Talk:Mon Calamari Cruiser

Actual ship?
I have a problem with this article. The comic in question was undoubtedly made using concept drawings. There is no reason to assume that these cruisers were actually built and used. That comic has numerous errors. Why include this as an actual vessel? We have no proof that it even was one? AdmiralNick22 20:56, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
 * The comic is canon; therefore, so is the ship class. Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Implogo.jpg|20px]] 22:16, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, the story is canon. Yet, we must take into account that those shots of Mon Cal cruisers are not canon. First off, one of them is intended to be Home One. That right there is a contradiction. Furthermore, the artist included later in the comic, during the actual battle, Liberty-esque looking cruisers. Why create an article on something that most likely does not exist? Is it not easier to just say that the comics artist was working with concepts that were not used? AdmiralNick22 22:20, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
 * They are canon because they're featured in a canon source. AdmiralNick, you may not like it, but this ship class is canon. Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Implogo.jpg|20px]] 22:22, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Jack, it is articles like these that degrade the Wookieepedia. An obscure reference in a old comic using concept article suddenly warrants a article? That is almost as bad as assuming each background smudge over Byss in DE is a new type of ship. Furthermore, to is there a source that says 100% that those are Mon Cal cruisers? Granted they are concepts of "Rebel cruisers", but who says they are Mon Cal built. The overall shape, especially of the rear, resembles the Gallofree medium transports in many ways. Who is to say that these ships are not some other form of Rebel cruiser? That is why articles like this have no place on the Wookiee. AdmiralNick22 22:41, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
 * You're completely wrong. You have no proof that this type of ship is non-canon. Come back when you have proof. Until then, this article is canon and is remaining here. Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Implogo.jpg|20px]] 22:46, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Jack, you did not answer my question. Where is the proof that says that these vessels are in fact Mon Cal designed? To my knowledge, these concepts were just labeled "Rebel cruisers" or "Rebel Star Cruisers". Now, this does not mean that they are Mon Cal. For example, several older sources, namely From Star Wars to Indiana Jones- Best of the Lucasfilm archives, lists the name "Rebel Medical Frigate Star Cruiser" for the Neb B's. The term "Rebel Star Cruiser" is used in the novelization of ROTJ to desribe numerous Rebel ships. Furthermore, I point out that the ship in question bares a remarkable resemblance to the Gallofree transports. If we are going to say that they are canon ships, we need to take into account that they could be one of the dozens of "off screen" types. All of these reasons/problems is why it is an article that is not needed. AdmiralNick22 22:54, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
 * If they're based on Mon Calamari cruiser concept art, they must be Mon Calamari cruisers. Therefore, the article is needed. Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Implogo.jpg|20px]] 22:56, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I am suprised that you are so certain that everything is cut and dry like that? I assume that discussion about articles is quite common? I merely am pointing out that the vessel in question, if we for arguments sake say it is a actual vessel in the Rebel fleet, could in fact be from another designer. Furthermore, if we are to assume that those vessels are Mon Cal cruisers, why say they are a new type? My whole point is that if Home One is presented in one panel as appearing totally different from the way we see it in the movie, why not just say that the vessels are a case of artistic license? AdmiralNick22 23:08, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
 * How would we know if Home One is in the comic at all? Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Implogo.jpg|20px]] 23:09, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
 * How do we know these are Mon Cal cruisers even in the first place? Now maybe you understand my hesitation to include articles like this. I am not trying to be snarky, but merely point out why stuff like this doesn't really add anything to the Wookiee, other than confuse or rile people. AdmiralNick22 23:16, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
 * How in hell doesn't this "add anything to the Wookiee"? If it's obviously a separate class and based on Mon Calamari cruiser concept art, it's a canonical Mon Calamari cruiser design that deserves its own article, just like the MC80a, MC80B, MC90, etc. Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Implogo.jpg|20px]] 23:19, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Jack, with respect, you can be a difficult person to discuss topics with here on the Wookieepedia. I am within my rights as a member here to question an article. We all have those rights. Yet, you seem to just want to say "My way is right and that is final" instead of having a discussion. I am open to changing my opinion on this article, but it is totally fair and within the bounds of the Wookieepedia to debate the various merits of an article. I respect what you do here and all your hard work, but your attitude towards people with a different viewpoint that yours s not always the greatest. AdmiralNick22 23:25, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
 * You're saying that this is non-canon, and I'm responding by saying that it is, since it is in a canonical source. You're saying that we don't know who manufactured it, and I'm saying that since it was based off of Mon Calamari cruiser concept art, it has to be a Mon Calamari cruiser. You're saying that it doesn't deserve an article and that it confuses people, and I'm saying that it does deserve it's own article and that it doesn't confuse people if they read it. We're having a discussion, and I have every right to say what I have been saying, because it is a discussion and I'm allowed to state my opinion on the matter. Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Implogo.jpg|20px]] 23:28, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I guess alot of this boils down to how different people view what is portrayed in comics. For example, when I see a ISD in Dark Empire in the background that is missing a hangar, I tend to just chalk it up to artistic choice or a small error. Some people would disagree with me on that. I guess it is for that reason that I see a Mon Cal cruiser concept in the comic and I just assume it is not a new type but just a different representation of what we see in the movies. AdmiralNick22 23:34, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
 * True, POV is a major issue in this. However, we really have to take this as a separate class, because it does have major differences. I myself believe it is a separate class, but who knows. And sorry, AdmiralNick. I've just been a little tense all day. Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Implogo.jpg|20px]] 23:39, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
 * No problem. :-) Perhaps a fair compromise would be to include a small blurb in the BtS section stating that some fans do not see them as a different class? That way the article can remain and then we can let people decide for themselves whether the vessel is a new class or not. AdmiralNick22 23:42, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm inclined to agree that this probably warrants an article as a seperate ship. However, if it IS a seperate ship, then we cannon assume it's of Mon Calamari design just because the concept art was.  Concept art was often reused for different EU concepts than originally intended.  For instance, McQuarrie's original concept for Wookiees eventually became the Lasat species, and concept art that depicted Luke Skywalker eventually got used as Voren Na'al. jSarek 23:45, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Still, the concept art and this ship class look similar. Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Implogo.jpg|20px]] 23:48, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Adding to this, I found the McQuarrie artwork in a non-behind the scenes source (GG#5), so the better picture now occupies the infobox. And it's definitely not the same as the MC80 series. Those ships are shaped like beached whales with pointed fronts and would be slightly bigger than a Nebulon-B frigate, judging by the comic art. VT-16 09:51, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Excellent. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Implogo.jpg|20px]] 14:13, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
 * VT-16, I've looked through the revised edition of GG5 and I can't seem to find that piece of art in it. I take it you have the first edition?  If so, what exactly does the book say about them?  If not, what page is it on in the revised edition? jSarek 23:31, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I only have the one from 1990. The picture is on page 36, in Admiral Ackbar's article. VT-16 08:36, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Yeah the art is completely different in the 1st and 2nd editions of the book; in the first edition, it uses a lot of drawn pictures and concept art, whereas the 2nd edition uses pictures from the films. Although it's on page 36 of the 1st edition, it's not in the 2nd edition at all...and I could really be pedantic and say that it's only actually in black and white in the 1st edition, but I prefer the colour picture. :) &mdash;Jaymach Ral'Tir (talk) 03:29, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
 * And it's not named as a Mon Calamari ship either in GG5 or the RotJ comic. Scans, courtesy of Jaymach, here and here. --McEwok 11:57, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Since the art is in the chapter about Ackbar and his people's contribution to the fleet, that pretty much settles it. The only name used is "Mon Calamari Cruiser", so that's what I put for this article, even though that is a general term for Mon Cal vessels also. VT-16 13:03, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
 * The art is a depiction of the Battle of Endor, Admiral Ackbar's greatest victory, below a description of the Battle of Endor in a biography of Admiral Ackbar. This indicates nothing about the origins of these ships. --McEwok 14:27, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I had already voiced my concerns about this article earlier on the talk page. Namely making a concept art seen only in a comic and one edition of a sourcebook into a actual class. The speculation way outweighs the actual facts. I would personally there be no article on this cruiser, but that is just my opinion. AdmiralNick22 14:38, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Adm.Nick22, if you'd bother to read the book, you would see that every concept art used is placed below an article where it is relevant. The ships seen are Mon Calamari, because the article is about Admiral Ackbar. I can't believe you're actually contesting this. If you'll excuse me, I'm reverting this, since the changes were made due to a lack of information. If McE hasn't read the book that is not my concern, and your personal opinion I can care less about. These ships show up in three seperate sources and are identified as Mon Calamari, that's it. VT-16 17:20, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
 * VT-16, why the rudeness? Does saying "your personal opinion I can care less about" do anything constructive? Have I insulted you? Attitudes like that do absolutely nothing in a discussion. Your attitude leaves very little chance for posters to discuss their differences of opinion and find a compromise. It is far more rewarding for all involved in any dispute to discuss their opinions and those of others with respect, not to attack it. AdmiralNick22 00:57, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
 * You're acting like another individual who has little regard for evidence he doesn't like. My tolerance for wasteful discussion only goes so far, no matter who it is. First of all, what is this:
 * First off, one of them is intended to be Home One.
 * Home One? Where does it say one of them is Home One? I've got the ROTJ comic and it isn't pointed out anywhere.
 * Furthermore, the artist included later in the comic, during the actual battle, Liberty-esque looking cruisers.
 * And therefore the fleet that "stretched further than the eye could see" (according to the ROTJ novelization) couldn't have different types of Mon cal vessels? The movie proves that wrong.
 * Is it not easier to just say that the comics artist was working with concepts that were not used?
 * If he or she works with them, they are used. Concept art gets recycled in most SW stories, this is no different. Or would you rather say the Victory-class Star Destroyer, the Recusant-class destroyer, the MC90 cruiser, the MC30c frigate, Juggernaut tanks, and Z-95 Headhunter do not "really" exist, since they were made from discarded concept art?
 * Your attitude leaves very little chance for posters to discuss their differences of opinion and find a compromise.
 * What compromise? Again, you show no evidence behind your statements, only variations of "I think this isn't really there". I've provided actual sources, you've got an opinion. How is that supposed to be equal in a debate? VT-16 10:04, 9 November 2006 (UTC)


 * To deal with the facts, and the facts only.
 * 1.) The RotJ comic doesn't identify these ships as Home One. I agree with VT-16 in this. But in fact, the comic doesn't identify them as anything at all, and an implied identification with Home One would be the only grounds for identifying them as Mon Calamari ships on the basis of the comic. (comic page)
 * 2.) Galaxy Guide 5 doesn't identify them as Mon Calamari ships, either. This is a depiction of the Battle of Endor, and it comes below the description of the Battle of Endor in Ackbar's bio. The statement, earlier in the bio, that Ackbar brough the "Mon Calamari Cruisers" to the Rebellion, says nothing about what sort of ships are shown here. (GG5 page)
 * 3.) The three seperate appearances of this type, including Marvel #98 are definately enough, according to Wookieepedia's canon-is-canon policy, to earn them an entry. In this I agree with VT-16 again. I do see the sense of AdmiralNick's point that we can't be completely sure that they're not a "misrepresentation" of something else, but this introduces uncertainty into the situation, rather than conclusively disproving this design's "existence" in Star Wars.
 * 4.) In short, there is no solid evidence to indicate that these are Mon Calamari ships, and the valid questions of source-accuracy don't outweight the need for an entry on them.
 * They may be Mon Cals (though the lack of smaller, asymmetrically-placed blisters is against this); they may be a "misrepresentation" of something else (but they certainly "exist" inasmuch as they're depicted in canon): but these are possibilities, not certainties. They're Rebel ships seen during and just after the Endor campaign, they look like they do, and they're scaled to ~300m from the escort frigates. And that's about all we can say about them for sure. --McEwok 12:32, 9 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Since the chapter in question is about the Mon Calamari Admiral and his people's contribution to the battle, the pictures used in the first edition of the book only relate to the articles they follow, and the only ships seen in said picture, which accompanies said article, are A-wings interceptors, Imperial Star Destroyers, and these vessels, which are prominently featured, there is little room for anything else. Ackbar provides Mon Calamari Cruisers to the battle, we then see a picture of cruisers engaging Star Destroyers.
 * As for bulges, there are plenty of those, but none clearly shown to be asymmetrical, likewise on the MC30c frigate and the MC18 light freighter, other Mon Cal designs. There are plenty of tiny irregular "spots" seen on both pictures and on other Mon Cal vessels. Those who have not read this book, should please refrain from commenting on its contents as if they've read it. VT-16 13:16, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Are they canonically a Mon Calamari design?
Are these ships ever canonically identified as a Mon Calamari design? Can someone confirm (or disprove) this from the RotJ comic, Marvel #98 and its reprints, and/or GG5? Thanks --McEwok 12:48, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Oh boy... Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Implogo.jpg|20px]] 00:54, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
 * VT, any chance you could answer McEwok's question? Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Implogo.jpg|20px]] 12:25, 7 November 2006 (UTC)