships will see service for decades to come, as the Republic is transformed into the Empire. The Imperial Starfleet will justify its existence in unending war against Separatist holdouts, dissident rebels and even, it is rumored, deterring barbarian invaders from outside the galaxy."

- Revenge of the Sith: Incredible Cross-Sections, page 5

As for downscaled ships:

"The Trade Federation protects its position in remote galactic regions by placing embargoes on arms sales to planetary governments. As a result, Utapauns rely upon self-made, downscaled ships - their biggest anti-pirate Rendili Dreadnaught is one-fifth the size of a Trade Federation Battleship."

- Revenge of the Sith: Incredible Cross-Sections, page 22

"Sienar will also produce the Empire's primary space-superiority craft, the TIE (Twin Ion Engine) fighter, as well as downscaled warships built to patrol remote sectors."

- Revenge of the Sith: Incredible Cross-Sections, page 26

These are all references to classes known from the earliest West End Games RPG books. Sienar's biggest warships for the Empire, were the Vindicator-class heavy cruisers and Immobilizer 418 cruisers. Rendili's famous Dreadnaughts were anti-pirate patrol ships in the Empire's heydays. Several scales, as shown, and therefore a retcon of the old WEG system. For the last time, retcons like this happen all the time. Any further arguments from you against this, will invariably contain information from decades-old sources, of which these newer sources serve as retcons for. Therefore, that cannot be accepted as a valid counter-argument. I think the admins would agree on this. As for the degree of canonicity, the DK books were made in cooperation with the film crews and using behind the scenes materials, as mentioned in interviews with the authors and artists. There was even a mention in one of the SW:Insider magazines that said these books were the most "thoroughly researched works" for the films. Decades-old information from RPG sourcebooks, that mostly deal with things not as closely alligned with the films, would invariably be of lower canonical stature, as mentioned by LFL employees and chronicled on the SW canon article. Of note:"The further one branches away from the movies, the more interpretation and speculation come into play."

- Chris Cerasi

You could talk about WEG or WOTC RPG stats until you're blue in the face, and it would not make an ounce of difference. I don't care if you ever realize this, I'm only interested in Wookieepedia getting the most correct information. Somehow I doubt that can be done by religiously following information from 20 year old RPG statbooks that are not even kept consistent by the publishers or by LFL-affiliated writers. VT-16 09:18, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
 * VT: I don't really see much in that post that I've not already replied to. I'm also confused that you say you were being "accused as a liar": what, specifically, were you referring to with this?
 * a term that covers many warship classes bigger than a Star Destroyer, from Star Cruisers to ultimate Star Dreadnoughts like Executor (SW:CL)
 * ALREADY DISCUSSED:
 * This shows is that some smaller "Super Star Destroyers" (perhaps the weakest ships so designated?) are known alternatively as "Star Cruisers", and that these "Star Cruisers" must be bigger than a 1.6km ISD; it doesn't specify that all Star Cruisers are bigger than Star Destroyers, which is VT's own interpretation. (14th Jan)
 * What this doesn't seem to provide us with, though, is evidence that all Star Cruisers are bigger than Star Destroyers (the widespread use of the term for the 1.2km MC80 suggests otherwise, too). In fact, it doesn't give any precise information to show just what defines a ship as belonging to one designation rather than to another. (17th Jan)
 * Star Destroyers are smaller than Star Cruisers.
 * ALREADY DISCUSSED:
 * ... there's nothing in canon to prove that this isn't actually a variant of the "standard" system, with Star Cruiser beginning at 400m, Star Destroyer indicating a subset of cruisers, and Star Dreadnought and Star Battlecruiser either being other subsets of large cruisers, or else larger "bizarrities". (17th Jan; see also above)
 * Mon Calamari Star Cruisers are smaller or equal in size (Home One and any multi-mile SD) to Star Destroyers.
 * Not completely true. I don't know of any Mon Cal Star Cruiser (as opposed to light cruiser) below 1200m, but the Star Destroyer designation includes ships as small as 900m, maybe smaller.
 * Mon Calamari Star Cruisers are not called Super Star Destroyers.
 * Is this meant as a general rule, or just an (accurate) observation that we've never seen a Mon Cal ship referred to as a "Super Star Destroyer"?
 * A Mon Calamari Star Cruiser is not the same as an Imperial Star Cruiser that the Rebels refer to as a Super Star Destroyer, this is not stated anywhere in a canonical source and can not be taken as such. These are two different systems, made by two different militaries.
 * ALREADY DISCUSSED:
 * ... no clear evidence to say that they can't be Star Cruisers in the system that makes the Executor a Star Dreadnought. (15th Jan)
 * Nor is there anything that says they're not representatives of the same definition. Why can't the MC80 and the "Star Cruisers" bigger than Star Destroyers both represent a single Star Cruiser designation—and one that may in fact be no different from the standard "cruiser" definition? (18th Jan)
 * What's your evidence for of a seperate designation system? We have 500m Mon Calamari "light cruiser" design and a variety of related 1200m (and up) "Star Cruisers", which is no real surprise, considering that ships over 400m are "cruisers" as standard. (18th Jan)
 * its miles-long cousins, the Star Destroyers (AOTC:ICS)
 * The Vengeance was not one of the Empire's larger Star Destroyers, nor was such a vessel required for the matter at hand. (DF:SftE)
 * Interesting... and thank you. Both these quotes are new to me, and this does show that the term "Star Destroyer" can be applied to multi-mile ships&mdash;though I wouldn't ever have denied that, since it's applied widely to large Imperial warships including Executor. Of course, this doesn't limit the size of other ships (for instance, Star Cruisers), since there's no direct evidence that other designations are limited to ships larger than the largest "miles-long" Star Destroyer. The semantics of the ICS quote are also worth noting: clearly, not all Star Destroyers are "miles-long", as a literal interpretation would imply.
 * medium-weight, versatile multi-role warships... can be an escort for battleships (RotS:ICS)
 * ALREADY DISCUSSED:
 * ... if memory serves, the "battleships" that the Venator is said to escort are not described as "larger"; arguably, they could even include Victory-class Star Destroyers; historically, dreadnaughts were typically smaller than escorting battlecruisers, but slower and better armoured. (14th Jan)
 * My point here was that the Venator could be seen in this context as a battlecruiser. Thanks for providing the quote, though. I'm not sure if you were making a further point here beyond the lines you highlighted. Feel free to indicate anything else in the quote that you want to discuss.
 * Utapauns rely upon self-made, downscaled ships - their biggest anti-pirate Rendili Dreadnaught is one-fifth the size of a Trade Federation Battleship. (ROTS:ICS)
 * ALREADY DISCUSSED:
 * I'd argue that the first passage doesn't clearly imply that the Rendili Dreadnaught is "downscaled", but even if (for the sake of argument) it does, there's no reason to assume that the ship in question isn't a downscaled dreadnaught, rather than a downscaled cruiser. At best, this merely provides an alternative POV, and (once again) it's VT's assumption that if a 600m cruiser is "downscaled" (a claim that contradicts the "standard" definition of the term), a 1200m one must be, too. (14th Jan)
 * As I've already said: even assuming that "self-made, downscaled ships" on which the people of Utapau "rely" actually include "their biggest Rendili Dreadnaught" (something I'm not completely convinced the passage proves), there's nothing to say that this means the "Rendili Dreadnaught" in question is a downscaled cruiser, rather than a downscaled dreadnaught. Even if it is, it's possible that the ship in question is in an overlap where it's a "cruiser" by both "downscaled" and "standard" definitions. (17th Jan)
 * I can't see anything "straightforward" in drawing a confident inference that the standard cruiser designation doesn't start at 400m from the line "Utapauns rely upon self-made, downscaled ships—their biggest anti-pirate Rendili Dreadnaught is one-fifth the size of a Trade Federation Battleship", a passage which doesn't mention cruiser designations at all. (18th Jan)
 * downscaled warships built to patrol remote sectors. (ROTS:ICS)
 * ALREADY DISCUSSED:
 * The second reference to Sienar ships need only refer to miniature ships like the 42-metre Guardian-class and Warden-class "light cruisers", which might give an idea of the scale of the "downscaled" craft that are "self-made" at Utapau, as well. (14th Jan)
 * These are all references to classes known from the earliest West End Games RPG books.
 * Your suggestion of which Sienar ships are being referred to is speculation, and while it's likely (but not certain) that the "Rendili Dreadnaught" means the Dreadnaught-class heavy cruiser, I'd say you're misrepresenting the role of this ship.
 * Sienar's biggest warships for the Empire, were the Vindicator-class heavy cruisers and Immobilizer 418 cruisers.
 * Why should it be these that are being referred to, rather than the 42m "light cruisers" of the Guardian and Warden designs? Those sound much more like "downscaled warships" than 600m heavy cruisers falling in the classic "standard" cruiser size (though it's possible that those could be thought of as downscaled Star Destroyers)....
 * Rendili's famous Dreadnaughts were anti-pirate patrol ships in the Empire's heydays.
 * Something of an overstatement. As portrayed in The Imperial Sourcebook, the Dreadnaught-class heavy cruiser was originally "the largest vessel of its time", and in Rogue Planet and Outbound Flight it's identified as a powerful combat capital ship before the Clone Wars. Under the Empire, "They are used to maintain an Imperial presence in the Outer Rim Territories, as convoy escorts, and in the pacification of low technology worlds". They are, however, capable of performing a Base Delta Zero, as seen in The Hutt Gambit, and even prove useful in major fleet operations, as in The Last Command. If they have an "anti-pirate" role, it is hardly any different from the role performed by two Victory-class Star Destroyers at the Battle of Khuiumin, or that of the Imperial-class Star Destroyer Brazen in Elrood Sector.
 * Several scales, as shown, and therefore a retcon of the old WEG system. For the last time, retcons like this happen all the time. Any further arguments from you against this, will invariably contain information from decades-old sources, of which these newer sources serve as retcons for. Therefore, that cannot be accepted as a valid counter-argument. I think the admins would agree on this.
 * I don't see the retcon. From the start (as I've said already) there were supposed to be multiple systems of warship designation in use in the Galaxy: the earliest reference I know of is the passage in The Rebel Alliance Sourcebook that also introduces "the standard Imperial system". So the existence of "several scales" is not a retcon.
 * Beyond that, my argument is that these passages you quote (almost all of which I have already quoted and discussed earlier on this page) do not imply the specific, speculative interpretations you suggest. For instance, the RotS:ICS passage proves that some Star Cruisers are large enough to be SSDs, not that all Star Cruisers are larger than Star Destroyers. There are certainly new terms used in the newer books, such as "Star Dreadnought", but for warship designations that are actually given explicit definitions and explicitly organized into overall systems, we have to turn to other sources, which while older, are unambiguous, and which also define a Galactic "standard" system.
 * Or, as I said already:
 * I actually think that [this] designation system (implicitly used by Kuat Drive Yards) should get a fair and thorough presentation on this wiki (along with, for instance, the Corellian designation system represented by PB patrol-boat, CR corvette and CC cruiser/"frigate" designations); I just think that as part of that fairness and thoroughness, the lack of explicit canon definition and the difference from "the standard Imperial system" both need to be noted. We don't know what this system defines an MC80 as, for instance, or a Sienar Fleet Systems Vindicator-class heavy cruiser, or even KDY's own EF76 Nebulon-B escort frigate. (17th Jan)
 * You've answered one of the four summary questions I posed at the end of my previous post ("Is there a reference to multi-mile Star Destroyers in AotC:ICS"?), and thank you for that. The other three are still unanswered, though, so I'll repeat them, in the hope that someone reading might have the information:
 * Is there any clear evidence that calling 1200m Mon Cal ships "Star Cruisers" is a specific Mon Cal designation? This is suggested at SWTC, but I think it's just a hypothesis there (connected with the proposal made there that the minimum limit for "real" cruisers should be above the 1.6km "destroyer").
 * Is there any evidence to define the size of "Imperial" Star Cruisers beyond the Inside the Worlds of Star Wars Trilogy/Star Wars: Complete Locations quote discussed earlier; and is this quote the same in both books?
 * What are the exact quotes in ITW/SW:CL on the size of the Star Destroyer and Prateor reactors used at Yavin and Hoth?
 * Thanks! --McEwok 13:34, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I do not know if the Mon Calamari are the only species or culture to use this designation for their capital ships (which is usually written as "Mon Calamari Star Cruiser" or "Mon Calamari cruiser"). What I do know, is that the reference to a specific subset of Super Star Destroyers can not encompass their ships, as no MC Star Cruiser ever surpassed Imperial Star Destroyers in size.
 * The only way to gauge maximum Star Destroyer size, is to look at the sources detailing Star Destroyers larger than ISDs. I have already posted two such sources above (AOTC:ICS, Dark Forces:Soldier for the Empire), which give a drop-off point of at least 3,200 meters for Star Destroyers. Jerec`s notation of a larger Star Destroyer seems to indicate multiple ISD-lengths (sword over dagger), but this can`t provide a clear size. The only other indication is the hoax perpetrated by Imperial Admirality just prior to Yavin (Starship Battles Preview 1), to portray an 8,000 meter long Star Destroyer, which itself was said to be unprecedented for that type of warship. If the size had been considered to high to maintain credibility, they would have used something lower. Since this did not happen, and the Senate let it through its evaluation, Star Destroyers would most likely have been up to 3 or 4 times as long as an ISD at this point. Anything above that would have been their Star Cruisers, and at some point below the Executor at 19,000 meters, their class would stop, and the classes of the Empire`s largest vessels, Star Battlecruisers and Star Dreadnoughts, would begin.
 * "POWER SUPPLY. The functioning of the base is reliant on a power-generating station located two kilometers (1.2 miles) away. Pieced together from turbines and a main reactor stolen from an Imperial Star Destroyer, the station supplies sufficient power for a protective shield, ion cannons, and other defences that could hold off an assault from a single large battleship."

- Star Wars: Complete Locations, page 138


 * "ION BLASTS. Synchronized with a battle-theater shield generator, the Kuat Drive Yard v-150 Ion Cannon fires massive, charged-plasma shots powerful enough to penetrate the ray shielding of an Imperial Star Destroyer in low orbit, neutralizing its weapons, shields, and engines - or, at the very least, disrupt control systems and ion drives."

- Star Wars: Complete Locations, page 143, fold-out


 * The highlights on the picture, show the cannon's power generator is connected with the main reactors of the base, which are stolen parts from a derelict Praetor-class Star battlecruiser. These reactors are also connected to the power generator which runs the shield system surrounding Echo Base.
 * Basically, the ISD reactor powering the Massassi Station and its defenses, which was enough to defend against one battleship (pre-Executor, of course). The Praetor reactor powered Echo Base and its defenses 3 years later, providing energy to keep both the Executor and its Star Destroyer flotilla at bay.
 * The amount of power given by the Praetor-class reactor is quite immense, and almost comparable to the Executor, which held off a large Rebel flotilla at Endor, before parts of its shields was overwhelmed by capital ship fire (this from a Rebel fleet which was said to stretch beyond human vision, ROTJ novelization). I can only guess that the main difference between Star Battlecruisers and Star Dreadnoughts would be the amount of armor-plating used (which would give the engines less mass to move if Star Battlecruisers followed their rl examples and discarded some), thus making them faster.
 * Those sound much more like "downscaled warships"
 * Why is the Rendili Dreadnaught said to have a size of 600 meters in the same passage, then? Why does the passage name it as one of the "downscaled" warships the Utapauns used, then? Why would the passage talk about the smallest patrol ships and customs vessels, instead of Sienar's most famous and widely used Imperial warships? Since the passage specifies "warships", not "Inter-System Customs Vessels"? You can't lie your way out of this, since the quotes are there for all to see.
 * And then there's this:

"SHIP TYPES. There are several distinct ship classifications used in the galaxy. While individual shipmodels are very diverse, the classifications are a quick and easy way to qualify the bewildering variety of ships in use."

- Heir to the Empire Sourcebook, page 118
 * Several different classifications, and the one most seen, this so-called standard Imperial system (which did not even begin with the Empire), is used for a quick and easy orientation. In other words, it is not definitive, and does not constitute any absolute scales, according to WEG. Isn't that nice, it's almost as if other authors can be allowed to expand upon this at a later date...

"A specific sub-division of the classification combat starship is that of cruiser. Cruisers were once the backbone of the Old Republic Fleet. The original designation was fo the largest class of ships in service, and as a general guideline, they were equipped with heavy weapons, tractor beam projectors and at least one squadron of starfighters. Now, as the Imperial Star Destroyers completely outclass the cruisers, the definition has been loosened to accommodate any combat-oriented ship over 400 meters long and emphasizing heavy weaponry over starfighters (Star Destroyers technically fit within this definition, but due to their enormous firepower, they are considered their own sub-category). Still, some cruisers are quite large, and many types fill important roles in both the Imperial Fleet and the New Republic."

- Heir to the Empire Sourcebook, page 118


 * Not only has the cruiser definition been loosened, but Star Destroyers are too big to strictly belong to this category. Going to the next texted page (page 120), we already find two classes who "violate" this system:
 * The New Republic Assault Frigate, which is also called a Modified Imperial Dreadnaught and the Carrack-class Light Cruiser which is 350 meters long, but has enough firepower to fit into the 'cruiser' category, even though it usually only used against corvettes. The Carrack-class is alternatively called a 'gunship' in the novel Darksaber. There's also the fact that the alternate names of the Recusant-class, Providence-class and Munificent-class contains the word 'cruiser' in them, yet these classes are usually referred to as destroyers and frigates, respectively, in the books that profile them. So there is nothing to actually define the standard Imperial system as absolute, and everything to suggest it's only meant for a brief overview, whereas alternate classifications exist to define each ship more clearly.
 * the "battleships" that the Venator is said to escort are not described as "larger"; arguably, they could even include Victory-class Star Destroyers; historically, dreadnaughts were typically smaller than escorting battlecruisers, but slower and better armoured.
 * Provide canonical evidence that the Venator-class were described as battlecruisers. And how are they supposed to escort themselves, are they schizophrenic?
 * I'm not sure if you were making a further point here beyond the lines you highlighted. Feel free to indicate anything else in the quote that you want to discuss
 * Thank you for providing absolutely no sources that say what you claim they say and for lying straight to my face. As for the rest of your arguments, seeing yet again no sources coming from you: Your concession is hereby accepted. VT-16 14:32, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Does that make sense? --McEwok 18:09, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
 * VT: No concession has been given, and I am not lying. Nor do I need to present any new sources. My point is that the sources you are already using do not support your argument.
 * I do not know if the Mon Calamari are the only species or culture to use this designation for their capital ships (which is usually written as "Mon Calamari Star Cruiser" or "Mon Calamari cruiser"). What I do know, is that the reference to a specific subset of Super Star Destroyers can not encompass their ships, as no MC Star Cruiser ever surpassed Imperial Star Destroyers in size.
 * The subset of Super Star Destroyers that are called Star Cruisers do not necessarily comprise the entire set of Star Cruisers. It's entirely possible that the same definition of the "Star Cruiser" designation includes both 1200m MC80s and other Star Crusiers bigger than 1.6km, just like the "standard Imperial" definition of the "cruiser" designation includes both the 1.2km MC80 and the 8km SSD design. Indeed, the two designations could be pretty much identical.
 * The only way to gauge maximum Star Destroyer size, is to look at the sources detailing Star Destroyers larger than ISDs.
 * There is no question about this. The largest ship called a "Star Destroyer" is the Executor, pretty much the largest true warship in space. But this also shows that a ship can be both a Star Destroyer and a Star Dreadnought. The reference to "miles-long Star Destroyers" in AotC:ICS and Jerec's musings about Star Destroyers "larger" than a 1.6km ISD could both be using a definition of "Star Destroyer" that includes all large Imperial warships. Thus, these references do not limit designations like "Star Cruiser" and "Star Dreadnought" to larger ships than "miles-long" Star Destroyers.
 * The only other indication is the hoax perpetrated by Imperial Admirality just prior to Yavin (Starship Battles Preview 1), to portray an 8,000 meter long Star Destroyer, which itself was said to be unprecedented for that type of warship.
 * Do you have a quote showing that the 8km SSD is "unprecedented for that type of warship"? I know that the 8km SSD is called "the biggest cruiser yet built" (The Rebel Alliance Sourcebook) and "the largest warship ever constructed" (The Imperial Sourcebook). Neither of these gives any indication of how her size compared with other Star Destroyers.
 * I also continue to disagree that the "hoax" was the existence of the 8km SSD, rather than the claim that Executor specifically was an 8km SSD, but that's a side issue.
 * If the size had been considered to high to maintain credibility, they would have used something lower. Since this did not happen, and the Senate let it through its evaluation, Star Destroyers would most likely have been up to 3 or 4 times as long as an ISD at this point.
 * Pure speculation. The reference from Jerec shows that Star Destroyers larger than an ISD exissted, but the main reason for disguising Executor as an 8km SSD was to disguise the existence of a 19km ship. There's no reason that Star Destroyers were necessarily "up to 3 or 4 times as long as an ISD" already. The Super-class Star Destroyer alone could be several times larger than any previous ship strictly defined as a Star Destroyer.
 * Anything above that would have been their Star Cruisers, and at some point below the Executor at 19,000 meters, their class would stop, and the classes of the Empire`s largest vessels, Star Battlecruisers and Star Dreadnoughts, would begin.
 * The canon references seem to suggest that even the 8km SSD is larger than any previous "warship" of any sort, and even if that wasn't the case, there's nothing to say that each designation relates exclusively to a specific size of warship. It's true that some secretly-constructed dreadnaughts, like Eye of Palpatine and Executor, were larger than 8km, and it's also possible that non-secret ships like the Mandator-class Star Dreadnought were bigger, if they were designated as space-stations rather than true warships. But this is just fan speculation, and none of it provides a minimum size figure for terms like "Star Cruiser" or "Star Dreadnought".
 * Need to write those down when I get home.
 * That would be appreciated. Thanks.
 * I can only guess that the main difference between Star Battlecruisers and Star Dreadnoughts would be the amount of armor-plating used.
 * Yes, and this is entirely your own guess. Nothing wrong with that in itself, though I will reiterate that real-world battlecrusiers not only carried less armour than contemporary battleships, but also had much more powerful engines.
 * Why is the Rendili Dreadnaught said to have a size of 600 meters in the same passage, then?
 * Different passage, four pages earlier. As to why I think these ships are "downscaled", it's because they're below the "standard" classifications, whereas a 600m heavy cruiser isn't.
 * Why does the passage name it as one of the "downscaled" warships the Utapauns used, then?
 * It doesn't. It says that they "rely" on downscaled ships, and then moves to talk about their "largest" ship, which is much smaller than a TFBB. We might infer that the "largest" ship they used was also "downscaled", but other intepretations are possible. And even if she is "downscaled", it's possible that the "Rendili Dreadnaught" is a downscaled dreadnaught, since the design is based on a (presumably similarly-sized) Mandalorian Dreadnaught, rather than a downscaled cruiser (which she certainly isn't according to the "standard" definition of a cruiser).
 * There's so much ambiguity and flexibility in this passage that it can't be used as proof that 600m is "downscaled" for a cruiser.
 * Why would the passage talk about the smallest patrol ships and customs vessels, instead of Sienar's most famous and widely used Imperial warships? Since the passage specifies "warships", not "Inter-System Customs Vessels"? You can't lie your way out of this, since the quotes are there for all to see.
 * Well, for one thing, a 600m heavy cruiser isn't a downscaled cruiser according to the "standard" classifications. As I already said, if the quote does refer to the Vindicator, it might be because it can be regarded as a downscaled Star Destroyer design. But there's no proof that it does refer to those ships. Sienar are known to build tiny 42m "light cruisers", widely used for customs patrols, which probably exist in much larger numbers than a 600m heavy cruiser, and perhaps make more sense to be discussed alongside TIEs. Ultimately, there's no proof either way, but you can't assume that this means 600m cruisers are "downscaled".
 * Provide canonical evidence that the Venator-class were described as battlecruisers.
 * I can't. But you can't prove that their role as "an escort for battleships in the Republic armada" wasn't a battlecruiser role, either.
 * And how are they supposed to escort themselves, are they schizophrenic?
 * Where do you think I suggested they escorted themselves? I was suggesting that their role as "an escort for battleships in the Republic armada" could be read as a battlecruiser role, and pointing out that real-world battleships were often smaller and slower than contemporary battlecrusiers, but better-armoured; in Star Wars terms, ships playing this role in relationship to the VenStar could include the 900m Victory-class Star Destroyer.
 * In short, the "battleships" that the VenStar serves as "an escort for" could actually be smaller, slower ships (but better-armoured).
 * VT: if I can ask a few questions, perhaps we can focus this discussion....
 * 1) Am I right to think that you support the use of a ship-classification system that limits specific warship designations such as "frigate" and "cruiser" to larger ships than those they are applied to by the "standard Imperial system" dating back to the WEG sourcebooks?
 * 2) Am I right to think that you also want this system to have priority over the canon "standard" system?
 * 3) Part of your argument, if I'm understanding it right, is that a Star Cruiser should be larger than a Star Destroyer. Now it's true (RotS:ICS) that there is a subset of Star Cruisers within the set of ships "bigger than a Star Destroyer" which are also known as Super Star Destroyers; but this doesn't imply that all Star Cruisers is "bigger than a Star Destroyer". Do you have any evidence for the argument that all Star Cruisers should be bigger than Star Destroyers?
 * 4) Following on from this, do you have proof that the Mon Calamari Star Cruisers are not Star Cruisers in this sense?
 * 5) Do you have any proof that the definition of "Star Cruiser" is actually any different from the standard definition of "cruiser" (400m-8km, with Star Destroyers as a "sub-category")?
 * 6) There are references to Star Destroyers as "miles-long"; this is not really a problem, as the term "Star Destroyer" is applied even to the massive 19km Executor; however, this usage is as an alternative designation for ships also called Star Dreadnoughts or Super Star Destroyers. Can you provide evidence to define an upper limit for the term "Star Destroyer" in size terms in situations where it is applied specifically to ships that are not also Star Dreadnoughts and Super Star Destroyers?
 * 7) If so, can you prove that this limit also defines the lower limit for any other designations?
 * My position is this: it is canon that alternative designation systems to the "standard" exist in the GFFA, and it is theoretically possible that some of these systems may limit terms like "cruiser" to larger sizes of ship; but no direct proof exists to confirm that any "larger than standard" definitions actually exist, and there is no evidence that any of the alternative systems, whether they are broadly larger or smaller, represent any sort of alternative Galactic "standard".
 * As an argument, a hypothesis or a fan theory, VT's POV has merit. In canon terms, however, his suggested alternative to the "standard" lacks explicit definition, and while I believe that the evidence does deserve a fair presentation, that lack of explicit definition means that the terms involved can't be used with any confidence, except in the specific contexts that they're used in canon:
 * 1) For instance, we can say that the Executor is a "Star Dreadnought" (and also a Star Destroyer), but we can't say what the formal parameters of the "Star Dreadnought" designation are.
 * 2) And we can say that some ships known as Star Cruisers were Super Star Destroyers, but we can't say that the same Star Cruiser designation wasn't also the one applied to the smaller 1200m Mon Calamari ships known as Star Cruisers.

As an argument, a hypothesis or a fan theory, VT's POV has merit

This is nonsensical. Everything that can be written about the various Star Cruisers, has already been written. The "standard classification system", as shown above, is just a quick and easy guide to more complex classification issues. Stop creating problems where there are none and stop misrepresenting official sources.

Nor do I need to present any new sources

Your concession is accepted. VT-16 18:31, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Please let that be the end... Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Imperial Emblem.png|20px]] 21:46, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Nebulax: *McEwok, we're not merging MC80 battleship, MC80a Star Cruiser, and MC80 Star Cruiser.
 * I missed this earlier because you posted it in the previous page-section, above VT's reply. I can see you're opposed to the change, but I don't understand your reasons. I'll write a temp page as a basis for discussion. Anyone still reading (AdmiralNick?) is of course welcome to join in.
 * VT: Everything that can be written about the various Star Cruisers, has already been written.
 * Then show me a canon statement that says all "proper" Star Cruisers are necessarily larger than Star Destroyers, and where the dividing-line is?
 * The "standard classification system", as shown above, is just a quick and easy guide to more complex classification issues.
 * There are other systems used, leading to a complex overall situation; but I know of nowhere that the "standard" system is redefined as "a quick and easy guide", rather than a standard to which there are alternatives. Nor do I know of any clear definitions of the alternative terms (for instance, a lower limit on the size of the "Star Cruiser")....
 * Your concession is accepted.
 * Just to make it completely clear, I have made no such concession for VT to accept. *slightly amused*
 * I await your reply to my previous post (and in all seriousness, I'm genuinely interested in the SW:CL quote on the reactors used at Yavin and Hoth, whatever it turns out to say). --McEwok 22:28, 18 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Already answered that above when I replaced my reply with the reactor quotes. You will of course dismiss them.
 * As for the standard Imperial classifications, they are not mentioned as a strict system anywhere, and the information that is given, gives enough leeway for internal differences, as quoted below:

"Following are the standard Imperial classifications of capital ships; with some variations, these are also used by the Alliance and by many other spacefaring species. It should be noted, however, that the distinction between vessel types is often muddy, and individual corporations or navies may give their ships wholly inappropriate classifications."

- Rebel Alliance Sourcebook, page 50


 * Also notice, that Starship Battles Preview 1 gives an actual distinction between Star Destroyers and Star Dreadnoughts, which is significant enough for Imperial Admirality to hide its intentions in front of a Senate committee. if the "standard Imperial classifications" are the only classifications that matter, these names would mean nothing to the Navy. Since this is clearly not the case, consistently claiming a 20 year-old RPG book can not be overridden or augmented, the way McEwok does, is to consciously deny the presence of retro-connecting sources. Since he hardly ever objects to this practice elsewhere, I see no logical reason for his prevalance here. Not only has the "standard Imperial classifications" been rearranged to depict a lower scale (with Rendili's Dreadnaught-class and Sienar's warships explicitly relegated to the status of downscaled cruisers), but the Super Star Destroyers have been properly classified. Since he does not provide any sources to back up his claims to the contrary, and openly lies about official sources, I hope reponsible moderators will prevent him from inserting fanon into articles, if he should feel like it.
 * His implied admittance to make errouneous statements and having no sources with which to back his opinions up, is still accepted. VT-16 23:04, 18 January 2007 (UTC)


 * McEwok, your belief of what is canon and what isn't is clearly flawed. The MC80 Star Cruiser, MC80a Star Cruiser, and MC80 battleship were all different. My reasons are simple: They are all clearly different, and sources show this as well. Get it through your thick skull. You have no authority to change canon to suit your opinions. Get over it. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Imperial Emblem.png|20px]] 00:04, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Nebulax: The MC80 Star Cruiser, MC80a Star Cruiser, and MC80 battleship were all different. My reasons are simple: They are all clearly different, and sources show this as well.
 * There are several different types of Mon Calamari ship that can be defined as MC80 or MC80a Star Cruisers; but as I said already, there are more than three types involved, there are only two canon terms ("MC80 battleship" is fanon), and what is perhaps the most important single type (the Liberty type) is denoted as both an MC80 and MC80a in different canon sources. The uncertainty is such that I believe a single page combining the information would be better.
 * VT: As for the standard Imperial classifications, they are not mentioned as a strict system anywhere...
 * "Following are the standard Imperial classifications of capital ships..."? Following on from the quote you just gave, The Rebel Alliance Sourcebook defines the types involved: starfighters (which aren't capital ships, but are included "for completeness"); patrol craft/fast attack vessels; corvettes; frigates; and cruisers, with the 8km SSD identified as "the biggest cruiser yet built"; a few larger "bizarrites" are also said to exist, including the Death Star. This gives "the standard Imperial classifications of capital ships", though there's little direct evidence yet for size definitions.
 * In The Imperial Sourcebook, we're told of minimum size of 100m for capital ships, and a maximum size of 250m for systems patrol craft, which would implicitly extend to the fast attack vessel and perhaps the corvette; in The Heir to the Empire Sourcebook, a minimum length of 400m is given for the cruiser category, and Star Destroyers are defined as a "sub-category" of cruisers. Between them, these two references seem to define the frigate at 250-400m.
 * While obviously not perfectly defined in every detail, the canon specifically outlines the range of terms used as "the standard Imperial classifications", and also gives abstract definitions of what sorts of ships they define. Other hypothetical systems, in comparison, have nothing to compare.
 * and the information that is given, gives enough leeway for internal differences
 * This allows non-Imperial navies to use versions of the system "with some variations", and also "wholly inappropriate classifications". That doesn't change "the standard Imperial classifications". Nor does it give any indication of what the "variations" and "inappropriate" alternatives are. To take the particular example of the "Star Cruiser" designation, you've presented no evidence to show how it varies from the standard "cruiser" definition (combat warships over 400m with Star Destroyers as a subgroup).
 * :Also notice, that Starship Battles Preview 1 gives an actual distinction between Star Destroyers and Star Dreadnoughts
 * Reading it through, I don't see anything that actually, explicitly excludes Star Destroyers being so big, and we know that Executor and other ships of comparable size came to be known as "Star Destroyers". I'm not totally opposed to the idea that there might be some sort of additional definition at 8km or above, seperating true "warships" from a handful of combat space-stations classed as "dreadnaughts" and included among the "bizarrities" (after all, both Executor and Eye of Palpatine, though secret, are bigger)&mdash;but that's speculative. We simply don't have the evidence to know for sure, either way.
 * if the "standard Imperial classifications" are the only classifications that matter, these names would mean nothing to the Navy.
 * This isn't a bad point. Like I just said, I'm not opposed to the idea that ships as big as 19km are too big to be "cruisers" or even "Star Destroyers", and this can happen without redefining the "standard" system as outlined in canon; however, we have no clear canon evidence for this speculation, and if there ever was any (hypothetical!) limit on the size of ships known by the "Star Destroyer" designation, the construction of Executor itself clearly eroded this. Alternatively, it could simply be that the "Super-class Star Destroyer" name was considered less psychologically intimidating than "Executor-class Star Dreadnought"&mdash;political spin, rather than evidence for a difference in definitions. Or both "Star Destroyer" and "Star Dreadnought" could be sub-categories of the standard cruiser definition. And of course, I personally think that "Super-class Star Destroyer" denoted an actual 8km class, too....
 * Anyway, you get the idea. There are lots of possible interpretations&mdash;not just the one that supports VT's POV, which seems to be that the "standard" definitions are wrong....
 * Also posing a problem for VT's argument is the fact that there's nothing properly defined in the alternative systems to bite on. I agree that the parameters of the "standard" system aren't always completely clear, but while we know of the existence of other systems, we don't even know which terms belong in which system, even before we start to ask exactly how those systems define the terms they use.
 * Are 1.2km Mon Calamari cruisers known as "Star Cruisers" in the system that uses the term "Star Cruiser" for some Super Star Destroyers? And if so, how close is this system to the "standard" series of categories that begins the "cruiser" class at 400m and treats the "Star Destroyer" as a sub-category? We simply don't know for sure....
 * Rendili's Dreadnaught-class and Sienar's warships explicitly relegated to the status of downscaled cruisers
 * Nowhere does it explicitly say that these are downscaled cruisers. The "Rendili Dreadnaught" could be a downscaled "dreadnaught", and nowhere does it say what the "downscaled warships" produced by Sienar are. VT, you are choosing the interpretation that supports your argument; I am pointing out that other interpretations are possible, and that your argument thus has no conclusive support.
 * the Super Star Destroyers have been properly classified
 * Where, please?
 * does not provide any sources to back up his claims to the contrary
 * I don't need any more sources to question VT's interpretations of the ones already being discussed.
 * Needless to say, I'm still unconvinced by VT's arguments here. Moving on to the question of the reactors used at Yavin, however:
 * First, thanks for the quotes and information.
 * Pieced together from turbines and a main reactor stolen from an Imperial Star Destroyer, the station supplies sufficient power for a protective shield, ion cannons, and other defences that could hold off an assault from a single large battleship (SW:CL)
 * There's nothing to define what's meant by "a single large battleship" here. An Imperial-class Star Destroyer? A torpedo sphere? A Mandator-class Star Dreadnought? The Eye of Palpatine? We don't know how the situation compares to the one at Hoth (where, from a certain point of view, there was "a single large battleship", the Executor), nor do we know how much energy the Yavin power systems can devote to shields without starship drives, artificial gravity, and internal compensators to consider.
 * That said... is there any referece to just a single "reactor" from the Prateor-class ship at Hoth, though? Your reply doesn't make that clear, and having now found the picture of the ion cannon here on Wookieepedia, I see that it says that the "base main reactors" were "stolen parts from a derelict Praetor-class Star Battlecruiser". I have no problem with the Hoth systems being more powerful if the generator uses multiple reactors borrowed from the battlecruiser, each individually smaller than the one used on the ISD&mdash;though again, having a higher overall power output, presumably for speed, doesn't mean that the Praetor needs to be much bigger than an ImpStar, or able to take an ImpStar on effctively in combat.
 * Also, the fact that Echo Base was able to temporarily take out Tyrannic with a couple of shots doesn't mean that the base's power-generator systems were much more powerful than an ISD's main reactor. In Darksaber, the Imperial-class Star Destroyer Firestorm carries a massive ion cannon comparable in firepower to the Hoth v-150 cannon, capable of taking out Shockwave with a single shot. --McEwok 00:28, 19 January 2007 (UTC)


 * McEwok, "MC80 battleship" is canon because it's a type of MC80 specifically called a battleship. And a single page combining all three is the worst idea ever: They were three different types of ship, regardless if Liberty was referred to as a MC80 and MC80a. Stop trying to bend canon to your will, because it doesn't work. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Imperial Emblem.png|20px]] 01:36, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Since the MC80 and MC80a are different designations in and of themselves, one could either be an upgrade of the other or a new model. Not the same ship. VT-16 07:55, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Now you're just spamming. The ISD reactor could hold off one pre-Executor battleship, the Praetor reactors held off the Executor and a flotilla of ISDs. No contest. The reference to an ISD reactor being the single largest ship reactor ever made is completely ludicrous given the existence of both the Death Star I and II's internal reactor and the Executor's reactor. Also, the presence of very noticable reactor-bulbs underneath such Super STar Destroyers as Allegiance shows this presumption to be false. I have a feeling it originates with material that only described the Imperial-class and the "Super-class" to be the largest ships in the Empire, which has been retconned and changed with enough ship additions over the decades to be considered relevant any longer.
 * Nowhere does it explicitly say that these are downscaled cruisers. The "Rendili Dreadnaught" could be a downscaled "dreadnaught", and nowhere does it say what the "downscaled warships" produced by Sienar are.
 * 42 meter patrol ships are not warships. The 600 meter Vindicator-class and Immobilizer 418 are warships, and directly comparable with Rendili's Dreadnaught-class heavy cruiser. May I remind you that you use the term "Dreadnaught" for the Dreadnaught-class almost religiously when it suits you, but now it's suddenly not relevant any longer. Dishonest. You are also a liar, since both explicit quotes are posted above. Liars are not taken seriously in any context. VT-16 07:29, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Nebulax: "MC80 battleship" is canon because it's a type of MC80 specifically called a battleship.
 * Actually, all that's specifically said is that "the cruiser served as both a battleship and command post", referring specifically to Home One. As I've already pointed out, "battleship" here probably means no more than "combat warship" in contrast to "comand post"... and are there really no references to other MC80s as "battleships" anywhere at all? Even if not, "MC80 command ship" would IMHO be better if the pages were kept seperate.
 * They were three different types of ship, regardless if Liberty was referred to as a MC80 and MC80a.
 * Actually, there are significantly more than just three types, and the way they're organized at present gives a misleading impression of the designations used.
 * VT: The ISD reactor could hold off one pre-Executor battleship, the Praetor reactors held off the Executor and a flotilla of ISDs. No contest.
 * Why not? If you think that ISDs are destroyers, or small battleships, there's "one large battleship" at Hoth. Not that it's an important point, or really relevant on this page, just an illustration of the ambiguity of the evidence....
 * The reference to an ISD reactor being the single largest ship reactor ever made is completely ludicrous
 * First things first: rereading The Star Wars Technical Journal, I realise that it's not quite clear exactly what's meant by the hyperspace field generator", which is the thing that's called "the largest such generator ever constructed". It's undoubtedly part of the "solar ionisation reactor", and it seems to be the bit "[c]ontaining what is in essence a miniature sun", the design of which "dictated the enormous size of the Imperial Star Destroyer". The text says it's "located within a domed area along the vessel's ventral ridge", while "hyperspace field generator" on the SWTJ schematic points to a smaller sphere above'' the main sphere. I'll try and find other references, to see if I can find better proof that this refers to the main sphere of the reactor....
 * You're also right about the Death Star, of course, but in principle (especially if I could find a clearer quote), the ISD could still have the largest single reactor on a warship, with larger warships using multiple smaller reactors. For the Praetor, the text in SW:CL confirms multiple reactors, right?
 * the presence of very noticable reactor-bulbs underneath such Super STar Destroyers as Allegiance shows this presumption to be false
 * The Allegiance could be built after Endor, of course&mdash;not yet in service at the relevant point in time. But even then, I'm not convinced that the illustrations mean that she has a larger single reactor. The schematic in SWTJ shows the protrusion in the lower hull of the ISD as the outside of a section underneath the main reactor, not the actual belly of the main chamber. A similar section could be placed under a cluster of smaller reactors, and the ventral protrusion on Gauntlet Star Destroyers often seems too far forward to house a spherical reactor above.
 * 42 meter patrol ships are not warships.
 * No, 42m "light cruiser" types are "downscaled warships", which is what the quote is talking about (in conjunction with TIE Fighters).
 * The 600 meter Vindicator-class and Immobilizer 418 are warships, and directly comparable with Rendili's Dreadnaught-class heavy cruiser.
 * Pure inference. We know that the Utapauan space-defense force has "downscaled ships" smaller than its "largest Rendili Dreadnaught", and there's no direct reference to downscaled cruisers in either quote.
 * May I remind you that you use the term "Dreadnaught" for the Dreadnaught-class almost religiously when it suits you, but now it's suddenly not relevant any longer.
 * I'm not sure why it's supposed to be relevant? It's simply an established and comprehensible term for that type of ship, and one that's relatively fast to write. What's your point? --McEwok