Talk:Star Dreadnought/Legends

I get a '''WARNING: This page is 36 kilobytes long; some browsers may have problems editing pages approaching or longer than 32kb. Please consider breaking the page into smaller sections.'''

Any way to break this Talk page up?
 * Yea, archive "General Stuff". -- Riffsyphon1024 05:46, 9 Sep 2005 (UTC)
 * Um, how do I do that? Sorry to be so dense. --McEwok 17:27, 9 Sep 2005 (UTC)

General Stuff
Hmm. AFAIK, while Inside the Worlds has reduced "SSD" to slang, it doesn't provides proper proof that Star Dreadnaught was the standard technical designation of either SSD class; cf. the consistent use of "Star Destroyer" in ESB, and the identification of the Intimidator as an "'EXECUTOR-CLASS STAR DESTROYER" by the astromech of the Jennie Lee in Shield of Lies. Partially, my objection is that the whole Star Dreadnaught concept represents nothing more than the Freudian rape of continuity by the aggressive 'shipping of a fanon idea; but in pure technical terms, the evidence remains poor, at best. --McEwok 10:09, 17 Aug 2005 (UTC)
 * Stop whining. The statement that "Super Star Destroyer" is slang perfectly explains away any use of the term in the movies or in Shield of Lies. JimRaynor55 10:19, 17 Aug 2005 (UTC)
 * No. "Star Destroyer" isn't the same as "Super Star Destroyer". IFF displays don't use slang. There's an established body of EU material identifies SSDs as a massive upscaling of the Star Destroyer concept. In other words, established canon already implies that "Super Star Destroyer" is slang - but also suggests that "Star Destroyer" is the correct designation, no matter how much larger than most other Star Destroyers the Ex may be.
 * Beyond that, there's more than one way to explain the aberrant "Star Dreadnaught" designation in ItW. Saxton's attempts at a canonical rectonn are only valid in themselves, within the wider context of EU canon; they do not imply acceptance of his fan theories on which they are based, and they shouldn't be treated as if they do. For instance, his insistence that SW ships must conform to a scale-based classification system is simply wrong.
 * So, no I'm not 'whining' - simply imposing some necessary rigour on the material. I'll argue my point tenaciously - sometimes too tenaciously - but I always try to keep the difference between argument and fact, or fanon and canon, clear in my mind. --McEwok 13:20, 17 Aug 2005 (UTC)
 * For instance, his insistence that SW ships must conform to a scale-based classification system is simply wrong. No it isn't.
 * The exact quote from ITW is "Eventually designated the Executor-class after the vessel assigned to Vader's personal use and commanded by Admiral Ozzel, it is usually referred to in rebel slang as a "Super Star Destroyer" -- a term that covers many warship classes bigger than a Star Destroyer, from Star Cruisers to ultimate Star Dreadnaughts like Executor." From this quote, we can draw several conclusions: 1)The term "Star Destroyer" only truly applies to warships of a certain size.  2)There are a range of "Star" level warships, including Star Destroyers, Cruisers, and Dreadnaughts.  Saxton even got to add the Munificent-class Star Frigate in ROTS ICS, which, at 825 meters long, is larger than WEG's non-Star level "heavy cruisers."  3)The Executor IS a Star Dreadnaught.JimRaynor55 03:50, 19 Aug 2005 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the quote. Would you be surprised if I said I disagreed with your interpretation? There are, IMHO, two issues with this passage that make it untrustworthy.
 * Most importantly, what is meant by "Star Destroyer" in the phrase "bigger than a Star Destroyer"? At least one design, that of the Allegiance, seems to be accepted even by the most fanatical redesignator as both a Star Destroyer and a Super Star Destroyer: it is accepted as a Star Destroyer by SWTC, while being referred to as a SSD in narrative. "Bigger than a Star Destroyer" could thus be - perhaps even must be - a semantically clumsy phrase meaning "bigger than a standard Star Destroyer": at the least, it is problematic, and cannot be overinterpreted to provide an absolute Star Destroyer/SSD contrast. Thus: the terms "Star Destroyer" and "Super Star Destroyer" are not definitively shown to be mutually exclusive here. The only conclusion we can draw is that some "Super Star Destroyers" are (at least to some people) more correctly classified as Star Cruisers or Star Dreadnaughts.
 * Then there's the description of the term "Super Star Destroyer" as "Rebel slang". This is demonstrably inaccurate and pejorative. The term is used both in dialogue among Imperial officers (Darksaber, Ch. 20, hardback p. 141) and in narrative sections told from their POVs (HttE, Ch. 1, paperback p. 7). Moreover, we find simple "Star Destroyer" applied to Executor-class ships not only by the Recon-X astromech (SoL, p. 320) but also by Sorannan (TT, p. 312), and implicitly, Thrawn (HttE, p. 51 "other Star Destroyers" is an implied semantic contrast with the earlier reference to Ex in the same dialogue). These are neither Rebels nor are they using slang idioms: this mitigates against the superficially narrow usage implied by the text here, and raises further eyebrows about the accuracy of this section of ItW.
 * In short, rigorous semantic analysis reveals this passage as semantically unreliable and biased. The statement "usually referred to in Rebel slang as a 'Super Star Destroyer'" cannot be taken to mean that Rebel slang was the only idiom in which the term "Super Star Destroyer" was used (it wasn't); nor does the limitation of the SSD moniker to "warship classes bigger than a Star Destroyer" necessarily imply that no SSDs were really "Star Destroyers" (some, at least, would indeed seem to have been). So, similarly, the description of the Ex as an "ultimate Star Dreadnaught" cannot be relied on to be a literally and simplistically accurate report of her correct designation.
 * I rest my case. --McEwok 13:41, 19 Aug 2005 (UTC)
 * You´re making no sense. There is a classification system involved with the various designations whether you like it or not. The ICS and ITW were not the first sources to introduce this. You even stated one such source in your own friggin post!
 * "seems to be accepted even by the most fanatical redesignator as both a Star Destroyer and a Super Star Destroyer"
 * I disagree with Saxton on this one, to me the Allegiance is a Star Cruiser, not a Star Destroyer. Nice snide remark on your part, though. Good to see the Wall Of Ignorance is set firmly in place. (Here´s a hint, Lucasfilm played "redesignator" long before Saxton and Co. There´s that little thing with the Star Cruisers in ANH becoming Star Destroyers in ESB and the Executor being an SD in Empire to being a Battlecruiser in Marvel to being a SSD in ROTJ) VT-16 09:57, 21 Aug 2005 (UTC)
 * Most importantly, what is meant by "Star Destroyer" in the phrase "bigger than a Star Destroyer"? "Star Destroyer" in that sentence is referring to a general type of starship. The sentence is discussing a range of starship types, such as Star Destroyers, Cruisers, and Dreadnaughts.  Furthermore, the next sentence states (emphasis mine) "Over one hundred times more massive than a common Star Destroyer and almost 12 times as long, the Executor bristles with more than 5000 turbolasers and ion cannons, and carries wings of star fighters and two pre assembled garrison bases." The modifier "common," makes it clear that the sentence is referring to a certain class, or classes, of Star Destroyer (most likely the ISD), as opposed to the previous sentence, which did not use any modifier.
 * At least one design, that of the Allegiance, seems to be accepted even by the most fanatical redesignator as both a Star Destroyer and a Super Star Destroyer: it is accepted as a Star Destroyer by SWTC, while being referred to as a SSD in narrative. Resorting to fanon when it suits you? You have no canon proof what the Allegiance is exactly.  There have been some fans who have hypothesized that it was a light cruiser.
 * "Bigger than a Star Destroyer" could thus be - perhaps even must be - a semantically clumsy phrase meaning "bigger than a standard Star Destroyer": at the least, it is problematic, and cannot be overinterpreted to provide an absolute Star Destroyer/SSD contrast. Thus: the terms "Star Destroyer" and "Super Star Destroyer" are not definitively shown to be mutually exclusive here. This has absolutely nothing to do with the issue. The quote never says that a large Star Destroyer can't be a SSD, only that many ship types larger than a Star Destroyer (no modifier used) are referred to in slang as SSDs.  What IS relevant in that quote is that Star Destroyers are smaller than Star Cruisers and Star Dreadnaughts, and thus the term cannot be an intimidating-sounding name with no regard to size, as you would probably like to believe. JimRaynor55 11:03, 20 Aug 2005 (UTC)
 * All of what you offer is merely possible interpretation. (1.) You could equally argue that "common Star Destroyer" is as distinct from Executor-class Star Destroyer; (2.) I was pointing out that Saxton is elsewhere prepared to accept a SD/SSD overlap - so analysing his other work helps us analysis what that phrase may mean (and I'm pretty sure her sister-ships are called "Gauntlet Star Destroyers" in DE2); (3.) That's your interpretation, mere semantics: the idea of a rigid scaling-based designation system is merely implicit, and contradicted by multiple sources - to the evidence I cited already, I can add even Eclipse as a 'mere' "Star Destroyer", here. --McEwok 13:56, 20 Aug 2005 (UTC)
 * Since 'Star Destroyer' and 'Super Star Destroyer' has been established as slang and broad terms long ago, I don´t see what you mean to accomplish with all of this. Even the Executor is called a 'Star Destroyer' in ESB, that doesn´t mean it´s the proper designation. Hell, it was even called a 'Battlecruiser' in Marvel SW. VT-16 01:22, 21 Aug 2005 (UTC)

Regarding the latest edit: what, exactly, are these Marvel-era "Dreadnaughts"? I can think of the obsolescent 2km Dreadnaught in one of the Han Solo novels, which would certainly satisfy the literal meaning; and of course, there's the Eye of Palpatine. We also have fast ~2km "battlecruisers" used as flagships by Tagge and Vader. But none of these actually takes away from the combat primacy of the Star Destroyer, endorsed by canon evidence. --McEwok 00:27, 21 Aug 2005 (UTC)
 * I believe the Executor was referred to as a 'Dreadnaught', at least a 'Battlecruiser'. (Which is what Saxton calls it in older parts of his site and apparently wanted to call it in the OT:ITW, only to be corrected by the higher ups IIRC). VT-16 01:04, 21 Aug 2005 (UTC)
 * Interesting info on Saxton. I'd have been happier with "battlecruiser" than "Star Dreadnaught", though I still regard any change as unneccessary. And the best-known "battlecruiser" reference is made by a member of a Rebel recon mission seeing the Ex for the first time (Threepio, IIRC). That's as much "Rebel slang" as "Super Star Destroyer" is - and Marvel's standard Imperial battlecruisers aren't much bigger than a Star Destroyer. --McEwok 18:55, 21 Aug 2005 (UTC)
 * All of what you offer is merely possible interpretation. What expert debating skills you have, dismissing everything as only "possible interpretation" without even bothering to deal with my arguments explaining why things must be a certain way.
 * (1.) You could equally argue that "common Star Destroyer" is as distinct from Executor-class Star Destroyer; Are you actually saying that anything that's not in the Executor-class is a "common" Star Destroyer?
 * (2.) I was pointing out that Saxton is elsewhere prepared to accept a SD/SSD overlap - so analysing his other work helps us analysis what that phrase may mean Analysis of non-canon sources have no place in a discussion about facts in canon.
 * (and I'm pretty sure her sister-ships are called "Gauntlet Star Destroyers" in DE2); I really don't think so, but I will check this out

(3.) That's your interpretation, mere semantics: the idea of a rigid scaling-based designation system is merely implicit, No. The term "Star Destroyer" with no modifiers or mention of specific classes was used in a sentence in comparison with two other ship types, Star Cruisers and Star Dreadnaughts (we KNOW that's a ship type, because there's a Mandator-class Star Dreadnaught) both of which are larger.
 * and contradicted by multiple sources - to the evidence I cited already, I can add even Eclipse as a 'mere' "Star Destroyer", You have no proof when you say with absolute certainty that they weren't using slang. Real life military personnel DO use slang/informal/inaccurate terms when describing vehicles and ships.  The F-117 Nighthawk, which has no guns or air-to-air missiles, is often referred to as a "Stealth Fighter."  Large American aircraft carriers are often called "supercarriers" even though that's a non-technical term with no definate meaning.  B-52 crews call their planes "BUFF" for "Big Ugly Fat ****er." When you have several canon sources which seemingly contradict, the proper way to resolve the problem is to try to rationalize things in a way that everything fits.  You outright dismiss the information in ITW, while I accept what those characters said, but assume it's slang. JimRaynor55 08:09, 21 Aug 2005 (UTC)
 * Um, no. You can make an argument; assuming for a moment that this hypothesis is founded properly on the corpus of canonical evidence, rather than an inaccurate abstract scheme from SWTC, why "must" it be that way? --McEwok 18:55, 21 Aug 2005 (UTC)
 * (1.) No, I'm saying that the contrast drawn in ItW between the Ex and the "common Star Destroyer" doesn't necessarily mean anything more than that the Ex is much bigger than an ImpStar, which is a no-brainer. --McEwok 18:55, 21 Aug 2005 (UTC)
 * (2.) Analysis of an author's comments on a subject has a place in a discussion of the meaning of words in a work he acted as a "consultant" on. --McEwok 18:55, 21 Aug 2005 (UTC)
 * (3.) The contrast is between "Star Destroyers" and ships referred to loosely as "Super Star Destroyers"; since some "Super Star Destroyers" are formally designated Star Destroyers in at least some sources, we have to assume that... well, um, some "Super Star Destroyers" can be formally designated Star Destroyers? This fact determines the canonical interpretations that can be placed on the text (namely that here, as elsewhere, "Star Destroyer" is being used in a slang-like way to refer to Imperial-class ships). --McEwok 18:55, 21 Aug 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm not dismissing what ItW says; merely reconciling it with established canon. And I doubt that, for instance, a Recon-X's astromech, or the commander of an Executor-class ship introducing himself to a NR general, is using the equivalent of "BUFF". You're forcing evidence to fit theories. Don't. --McEwok 18:55, 21 Aug 2005 (UTC)


 * Um, no. You can make an argument; assuming for a moment that this hypothesis is founded properly on the corpus of canonical evidence, rather than an inaccurate abstract scheme from SWTC, why "must" it be that way? I have already explained why that sentence is speaking about Star Destroyers as a general type, not a specific class of ship. You have made no effort to refute this argument, instead just trying to dismiss it.JimRaynor55 22:17, 21 Aug 2005 (UTC)
 * No, you've explained why you can read it that way; not why it "must" be that way. I repeat my initial point: ''all of what you have is merely possible interpretation. --McEwok 13:26, 25 Aug 2005 (UTC)
 * (2.) Analysis of an author's comments on a subject has a place in a discussion of the meaning of words in a work he acted as a "consultant" on. What's canon are the facts that show up in canon sources. Nothing more.  And if we're going to go with "author's intent," then you know what Saxton was trying to say about Star Destroyers, Cruisers, and Dreadnaughts.JimRaynor55 22:17, 21 Aug 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm simply examining your hypothesis that this passage implies an absolute distinction between (ships correctly designated) Star Destroyers and (ships informally described as) Super Star Destroyers. Perhaps I didn't express myself as well as I could have: of course, the fact that SWTC accepts at least one "SSD" as a bona fide "Star Destroyer" has no canonical value; but it does mean that the reading you are taking from the text is not adhered to elsewhere in Saxton's work. More important in canonical terms are references to Ex-class ships as "Star Destroyers". --McEwok 13:26, 25 Aug 2005 (UTC)
 * (3.) The contrast is between "Star Destroyers" and ships referred to loosely as "Super Star Destroyers"; since some "Super Star Destroyers" are formally designated Star Destroyers in at least some sources, Yeah, Saxton's site, which is non-canon.JimRaynor55 22:17, 21 Aug 2005 (UTC)
 * Try the Black Fleet Crisis novels? --McEwok 13:26, 25 Aug 2005 (UTC)

''we have to assume that... well, um, some "Super Star Destroyers" can be formally designated Star Destroyers?'' Even IF that is true, that has absolutely no bearing on the real issue, which is that Star Cruisers and Star Dreadnaughts are distinct, real ship types larger than a Star Destroyer.JimRaynor55 22:17, 21 Aug 2005 (UTC) Um, SCs and SDDs are "real" types, yeah. And this passage says that some ships otherwise called "Star Cruisers" can be designated as "Super Star Destroyers", and that the Ex can be characterized as an "ultimate Star Dreadnaught". But the MC80 SC is 1200m, and the categorization of SSD as "Rebel slang" overlooks the informal use of the term "Super Star Destroyer" by Imperial officers, and NEGtVV's more formal "Eclipse-class Super Star Destroyer". Exactly how far we can push our usage of this pasage is unclear. --McEwok This fact determines the canonical interpretations that can be placed on the text (namely that here, as elsewhere, "Star Destroyer" is being used in a slang-like way to refer to Imperial-class ships). What kind of leap in logic is this? If some Star Destroyers are also referred to in slang as "Super Star Destroyer," then Star Destroyer itself is a non-technical slang term? What the hell?JimRaynor55 22:17, 21 Aug 2005 (UTC)
 * No. It is canon that at least some "Super Star Destroyers" are/can be designated "Star Destroyers" in formal contexts; but here we have a distinction between "Star Destroyers" and "Super Star Destroyers": ergo, the term "Star Destroyer" cannot refer here to the entire range of SDs from the VSD to the Ex, but rather to the "common Star Destroyers" - and probably specifically to the Imperial-class, which can be identified colloquially as "Star Destroyers" as against all other classes. --McEwok 13:26, 25 Aug 2005 (UTC)


 * Just because we can use the term SSD in a formal context, doesn´t make it the end-all, be-all designation for every type of SSD we have from official sources. There are a wide variety of sizes and shapes for these ships, and you want to run around calling them all the same thing? That´s non-sensical! I´m ok with a SD-line of ships, or a SSD-line of ships above a certain size and strenght. But for proper designation, the best thing is to categorize properly, like the recent DK guide books have. Which is why they were created by Lucas Books to begin with, clearing up certain controversies and organizing properly, even if it shook up old fan-dogmas. VT-16 13:50, 29 Aug 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, but that's false logic. Fanboys with scientific backgrounds might want to apply the methods of Karl Linnaeus to warship design, but in the real world, we have to make do with the fudges, kludges, inconsistencies and media-driven terms like "dreadnaught" and "battlecruiser": the reality, or in this case, the fictional "reality" derived by working backwards from the canonical material (eg. "Star Destroyer"). It's also much more coherent if you assume a significant leap in scale from ~1km-2mi. Star Destroyers up to big, lumbering old Dreadnaughts and brand-new shiny dagger-shaped Super Star Destroyers. Take a deep breath, and ask yourself: is your methodology right. --McEwok 17:58, 3 Sep 2005 (UTC)

Oh, and: ''Just because we can use the term "Star Dreadnaught" in a formal context, doesn´t make it the end-all, be-all designation for every type of "Star Dreadnaught" we have from official sources. There are a wide variety of sizes and shapes for these ships, and you want to run around calling them all the same thing? That´s non-sensical! I´m ok with a SD-line of ships, or a SDD-line of ships above a certain size and strenght. But for proper designation, the best thing is to categorize properly, which I don't think the recent DK guide books have''. Wonderful thing, language. You can use it to say all sorts of things. Thanks for the links, though. I'm still digesting 'em. Yum! --McEwok 17:58, 3 Sep 2005 (UTC)


 * wanders back into the page half an hour later* Major update/edit. I'm sure some things I've written will nark some of the "Objectivists", I'm sure some could be improved, but before anyone simply edits their own interpretation back in, I'd appreciate if you'd ask what the canon actually says and how best to express that. --McEwok 18:37, 3 Sep 2005 (UTC)


 * Ignoring your childish tantrums for a while, the entire point of a proper classification system is to avoid different kinds of warships being put under one umbrella and making a combat-situation confusing. This must also have been the justification for RL classification, otherwise we might as well have called warships of various sizes, strenghts and with different armament simply "warships" and left it at that. Or calling Juggernauts, AT-APs and AT-TEs for "AT-ATs", to make things easy.
 * My problem with opponents of proper classification, is that they want ships that are so vastly different to share the same class and purpose, simply because the various authors were lazy and switched between calling everything 'Star Destroyer' or 'Super Star Destroyer', and have been doing so for 20 years. That this would be contradicted or modified (as other issues in SW have been for a long time already) is somehow such a great threat, they have to spend hours quarreling about it, is such an alien concept to me. All these ships here, here and here can´t be the same things, it´s simply impossible! Classifying them SDs and SSDs and letting that solve it makes as much sense as the US Navy classifying their warships 'Warships' and 'Bigger Warships'. If this nonsense doesn´t stop, and your denial of official sources continue, I shall have to take it up with the admins. They are ultimately in charge here, not you. VT-16 00:47, 4 Sep 2005 (UTC)
 * I believe I'm doing nothing more than calling for rigor in adhering to strict canon-only content except in Behind the Scenes and OOU sections, which should themselves merely report fan disagreement as evenhandedly as possible. Obviously, I'm only human, thus fallible: I'm more than happy to acknowledge it, and apologize when necessary. I believe that this Wiki is stronger when we all work together. My aim is to make this WIki a precise and accurate record of what the official material says: if so, it will necessarily be acceptable to all of us, since it will be founded on undisputable canon evidence, not interpretation. --McEwok 22:03, 8 Sep 2005 (UTC)
 * As to the ships you show; we see a lot of mile long Star Destroyers, the Allegiance, Giel's flagship, some small ships, and some ships of uncertain role at Byss, one of them apparently much larger than a common Star Destroyer (though there are scaling problems with the relative size of ships and planet in that picture). No-one is denying that the Imperial fleet contains some large "king-piece" ships, normally used as unqie centrepieces for Star Destroyer formations, and many ships smaller than Star Destroyers. --McEwok 22:03, 8 Sep 2005 (UTC)
 * Here's my (entirely canonical) take. Star Destroyers are arrowhead-hulled battleships, ships-of-the line broadly 1-2km in length; "Super Star Destroyers" are exponentially scaled-up cousins in the 8km-20km bracket. Over time, both classes increase in tonnage. The one anomaly is one reference to Allegiance as an SSD that's basically a visual typo in origin, but can be accounted for by supposing that the class was originally introduced as an "economy" command ship role. There is no conflict. Nor is there any canonical indicator --McEwok 22:03, 8 Sep 2005 (UTC)
 * As to retconns, I'm a minimalist: no more than necessary. As to evidence, you can argue that something is "proper" or "impossible", but you shouldn't confuse argument with canon: for canon, you can only to follow what the sources themselves say, ambiguities and all - especially because the Empire is run by megalomaniacs who can give things whatever names amuse them. I can see why people might want to disagree, but I can't see how you can do so without introducing your own fan-theories. --McEwok 22:03, 8 Sep 2005 (UTC)
 * Stepping outside SW for a moment, is it just me who thought that Iain M. Banks was taking a sly and very effective swipe at this whole heap of fanboy seilliness (of which I am, to my regret, a part) in The Algebraist. --McEwok 22:03, 8 Sep 2005 (UTC)

Some specific questions: Thanks!! -McEwok 18:37, 3 Sep 2005 (UTC)
 * In the three occurrences of the term in official publications, is the canonical spelling "Star Dreadnought" or "Star Dreadnaught"?
 * Is there any explicit evidence that the Mandy-IIs were ever used by the Republic rather than the Kuat fleet?

No. It is canon that at least some "Super Star Destroyers" are/can be designated "Star Destroyers" in formal contexts; If you're referring (repeating) to a few Imperial officers calling an Executor-class ship a "Star Destroyer" then you have no proof that they were being formal instead of using slang, and the supposed "IFF" in SOL that you keep bringing up was in reality a mere R2 droid text messaging its pilot. JimRaynor55 19:22, 3 Sep 2005 (UTC) but here we have a distinction between "Star Destroyers" and "Super Star Destroyers": ergo, the term "Star Destroyer" cannot refer here to the entire range of SDs from the VSD to the Ex, but rather to the "common Star Destroyers" - and probably specifically to the Imperial-class, which can be identified colloquially as "Star Destroyers" as against all other classes. This interpretation is based on the completely unfounded assumption that Executor-class ships have been called "Star Destroyer" in formal terms. JimRaynor55 19:22, 3 Sep 2005 (UTC)
 * Let's take a closer look?
 * I can concede that perhaps "IFF" wasn't the best term for the list of ships from the astromech, since it is merely class, not allegiance, being identified. But the text is presented in a clipped, precise idiom, and the other terms used are formally correct ("Imperial-class Star Destroyer", "Victory-class Star Destroyer", and "Aramadia-class Thrustship"). Moreover, colloquial usage elsewhere in the BFC trilogy employs "Super Star Destroyer" and "Super-class". Thus, it is fair to say that "IDENTIFIED: EXECUTOR-CLASS STAR DESTROYER" is a formal context, in which a SSD class is designated as a "Star Destroyer class".
 * The second occurrence, while delivered with dry humour, is an anouncement from the acting commander of an Imperial battlegroup hailing a New Republic fleet commander; for him to use a crudely "slangy" term would disturb the semantic rythm: the "Camp Paarl Squadron" punchline depends on the formality of the diction. Thus, "acting-captain of the Star Destroyer Intimidator" is a formal context in which a specific SSD is designated as a "Star Destroyer".
 * Moreover, it can be noted that while ItW castigates the term "Super Star Destroyer" as "Rebel slang" (problematic as this is), no such pejorative has been applied canonically to constructions such as "Executor-class Star Destroyer" and "Star Destroyer Intimidator".
 * Of course, there remains a margin of doubt and subjective interpretation in how we read the precise meaning of the terms used in both these scenes; but the same is also true of the text in Inside the Worlds. You are simply stating your opinion, not canonical truth; the aim of this Wiki should be to present only what can be known from canon, and to acknowledge fan interpretation for what it is. If you think I have overinterpreted at any point, and such overinterpretation stands in this Wiki, please indicate where, so I can correct myself if necessary.
 * And, even if these terms are not formal (and they need not be the only, or the most formal terms), the point is still proven. The term "Star Destroyer" is not limited to ships smaller than "Star Cruiser" scale - and for what it's worth, "Star Cruiser" itself begins at 1200m. Your interpretation is based on the completely uncanonical and unfounded assumption that ItW is using formal terms in a certain way, and depends on your interpretation of them being the only "correct" one. Your logic is circular: basically, "I insist that these terms mean what I wan them to mean, and are used in this specific way; therefore they mean what I want them to mean, and are used in this specific way". --McEwok 20:29, 3 Sep 2005 (UTC)


 * The debate is essentially ended in Episode V, for those that have forgotten. To quote Darth Vader "Inform my Star Destroyer to prepare for my arrival."  He specifically calls the Executor his Star Destroyer, case closed, debate over, thank you.  In light of this information I shall be overhauling this page - afterall, no amount of EU is going to be allowed to disagree with Darth Vader from the original trilogy. 10:48, 4 July 2007 (UTC)Ezedriel
 * That's cute. You're a cute-y.  So cute. --School of Thrawn 101 11:16, 4 July 2007 (UTC)


 * ... Ezedriel, "Star Dreadnought" is canon, and that's why the debate has been over. &mdash;Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Imperial Emblem.png|20px]] 13:58, 4 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Not over the movies it isn't. If you can find Dreadnaught used in the movie, then I will yield, but the fact that it's referred to formally as a Star Destroyer by two different sources, the canon level of this has been irreplaceably revoked. -Ezedriel
 * Since you seem to be unable to read the articles properly, let me give you a quick summary:
 * "Super-class Star Destroyer" and "Super Star Destroyer" were colloquial terms for different types of Imperial vessels. The Executor being one of them. It's called both a "Star Destroyer" and a "Super Star Destroyer" but its official designation is "Star Dreadnought". Colloquial use is common in militaries. VT-16 07:16, 5 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Yeah, except you have one obscure book that contradicts two sources in the movies. Star Dreadnought isn't going to fly because one book who's canon levels are superceded by the movies says it does.  The book, in this case, like your argument, is wrong.  I don't care what the article says, if the article is in contradiction to the movie, it is wrong.  Darth Vader was not calling his Star destroyer something in slang, he called it his STAR DESTROYER. -Ezedriel


 * You're wrong, anon. "Star Dreadnought" is canon, and Lucasfilm allowed the term to become canon. There's nothing you can do about it, Ezedriel. &mdash;Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Imperial Emblem.png|20px]] 14:05, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Deny recognition, Jack...the guy's a troll. The page is protected and we're all watching it...he can't do much harm. --School of Thrawn 101 15:33, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
 * except you have one obscure book that contradicts two sources in the movies
 * Nowhere in Inside the Worlds of Star Wars Trilogy, Star Wars: Complete Locations nor Starship Battles Preview 1 is Super Star Destroyer or Super-class Star Destroyer contradicted by anything. These sources merely show how the terms came to be and how they're used. VT-16 18:05, 5 July 2007 (UTC)


 * School of Thrawn: I should have realized that earlier. Thanks. &mdash;Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Imperial Emblem.png|20px]] 19:45, 5 July 2007 (UTC)


 * So allow me to get this straight. Two separate Star Wars movies calls it a Star Destroyer, and that's not enough for you guys? Wolfgang Rasolam 23:37, 5 July 2007 (UTC)Wolfgang Rasolam


 * Star Dreadnought is canon. &mdash;Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Imperial Emblem.png|20px]] 01:01, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
 * "Two separate Star Wars movies calls it a Star Destroyer, and that's not enough for you guys?" Pretty much, yeah. Deal with it or leave. -- Darth Culator  (Talk) 01:12, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Since I made a relevant summary above and you still persist in not reading anything, I must assume you're a bit on the troll side. Here's an analogy to help simplify it: Where in the films are the walkers called "All Terrain Armored Transports" or "All Terrain Scout Transports"? Where in any of the films is Vader's command ship called "Executor"? Nowhere. This doesn't mean their names aren't canon. Same with the Executor being classified a Star Dreadnought and referred to in military colloquialism as something else. VT-16 07:23, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Except this is nothing similar. In the case of the AT-AT, you pointed out that no name existed in the movies ,and so it was filled in later.  In this case, a name did exist, two sources called it a Star Destroyer, both the person that ran the ship, and another military commander.  What we have, in contrast to your AT-AT example, is you disagreeing with the movie's declaration in favor of a book.  Isn't that contradictory to the levels of canon?  Your analogy is flwaed. 76.176.16.202Wolfgang Rasolam

Latest Edits
Vermillion: thanks for the POV edits - as the person whose POV you were largely editing out, I think you've strengthened it; but to repeat (at least for my peace of mind) the questions I asked earlier:
 * What's the term used in official publications - "Star Dreadnought" or "Star Dreadnaught"? I've seen both in online sources, and the Unofficial Encyclopedia says "Dreadnaught"...
 * Lucas Licensing decided to use the international 'Dreadnought' for these classes, instead of the American spelling 'Dreadnaught'. VT-16 23:52, 3 Sep 2005 (UTC)
 * Oh? In that case, I apologize. Has it been consistently used in the ICS and ItW? My bad, in that case. --McEwok 12:02, 4 Sep 2005 (UTC)
 * If it hasn´t, that´s not my problem. I´m not American, and since both spellings describe the same thing, I´ll just stick to 'Dreadnought'. VT-16 10:47, 7 Sep 2005 (UTC)
 * Creating an inconsistency with the otherwise-consistent use of "dreadnaught"? --McEwok 22:09, 8 Sep 2005 (UTC)
 * Yes, only the spelling 'Star Dreadnought' is used in ICS and ItW. --Vermilion 05:40, 9 Sep 2005 (UTC)
 * Ah, thanks - okay, then. So now we have Dreadnaughts and Dreadnoughts? *ponders* --McEwok 17:27, 9 Sep 2005 (UTC)

Thanks!! --McEwok 23:41, 3 Sep 2005 (UTC)
 * Is there any explicit evidence (RotS:ICS, I suppose?) that the Mandy-IIs were ever used by the Republic rather than the Kuat fleet?
 * Since its stated they can withstand about 1000 Recusant-class destroyers, I doubt they were merely tested in computer-simulated warfare. VT-16 23:55, 3 Sep 2005 (UTC)
 * I'd never even considered that they hadn't seen real combat... but now you mention, it a homogenous force of Recces without other ships seems faintly absurd, and there's no proof that these aren't hypothetical figures! My real point, though, was that an engagemen between Mandy-IIs and Confederate forces doesn't in itself imply that the Mandy-IIs were serving in the Republic's federal fleet rather than the forces of Kuat or other local powers. If there is no canon evidence, this Wiki shouldn't attribute Star Dreadnoughts to the Republic military. --McEwok 12:02, 4 Sep 2005 (UTC)
 * Kuat is one of the main suppliers of warships and other vehicles to the Republic and the Empire, they even have their own Senator representing the Kuat system. To suggest they would withhold any designs from the Republic instead of selling them and profiting from war (like they did with everything else that´s been documented) makes zero sense. And we already have a mention of a Star Battlecruiser (of undetermined class) which crashed into the Separatist-held world of Pammant during a mission (ROTS:ICS) so there is a precedent for bigger ships in the Republic fleet. VT-16 10:33, 7 Sep 2005 (UTC)
 * Your're assuming that Star Dreadnoughts are capable of fighting the sort of war the Republic wants, and that they can be built fast enough to be commissioned before the end of the war, and that there's no political or military opposition to using them. You're also assuming that Star Battlecrusiers are comparable in scale. All of this may be true; all this may be shown in later official publications: but right now there's no canon evidence of it. As such, any claim that the Republic used SDDs is fan hypothesis, and as I understand it, this Wiki avoids presenting fan hypothesis as "fact". --McEwok 22:03, 8 Sep 2005 (UTC)
 * The Empire being able to build a 900km battlestation in near total secrecy in less than a year strongly implies that the Republic could probably build entire fleets of large ships in weeks with all the resources openly dedicated to the war. -Vermilion 05:37, 9 Sep 2005 (UTC)
 * Um, are you sure about that timeframe? Is there evidence aside from the idea that Xizor was contracted to bring all the raw material to Endor during ESB? I understand that other sources say that a lot of the ore used in construction was mined in-system from Eloggi and Dor, and Zahn's Tales from the Mos Eisley Cantina could be read as indicating that completed construction modules of the superlaser were being shuffled around the Galaxy before ANH. So a one-year timeframe for DS2 remains possible, but is by no means certain. You could equally read the project as having begun before RotS, with the hull being built at Endor, and other components being produced and stockpiled all around the Galaxy; the 'HammerTong' may indicate that Xizor wasn't even bringing in all of these. --McEwok 17:27, 9 Sep 2005 (UTC)

Ad Hominem Attacks
I've removed Many of these fans have resorted to ad hominem attacks on Curtis Saxton, who is widely seen as responsible for the change in designations. Sorry. Neither side is innocent of this - why can't we all get along? --McEwok 12:02, 4 Sep 2005 (UTC)
 * Well, Vermillion put it back in; so I've edited in a note that it's not just critics of SWTC who flame. Anyone? --McEwok 01:06, 5 Sep 2005 (UTC)
 * It's a fact that lots of people over at TFN and elsewhere just flame Saxton whenever he is mentioned. I do agree with you that the line about the ad hominems was a bit one sided, but your edit was just as bad or worse. I've edited it to be more fair in describing both sides. --Vermilion 02:33, 8 Sep 2005 (UTC)
 * It's also a "fact" that people get flamed and ad hominem attacked for disagreeing with SWTC and ICS/ItW. Obviously, we're not going to see eye to eye here, obviously, emotions and misunderstandings are involved, and obviously, I have my own blind-spots: all I can ask you to do is check your assumptions, and if possible, provide me feedback on my own. For instance, I suspect (but can't be sure) that this thread was an ad hominem attack on on me (that would certainly fit the pattern that I've percieved in MasterControlProgram as a TF.N poster); and I replied accordingly. Like I said, I can't be sure, and my post is intended entirely as a rational defence of an intellectual position (with a few light jokes, because it's all ultimately fanboys playing with a space fantasy, however culturally significant): but I suspect that the "other side" could see it very differently.... --McEwok 17:44, 8 Sep 2005 (UTC)
 * IIRC, MCP is Poe, and he often goes too far with the flames IMO. Really, the main difference I see is that when people are flaming each other during a debate, the opponent is usually there and able to respond. The people who flame Saxton do so knowing that he won't or can't respond to it. That just leads to more flames being thrown around by both sides. --Vermilion 05:05, 9 Sep 2005 (UTC)
 * I can see your point, actually. I guess I'm just concerned that your remark in itself feels a little like a sort of generic flame. Hmm. Any suggestions for modifying the language?--McEwok 17:27, 9 Sep 2005 (UTC)

You're exactly right, Vermilion. McEwok couches his responses in faux-"can't we all just get along?" care packages, but his agenda on TFN is clear; he's started many Star Destroyer threads on TFN that serve as nothing more than thinly veiled stages to attack Curtis Saxton. Stated and implied reasons for this is the hope that lurking Lucasfilm VIPs will see these "many threads" by "many disgruntled fans" and rescind any contributions Saxton has had in the Star Wars universe. I've seen green with envy sorry souls do similar things before, but this is just ridiculous. Now McEwok and his Amazing Friends have decided to move to Star Wars Wiki and pollute the waters here, with laughable arguments such as "Look at all the references I have to 'Super Star Destroyer'! Saxton only has one!" This willfully ignores the fact that the "Inside The Worlds" reference is a newer reference than the 20+ years of SSD references, a tactic any first year debate student can see through. McEwok also seems to be under the impression that Saxton is some sort of Sith Lord; allowed to print anything he wants in SW literature. Here's a hint: anything an author proposes has to be APPROVED by Lucasfilm LTD. I thought that would be evident, but apparently, it isn't.

Now we'll see McEwok step in here and play Mr "impartial" Nice Guy, while continuing his anti-Saxton rants.


 * All I can do is laugh, really. I've stated my personal opinion before: I have nothing against Curtis Saxton. I like his site, and use it a lot, and it's forced both fans and LFL to raise the quality bar. I'll also admit that personality, prejuduice, and enthusiasm can warp anyone's POV, and that my own remarks must contain a lot of "human error", But I think there's a big difference between ad hominem attacks (which I do all I can to avoid) and valid criticism. SWTC contains non-canon hypotheses and arguments, some of which ignore, disagree with, or misrepresent established canon: these need to be noted as such, and should not be mistaken for canon; and where LFL incorporate material based on these ideas in canon, then I think it's fair to ask whether this was the right thing to do (though that's a question being asked of LFL more than it is of Saxton). To reiterate: I believe that Curtis Saxton is a very good choice for work like ItW and ICS; but a tighter rein on the places where ideas he really likes create contradictions with previous canon would have made ItW and ICS stronger, and thus better: for him, for LFL, and for the fandom. I'd expect no less if I were ever in a similar situation (which, with regard to SW, I doubt will ever happen; I doubt the people who asked Saxton to do what he did are very keen on the sort of questions I'm asking). --McEwok 17:27, 9 Sep 2005 (UTC)
 * For the record, the only thing I´ve seen besides your complaining about Star Dreadnoughts, is your bizarre fascination with the idea that every Lucas-employee involved with Curtis Saxton suddenly lost their ability to think clearly. (Which of course implies that his works are not as relevant as others.) That is not "valid criticism", it is fanwanked bullshit. VT-16 18:04, 10 Sep 2005 (UTC)

Geonosian Dreadnaught
I'll also check the RotS novelliation for this. I'm pretty sure that the "Geonosian Dreadnaught" is referred to as a discrete ship, not a core ship. It's also spherical. It may be a Lucrehulk-class Core Ship, but I'm not entirely sure, and even if it is, that shows that a core ship can be a Dreadnaught, not that DDs have core ships. I know there have been fan discussions about this, but I didn't follow them closely. --McEwok 12:02, 4 Sep 2005 (UTC)

"General Grievous stod wide-legged, hands folded behind him, as he stared out through the reinforced viewport at the towering sphere of the Geonosian Dreadnaught. The immense ship looked small, though, against the scale of the vast sinkhole that rose around it" - RotS, p. 177. SInkholes are later described as "large enough to land a Victory-class Star Destroyer" (p. 261) and the Dreadnaught itself is described, from Kenobi's POV, as "a spiny spheroid of metal: a Dreadnaught-sized structure that clearly had not been there for long" (p. 264). I can't find a precise reference to a 600m length, but this is obviously the core-ship sized thing that we see in the sinkhole in the movie: it's called a Dreadnaught; it's spherical, so height and diameter are the same as length; it seems it can't be much larger than a 900m VicStar to land in a sinkhole; it's compared directly in scale to a "Dreadnaught" (probably a 600m Rendilli one) by a Jedi General; and it may itself be a 600m Lucrehulk Core Ship. --McEwok 09:40, 7 Sep 2005 (UTC)
 * From what I´ve heard from people who read the book, the whole sphere is just a core ship, not a starship in and of itself. Grievous deals with Gunray and Obi-Wan in the command pod of the Dreadnaught. There are several core ship variants already described in CW era EU, so it is not surprising to see yet another variant. VT-16 10:23, 7 Sep 2005 (UTC)
 * Um... no. Even if the sphere is a core ship, it's called a "Dreadnaught", and described as "Dreadnaught-sized" from Kenobi's POV. Regardless of what it might be a part of, it's a "Dreadnaught" in and off itself, and combining movie footage and novellization description, it's hardly more than 1km in diameter - probably only a few hundred metres. --McEwok 17:47, 8 Sep 2005 (UTC)
 * It is said that Grievous deals with Gunray and later Obi-Wan in the command pod of a Geonosian Dreadnaught. Since this basically cover most of the spherical structure, that should make it a core ship, which can in turn be connected to something bigger. There´s already a "Trade Federation Cruiser" and a "Trade Federation Destroyer" (both briefly mentioned in AOTC ICS), which dock with Core Ships, so there is a precedence for ships with core ships integrated other than the two previously seen . And it´s called a Trade Fed Core ship on the official site, so the entire dreadnaught is most likely a ship-design made by them for Geonosian use. (And may I remind you, core ships were made only to got to/from a surface, not through interstellar space. That´s why they´re called 'core ships', they form only the core of a vessel.) VT-16 01:53, 9 Sep 2005 (UTC)
 * I'll have to re-read the novel carefully: do you have quotes, because I'm pretty sure you've been misinformed about the Gunray scene, at least (that's what I'm quoting on p. 177 - they're somewhere oposite the Dreadnaught). Nevertheless, if the Dreadnaught is a core ship, then we have another 600m Dreadnaught design, possibly a Geonosian rather than TF designation. The "cruiser" could be Korvin-class... a big ship. --McEwok 17:27, 9 Sep 2005 (UTC)


 * Well, as I said on the Talk:Geonosian Dreadnaught page, there is no official source as of now, so all we can do is simply guess. Cmdr. J. Nebulax 13:52, 12 Nov 2005 (UTC)

CGS Dreadnaught
Vermillion - any particular reason for removing the CGS Dreadnaught? --McEwok 01:06, 5 Sep 2005 (UTC)
 * Being over 4000 years old, it's designation seems irrelevant compared to the other ships listed which are all much newer and still in service. --Vermilion 03:18, 7 Sep 2005 (UTC)
 * Um, the Han Solo and the Corporate Sector Sourcebook decided that the dreadnaught design used by the CSA wasn't exactly young either... --McEwok 09:24, 7 Sep 2005 (UTC)
 * Then it should probably also be removed, but I'll just add a mention of the age. --Vermilion 02:09, 8 Sep 2005 (UTC)

Eye of Palpatine
"Somehow he knew the dimensions of the ship, huge, more vast than even the biggest of the Super Star Destroyers, bigger than a torpedo sphere, with firepower to waste a planet" - CotJ, p. 73 (hardcover). A rather odd claim, because a torp. sphere is only 1900m on its widest diameter; earlier, the Eye of Palpatine implied to be one of a group of "one-to-two kilometer rocks" (p. 38). Is Luke's concept of a "Super Star Destroyer" affected by thirty-year-old Imperial conditioning? For what it's worth, Mara says "That was back when they needed a vessel the size of a city to carry the blasting power they wanted" (p. 158). --McEwok 10:03, 7 Sep 2005 (UTC)

Latest changes
Since these elder warships were constructed at a time when most craft were significantly smaller than CW/GCW-era ships, they would have followed the definition of 'Dreadnaught' more closely back then, rather than compared with modern SW vessels. - um, the Leviathan and Ravager are 600m and 900m respectively, the same size as a Dreadnaught Cruiser and a VicStar, and thus directly comparable with common Prequel Era designs. --McEwok
 * There´s no evidence these ships are simply medium-sized warships of their era, like the Dreadnaught cruiser and the Victory star destroyer. And they are still not comparable due to their extreme age and outdated technology. The official Leviathan article even says as much. VT-16 01:27, 9 Sep 2005 (UTC)
 * Um, there's no evidence that Dreadnaught Cruisers and VicStars are "medium-sized" from the POV of their builders, and by "directly comparable", I was only talking about size, because that was the topic to hand. You used the claim that KotOR-era ships were "significantly smaller" to dismiss the top-end disparity with the Mandy-II or Ex; to which I countered that standard front-line warship classes are in fact directly comparable in scale (the VicStar even seems to be based closely on the Ravager design). --McEwok 17:27, 9 Sep 2005 (UTC)
 * The presence of several dozen classes far bigger than either of the two you mentioned, pretty much makes them medium level warships in the OT-era. Don´t even try to deny that. VT-16 17:54, 10 Sep 2005 (UTC)

(It should be noted that 'Dreadnaught' is the ship's class-name, not it's designation.) Um, the Katana-class Dreadnaught? I find it strange that Imperial-class and Super-class are criticized, but some people insist that Dreadnaught-class must be a straightforward class-name? --McEwok 17:54, 8 Sep 2005 (UTC)
 * I haven´t criticised those names and I´m not criticising Dreadnaught, so I hope that wasn´t meant for me. But, there´s no such thing as Katana-class Dreadnaughts. The only Katana-anythings I know of are the 200 Dreadnaught heavy cruisers in Dark Force Rising, the Katana fleet. VT-16 01:27, 9 Sep 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm pretty sure the term Katana-class Dreadnaught is used sometimes (at least in places like the NJO); and my apologies if I elided your position with that of others: what I was saying was the same people who insist that Dreadnaughts must be merely "Dreadnaught-class" often take a very different attitude to a term like "Super-class"; the insistance that it's just a class-name is IMHO overinterpretation: "Dreadnaught" or "Dreadnaught Cruiser" is likely to be the correct original designation; especially as they're now said to immitate a "Mandalorian Dreadnaught" design... --McEwok 17:27, 9 Sep 2005 (UTC)
 * According to CUSWE, the Katana-class Dreadnaught description is only used for the 200 Dreadnaught-class heavy cruisers that formed the Katana-fleet: "this was the name of the flagship Dreadnaught in the Katana Fleet. The Katana was one of 200 such Dreadnaughts, which were called "The Dark Force" due to their dark coloration and lack of interior lighting." This is referring to the special dreadnaught cruisers who were modified to form this fleet. If they were not all destroyed in the story (I haven´t read it), they might be used later on by the Republic. VT-16 17:54, 10 Sep 2005 (UTC)

That said, both are "Behind the Scenes", so I'm less troubled by the inferences than I would be in the main article. Though obviously, I wouldn't mind if anyone edited 'em, --McEwok 17:55, 8 Sep 2005 (UTC)