Talk:MC80 Liberty type Star Cruiser/Archive1

 This page is an archive of the discussion of an article. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's current talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.

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) Imperial_Emblem.svg 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) Imperial_Emblem.svg 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) Imperial_Emblem.svg 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) Imperial_Emblem.svg 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) Imperial_Emblem.svg 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) Imperial_Emblem.svg 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) Imperial_Emblem.svg 19:06, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

"Downscaled"?
--McEwok 02:22, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 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) Imperial_Emblem.svg 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.
 * "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."
 * &mdash;p.142
 * "At Endor, pounded mercilessly by the capital ships of the Rebel Alliance flotilla, the ship's shields fail."
 * &mdash;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) Imperial_Emblem.svg 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) Imperial_Emblem.svg 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) Imperial_Emblem.svg 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) Imperial_Emblem.svg 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) Imperial_Emblem.svg 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) Imperial_Emblem.svg 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) Imperial_Emblem.svg 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) Imperial_Emblem.svg 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) Imperial_Emblem.svg 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) Imperial_Emblem.svg 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) Imperial_Emblem.svg 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) Imperial_Emblem.svg 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) Imperial_Emblem.svg 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) Imperial_Emblem.svg 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) Imperial_Emblem.svg 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) Imperial_Emblem.svg 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) Imperial_Emblem.svg 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) Imperial_Emblem.svg 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 due to AbuseFilter}/img470/6055/warshipclassesoa0.jpg 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) Imperial_Emblem.svg 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 due to ABUSEFILTER}/img470/6055/warshipclassesoa0.jpg 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) Imperial_Emblem.svg 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) Imperial_Emblem.svg 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) Imperial_Emblem.svg 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) Imperial_Emblem.svg 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;larger, but later than the "in-universe" date of the quote. 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. Yours is a possible interpretation, but certainly not the only option, and only makes sense if you think that the "standard Imperial classifications" are "downscaled", an argument for which you've provided no canon support beyond your interpretation of these lines! You can't claim that your specific interpretation of these lines is supported by a general principle that 600m ships can't be cruisers, since as a general principle, there's no evidence for it beyond your suggestion that it's what these lines indicate!
 * 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 that's supposed to be relevant? I suppose I use "Dreadnaught" or "Dreadnaught Cruiser" because those are established and comprehensible terms for that type of ship, like we're all using "Star Cruiser" without any problem in this discussion for ships that you apparently believe are properly destroyers. In terms of the "standard" classifications, a Dreadnaught is a cruiser, not a "dreadnaught", but the name does hint at a non-standard designation as a dreadnaught, a hypothesis somewhat supported by the connection to a "Mandalorian Dreadnaught" design. --McEwok
 * You know, this would be a lot easier to read if formatting was clearer.Vymer 13:54, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Even if larger reactor-areas consisted of several main reactors joined together, and not a central reactor linked with auxillary reactors on each side, like on the smaller and medium ships (Acclamator, Venator, Imperial), the whole assembly would still have a bigger volume and produce more power. As for the large battleship quote, I already answered that. It was in a time before battleships such as the Executor existed, which all sources note as having been both unprecedently large and powerful, a tribute to Lira Wessel's ambitions. The reactor of an Imperial-class vessel and the reactors of a Praetor-vessel produce power at significantly different levels.

The reactor from a single ISD produced enough power for a shield and ion cannon defence that could hold off one pre-Executor battleship. The multiple reactors from a single PSBC produced enough power for a shield and ion cannon defence to hold off Executor (a conventional battleship unprecedented in design) and a flotilla or Imperial-class vessels.

As for this Firestorm, was it a modified ISD-II? Its profile does not specify its action against Shockwave. Though that is not farfetched, capital ships as small as the Munificent-class can destroy much larger targets (in its case, a 10 km diameter Grade III battle station) if it fires powered-up shots and then recuperates for an extended period of time afterwards. The difference is of course that the PSBC reactors give a continued supply of energy to both the v-150 cannon, all sections in Echo Base and the theatre-grade shield at the same time, and seemed able to stand up to the Imperial fleet for an extended amount of time.

Back to the downscaled ships. I'll post them again, in bold:

"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

Here, companies can only sell parts or blueprints to independent governments, due to extensive embargoes by the Trade Federation. These independent governments then build their own vessels, which are downscaled. Among the Utapaun's self-made, downscaled warships, is the Rendili Dreadnaught. Famous throughout generations in the Galactic Republic. Some of these vessels will in the future be modified, updated and extended to 700 meter Assault Frigates, which would only make sense if the ship was eligable as a cruiser on one scale and as a frigate in another. In fact, based on the military restriction following the New Sith Wars, having downscaled warships such as these be the primary combatants in the Republic's neutered armed forces, makes perfect sense. You're almost making it seem as if corvettes and frigates mean little in military sense, since you seem so veheminently against the idea that the Dreadnaught could be a designated as a frigate in its later service. In Empire at War, ships comparable to the Dreadnaught are also designated 'frigates' (the Immobilizer 418, the Accalamator-class, Rebel Assault Frigate Mk. II etc.). As the sources above and in past discussions show, multiple scales are supported and referenced officially, the Dreadnaught can be a cruiser on one scale, a frigate on another, a dreadnaught on a third. And do not seperate between the Rendili Dreadnaught and the rest of the Utapaun force of downscaled ships, it is a part of them as shown in the sentence and is used to show the size difference between a battleship of the Trade Federation and a battleship in the private Utapaun navy, which is a Dreadnaught-class heavy cruiser a.k.a Dreadnaught from Rendili StarDrive. There is subsequently no need for your continued dishonesty.

"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

How do 42 meter long patrol ships constitute warships, they are not even close to capital ship status. They are not built for war, they are built for local patrols and customs service. The only Sienar design that fits the bill, is the Vindicator-class and its derivatives, and one of them is designated a 'frigate' as mentioned above. Once again, the use of multiple ship scales is relevant.

VT-16 14:35, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Continued...

 * Even if larger reactor-areas consisted of several main reactors joined together, and not a central reactor linked with auxillary reactors on each side... the whole assembly would still have a bigger volume and produce more power.
 * I don't dispute this at all. My specific concern was with the idea of a larger single-reactor assembly, which turned out not to be what was described&mdash;though I still don't see evidence that the Praetor needs to be much bigger than an ISD, even if she has more powerful drives.
 * As for the large battleship quote, I already answered that. It was in a time before battleships such as the Executor existed...
 * Which tells us nothing about what's meant by "a singe large battleship" (though we can look at the fact that Yavin Base seems impregnable until Executor enters service).
 * The reactor of an Imperial-class vessel and the reactors of a Praetor-vessel produce power at significantly different levels.
 * It seems so, since Echo Base can hold off Ex; but we don't know how different those levels are. The difference may also have something to do with the differing atmospheric conditions, differing power-transfer/shield projection technology, and the area that the shield is required to cover.
 * The reactor from a single ISD produced enough power for a shield and ion cannon defence that could hold off one pre-Executor battleship. The multiple reactors from a single PSBC produced enough power for a shield and ion cannon defence to hold off Executor (a conventional battleship unprecedented in design) and a flotilla or Imperial-class vessels.
 * Not in dispute!
 * The question of the precise difference in firepower between "one pre-Executor battleship" and "Executor (a conventional battleship unprecedented in design) and a flotilla or Imperial-class vessels" is, however, impossible to resolve on present evidence.
 * As for this Firestorm, was it a modified ISD-II?'
 * It appears to have been. It's described repeatedly as part of a group of "Imperial Star Destroyers" or "Imperial-class Star Destroyers".
 * The difference is of course that the PSBC reactors give a continued supply of energy to both the v-150 cannon, all sections in Echo Base and the theatre-grade shield at the same time, and seemed able to stand up to the Imperial fleet for an extended amount of time.
 * Did it? When the Imperial fleet arrives, Rieekan orders, "Reroute all power to the energy shield", and then the Rebels briefly "open" the "energy shield" to allow each transport to leave. It's in those windows that the ion cannon open fire&mdash;and we only actually see one ion cannon fire. It's possible that the Rebels are diverting power briefly to the cannon while the shields are down, or making use of charge already held in the cannon's capacitors.
 * In Darksaber, the power-up for Firestorm 's ion cannon seems to happen comparably fast, when Daala says she's "siphoning off all power from the turbolaser batteries, and concentrating our entire first strike on the ion cannon". A single "disruptive blast" hits the command tower of Whirlwind (another ISD; not the up-scaled Shockwave, my mistake) and knocks out the ship. If an ISD can do this in moments, I'd imagine Echo Base can too.
 * Here, companies can only sell parts or blueprints to independent governments, due to extensive embargoes by the Trade Federation. These independent governments then build their own vessels, which are downscaled.
 * That's speculation. We don't know precisely what the "embargoes on arms sales to planetary governments" entail, except that they apparently limit Utapau's defense force, forcing them to "rely on self-made, downscaled warships", whatever that precisely means.
 * Among the Utapaun's self-made, downscaled warships, is the Rendili Dreadnaught.
 * False logic. Saying they "rely on self-made, downscaled warships" and then talking about "their largest Rendili Dreadnaught" doesn't unequivocally imply that the Rendili ship falls into this category, any more than referring to the Delta-7s "miles-long cousins, the Star Destroyers" means that all Star Destroyers are more than 3.2km long.
 * Some of these vessels will in the future be modified, updated and extended to 700 meter Assault Frigates, which would only make sense if the ship was eligable as a cruiser on one scale and as a frigate in another.
 * I don't disagree!
 * What range of ships that other scale means by "frigate", however, is a question we can't answer, and we can't say anything certain about the rest of the scale that this "frigate" designation fits into, either.
 * In fact, based on the military restriction following the New Sith Wars, having downscaled warships such as these be the primary combatants in the Republic's neutered armed forces, makes perfect sense.
 * Actually, the canonical reason for the emphasis on smaller warships (Han Solo and the Corporate Sector Sourcebook, New Essential Chronology) is because they could outmanoeuvre and out-fight larger dreadnaughts. The change is implied in the Sourcebook to have happened around 3,000 BBY, and I think the date is made explicit in The New Essential Chronology.
 * You're almost making it seem as if corvettes and frigates mean little in military sense, since you seem so veheminently against the idea that the Dreadnaught could be a designated as a frigate in its later service.
 * I'm not against being called a frigate!
 * The Assault Frigate is undeniably a "frigate" of some sort. We just don't know what this means&mdash;this, or any other "frigate" designations in any systems apart from the "standard" one...
 * In Empire at War, ships comparable to the Dreadnaught are also designated 'frigates' (the Immobilizer 418, the Accalamator-class, Rebel Assault Frigate Mk. II etc.).
 * Not disputed! Again, though, quite what this terminology means is open to question.
 * As the sources above and in past discussions show, multiple scales are supported and referenced officially, the Dreadnaught can be a cruiser on one scale, a frigate on another, a dreadnaught on a third.
 * Agreed absolutely!
 * However, in contrast with the "standard" system, we don't know anything certain about how those alternative "frigate" and "dreadnaught" classifications are defined, nor do we know what the other designations they're used alongside are. So we can't say much about the systems they come from.
 * And do not seperate between the Rendili Dreadnaught and the rest of the Utapaun force of downscaled ships, it is a part of them...
 * This depends on a specific interpretation of the passage. A reader who knows that a "Rendili Dreadnaught" is a cruiser according to the "standard" system (and indeed the main cruiser design of the Republic before the Clone Wars) will conclude that Utapau has a fleet mainly consisting of small, locally-built ships, and one Rendili heavy cruiser. To say the Utapauans rely on small ships does not imply that all their ships are small. One might equally say: "Grand Admiral Thrawn has strengthened his hold over the Imperial Core by placing limits on the defensive fleets of planetary governors. As a result, Carida relies on small systems patrol craft with Army crews&mdash;their biggest planetary-protection Rendili Dreadnaught is one-fifth the size of an Imperial Star Destroyer". This doesn't imply that the Vendetta is a systems patrol craft (though in fact she does have an Army crew), and the size statement is, in this case, based on volume rather than length.
 * ... which is a Dreadnaught-class heavy cruiser a.k.a Dreadnaught from Rendili StarDrive.
 * We don't know this for sure. Rendili StarDrive produced several variants of the 600m Dreadnaught Cruiser (and part of me wonders if the 600m Bulk Cruiser is classed as a "dreadnaught" by Rendili, too), and they were also responsible for the 2,011m Invincible-class "Dreadnaught Heavy Cruiser". While I agree that it's likely that it's a Dreadnaught-class heavy cruiser, "Rendili's latest gift to the militarily obsessed" a few years earlier, other types of "Rendili Dreadnaught" could easily exist.
 * How do 42 meter long patrol ships constitute warships, they are not even close to capital ship status. They are not built for war, they are built for local patrols and customs service.
 * They're "downscaled warships built to patrol remote sectors"? That sounds like a perfect description of a small combat spaceship, given a somewhat absurd "light cruiser" designation, and, in your own words, "built for local patrols".
 * The only Sienar design that fits the bill, is the Vindicator-class and its derivatives, and one of them is designated a 'frigate' as mentioned above. Once again, the use of multiple ship scales is relevant.
 * Multiple scales are certainly used, and a "frigate" designation is sometimes applied to some cruisers. There's no proof what these mean, however, and no proof for your speculation that the "downscaled warships built to patrol remote sectors" being referred to are 600m heavy cruisers; even if they are, they could be concieved of as downscaled Star Destroyers, not downscaled cruisers, since the "cruiser" term isn't used....
 * And all that's a rather longer reply than I'd thought it was! --McEwok 19:00, 19 January 2007 (UTC)


 * The three pages (you know which ones) are going to be kept separate, McEwok. And "MC80 battleship" is far better. Enough of that. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) Imperial_Emblem.svg 20:07, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Going back to the relative reactor strengths. The exact quote on the fold-out on page 143 of SW:CL says Droid access tunnels to base main reactors: stolen parts from a derelict Praetor-class Star Battlecruiser. In other words, they don't say whether these were the main reactors on the vessel. Indeed, based on the smaller Star Destroyers, they might be auxillary reactors on the ship itself. The entire ion cannon assembly is hooked up to the base reactors further away. And I'll conceed that it might switch power with the defensive shields, it's stated to be synchronized with the battle-theater shield generator, at least. "REBEL SHIELD SYSTEM. By dumping absorbed energy directly into the planet interior, the Rebels' planet-based shield withstands bombardments that would overwhelm ship shields."

- Star Wars: Complete Locations, page 143

So for any planet-bound shield system, this would be the case. ISD reactor-powered shields and PSBC reactor-powered shields can't absorbe as much energy if they're on a ship in space (due to limited surface area compared to a planet). There is nothing said about different shield technologies other than that one can absorb a higher amount of energy from hostile weaponry. As for relative sizes, I added facts which I've previously overlooked from SW:CL, and put together a nice factsheet: due to AbuseFilter}/albums/a242/CptK/StarDestroyersetc-1.jpg I'll conceed that the downscaled warships built for patrols are the really small ones, but Saxton seems to have accounted for the larger WEG cruisers when he mentions the Rendili Dreadnaught serving Utapau. With all these quotes as well as the quotes stating different classifications in the old publications, I see no problems with different classifications as they stand, nor any further need for argument. Then again, having grown up on Marvel and Dark Empire comics, I never saw any problems with having many bigger Imperial classes, anyway. Still, it was nice to know Rebel Alliance Sourcebook, Imperial Sourcebook, Heir to the Empire Sourcebook, Cracken's Rebel Operatives, Dark Empire Sourcebook etc, basically said the same thing I've been arguing for. :) VT-16 21:57, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
 * It seems that we're slowly moving away from the MC80 to other issues. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) Imperial_Emblem.svg 22:09, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
 * That is not my fault, that is the fault of a person who has nothing to back him up with, but who continues on, regardless. I've shown throughout this entire thread why McEwok is wrong. I have given him ample opportunity to present evidence for things like "battleship" being a "generic term", and I have now given him one final warning on the Utapau page. If he can't control himself, I will report him to the administrators on that. VT-16 22:13, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, this is starting to get out of hand. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) Imperial_Emblem.svg 22:16, 19 January 2007 (UTC)


 * VT: In other words, they don't say whether these were the main reactors on the vessel.
 * Good point. Nevertheless, given what The Star Wars Technical Journal says, I don't think we can speculate with much confidence about single reactors larger than the one on the ISD&mdash;though there could, of course, be ships with multiple reactors of the same design....
 * The entire ion cannon assembly is hooked up to the base reactors further away.
 * No disagreement. But there is also a "reactor power core" directly under the main emplacement in the SW:CL picture (the databank says the v-150 "draws power from a dedicated reactor typically sunken into the ground 40 meters beneath the emplacement", too), and the underground emplacement surrounded by the capacitors is called a "power generator", which may be some sort of... um, big reactor?
 * And I'll conceed that it might switch power with the defensive shields, it's stated to be synchronized with the battle-theater shield generator, at least.
 * True. No real disagreement here, either...
 * So for any planet-bound shield system, this would be the case. ISD reactor-powered shields and PSBC reactor-powered shields can't absorbe as much energy if they're on a ship in space (due to limited surface area compared to a planet).
 * Interesting... and useful. But on available evidence, I think all we can say about Hoth is that:
 * Multiple reactors from a single Praetor were used.
 * The shield generation system was somewhat more capable than that at Yavin, which may indicate a more powerful power-source, but may also be to do with superior dissipation systems to dump the energy.
 * The ion cannon firepower seems to have been broadly comparbale with that of Firestorm.
 * Any further thoughts?
 * As for relative sizes, I added facts which I've previously overlooked from SW:CL, and put together a nice factsheet: due to AbuseFilter}/albums/a242/CptK/StarDestroyersetc-1.jpg
 * You're using unofficial terminology and theories, though. As far as I know, there's still no reference calling Eclipse or Sovereign anything other than some sort of Star Destroyer, and as I've said before, battlecruisers were historically as large as or (very often) larger than contemporary dreadnaughts&mdash;the difference was in the balance of armour and speed. As a summary of your interpretation of the terminology, it's valid; but it's not entirely based on solid canon evidence.
 * I'll conceed that the downscaled warships built for patrols are the really small ones....
 * Thanks! I mean, they don't absolutely have to be, though I think that's what makes most sense: my key point is that we can't prove they're not...
 * ... but Saxton seems to have accounted for the larger WEG cruisers when he mentions the Rendili Dreadnaught serving Utapau.
 * He "seems" to have, from your POV. Alternatively, if you approach the passage from the (canon!) POV that the Dreadnaught is a "cruiser" by the "standard" designation system, you don't draw the same inference. Thus, I don't think that this quote can be used to claim that 600m ships are "downscaled" cruisers.
 * 'With all these quotes as well as the quotes stating different classifications in the old publications, I see no problems with different classifications as they stand, nor any further need for argument. Then again, having grown up on Marvel and Dark Empire comics, I never saw any problems with having many bigger Imperial classes, anyway. Still, it was nice to know Rebel Alliance Sourcebook, Imperial Sourcebook, Heir to the Empire Sourcebook, Cracken's Rebel Operatives, Dark Empire Sourcebook etc, basically said the same thing I've been arguing for. :)
 * I've never disagreed on the existence of differing classifications!! My point has always been that they're not the "standard Imperial classifications", and that in contrast to the "standard" system, we don't actually know much about them&mdash;we don't know what terms they use, or how they define them. Sure, there are some uncertainties with the "standard Imperial classifications", but we at least have enough information there to be able to outline the basic structure of the system.
 * I have given him ample opportunity to present evidence for things like "battleship" being a "generic term"...
 * I don't recall you asking for evidence on this particular point before, but how about: "Overhead a dozen small Corellian battleships fly in formation" (RotJ script&mdash;I think the movie shows corvettes); or "a group of Rebel battleships that should not have been in the system at all, a giant organic-looking Mon Calamari Star Cruiser and four Corellian gunships" (Darksaber)...? There are plenty of instances of "battleship" being used in a pretty generic way, or at least for small ships like corvettes and gunships, as here.
 * EDIT: I see you'd asked something similar on 17th Jan, which I seem to have missed out on replying to: 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".
 * In general terms, I think the references I just quoted show that battleship can be a generic term for capital ships, and I'd already pointed out back on 11th Jan that there are "references to Corellian Corvettes as 'battleships' and comparably-sized Ugor ships as 'dreadnaughts'".
 * The specific reference we were discussing is: "the cruiser served as both a battleship and command post" (in The Rebel Alliance Scrapbook). Here, "battleship" and "command post" are identified as roles in which this "cruiser" serves&mdash;and there's no evidence either that the "battleship" role (whatever that actually means) is specific to the Home One variant of the MC80....
 * And it's a slightly shorter reply this time!! But to get it back on-topic for the page; does anyone have any evidence about what sort of designation system the MC80's "Star Cruiser" designation comes from? --McEwok 00:19, 20 January 2007 (UTC)


 * McEwok, "MC80 battleship" is canon. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) Imperial_Emblem.svg 00:56, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I am hesitant to jump into this lengthy discussion, but I do want to point out one thing. Home One is described, in the sentence from TRASB alone, as "cruiser", "battleship", and "command post". While I do not dispute the various roles of Home One, it does seem a bit unfair to pick and choose designation. And, to be fair to both Jack and VT (who I have alot of respect for, plus they are fellow Fleet Junkies), you guys did choose the designation that best suited your particular viewpoint. VT in particular champions that line from TRASB. Yet, that line is full of contradictions. Truthfully, both parties have a certain amount of "evidence" backing their claims. The key here is how to compromise so that all parties feel some satisfaction. Just my two cents. Now, I have one proposed compromise. It may not be agreeable to all, but it is just an idea. What if we classify Home One as simply a "Mon Calamari Star Cruiser". This would just be in the info box. They, the article itself could go into all the various roles, plus differing viewpoints. This type of concesus article has worked on the Wookieepedia in the past. That way every gets a paragraph to express their views and present evidence. The beauty is that the article allows fans to read the evidence and decide for themselves. AdmiralNick22 01:24, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Having "Mon Calamari Star Cruiser" as Home One's class is a bad idea. It's too general. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) Imperial_Emblem.svg 01:26, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Aye, it is general. But, it is technically true, plus it helps end this debate. Besides, the article could contain (after history, etc) paragraphs devoted to the Home One debate. That would actually serve two purposes. First off it would end this debate. Secondly it would allow fans to read the evidence presented and decide for themselves. Afterall, this issue is still pretty evenly divided. Listen Jack, I know it is not perfect. But compromising on this issue would not only show our fellow Wookieepedians to decide for themselves, but it would also send a positive message showing how fans with opposite viewpoints can still compromise and be civil. I personally think it would look great if fans with as different viewpoints as McEwok and you could agree to "disagree" and create a article that encompasses everything. Perfect solution? No. But I think it is a fair compromise that in the end will allow both sides to clearly show the different ways Home One has been portrayed. AdmiralNick22 01:39, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Since there's been several sources that pointed out the difference between ships of Home One's type and ships of Liberty's type, I think we should keep them seperated. The Home One as Headquarters Frigate is described as the largest of the Rebel Star Cruisers. The Independence of the SW:CCG is described in a Q&A on the official site as a sistership of the Home One, which is why that model was used to illustrate it in the game (same would go for Defiance, which was also pictured using the Home One model). How about we call them MC80 Star Cruiser (Liberty-type) and MC80 Star Cruiser (Home One-type) and have the conjecture-tag? We have seperate articles for the Lucrehulk battleship and droid control ship, even though those have even less differences between them. Any alternate titles? I would also appreciate keeping fan-dispute to a minimum in the articles themselves. Just write about the Home One's differing sizes in canonical sources. VT-16 11:52, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Here follows ome classification systems I've been able to find (not complete list):

Imperial standard classifications (from various West End Games publications):

corvette – frigate – cruiser – [Star Destroyer (messed up system and so lead to a loosening of the term "cruiser") – Super Star Destroyer]

Classes taken from a variety of sources and in-universe naval forces, most are uniformally divided into classes based on size and power (which even effects GFFA people when they compare YV bioships to their own standards, i.e. "destroyer-analog", "battleship-analog" etc.):

corvette – frigate – destroyer – cruiser – battleship – [dreadnought (subsection or alternative to "battleship")]

Differences in classifications lead to different sizes for ship defined as the same type. A Rendili Dreadnaught is 1/5 the size of a Trade Federation Battleship, as a consequence of this (ROTS:ICS).

The Utapau uses downscaled warships in their defence forces, one of which is this Dreadnaught. Its size matches that of the well-known Dreadnaught-class heavy cruiser, aka. Rendili Dreadnaught. If the ship is not of the same class, then this still puts Rendili StarDrive's system of ship classification at a lower scale than that of the Trade Federation's, as pointed out in the same sentence.

Classification system in Starships of the Galaxy:

starfighter – space transport – capital ship – space station (includes ships like Executor and mention various crews and armament depending upon an SSD's role)

Classification system in Empire at War:

corvette - frigate - capital ship (latter is from Imperial-class Star Destroyer and up for the Empire and MC80 cruisers for the Rebels)

Examples of internal classification systems:

Trade Federation:

frigate – destroyer – cruiser – battleship (first is from the two Starfighter games, latter three referred to in AOTC:ICS, with destroyer as the smallest and the cruiser better adapted for warfare. Also a Munitions Cruiser smaller than a TF Battleship mentioned in Rogue Planet.)

Kuat Drive Yards:

destroyer – cruiser – battlecruiser (class names used in informal dialogue between KDY employees. Bounty Hunter Trilogy)

Additional mention of KDY battleships being among largest in Empire (comment by Imperial outsider in Illustrated Guide to Star Wars)

Star Destroyer – Star Cruiser – Star Battlecruiser – Star Dreadnought (formal names referring to KDY warships. ITW:OT, SW:CL, SB Preview 1)

Corellian Engineering Corporation:

corvette – destroyer – cruiser – battleship – Star Defender (first is known from a variety of sources, latter three from the ROTJ novelization, all serving in Rebel fleet and all seemingly smaller than most Mon Calamari ships in the same fleet. Last is from New Jedi Order and Legacy of the Force series, seems to be much smaller and weaker than Mon Calamari type.)

Mon Calamari Shipyards:

corvette – frigate – cruiser – Star Cruiser – Star Defender (first two known from Rebel Alliance Sourcebook. And a frigate model from EAW. Third is from X-wing games. Fourth from numerous sources. Fifth is described as a 'dreadnaught' and designed to take on Star Dreadnoughts of the Empire.)

Mandalorians:

corvette - battleship - [dreadnaught (subsection or alternative to "battleship")]

Yuuzhan Vong vessels usually are defined by outsiders along some of the designations above. If not, I really don't care too much about YV to go look for their standards.

As for classifiction systems, my replies above and the lists I've made previously follow only canonical sources that I've read. I do not appreciate being called a liar about this, over and over again. Anyone with these sources I've noted can read them and see for themselves, this is not "hidden knowledge". So stop calling me a liar!

Frigates are shown from time and time again to be smaller than destroyers or comparable to them (as in real life) in any given navy, this is kept consistent from source to source, except for some, most notably the "Imperial classifications system", which jump over the "destroyer" term, for some reason.

Star Battlecruisers can be as big as Star Dreadnoughts in size, I don't think I've put any restrictions on that. I'm merely following the precedence of the later Empire which built Star Dreadnoughts that surpassed earlier classes. The Executor might then not be a golden standard, as 19 years went by in the Empire before its design.

As for the ion cannons, if the specialized cannon on Firestorm powered by a Star Destroyer reactor, could destroy a larger Star Destroyer, could it also continue firing for an indefinite period of time, like the one powered by the PSBC reactors? Because the entire assembly is connected to these reactors, as seen on the picture you provided. From the reactor directly powering the gun, which is connected to the generator 1 km underneath it, which in turn is connected to the PSBC reactors powering the entire base. I've seen enough process-sheets in my time to recognize the route. VT-16 11:52, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
 * AdmiralNick, our purpose isn't to let the fans decide for themselves. We're suppose to provide the facts, not the vague possibilities. And MC80 battleship is a fact. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) Imperial_Emblem.svg 15:03, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
 * VTI think that is a excellent compromise. In fact, a extremely fair one. Calling them "types" of MC80 Star Cruisers works best. Jack, MC80 battleship is NOT the only fact. My point is, and I believe that VT agrees, is that the MC80 Home One is described in numerous sources as cruiser, Star Cruiser, heavy cruiser, battleship and command ship. All therefore have some EU backing. Your support of only "battleship" expresses only your viewpoint without taking into account the other description. And Jack, minus the scrapbook, battleship is almost never used. Valid yes, but not the most numerous. And, if you want to draw up two lists of sources refering to Home One as a battleship and cruiser, I would happily show you that battleship loses in terms of times used. AdmiralNick22 15:17, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Then what do you propose we call it's class? Because I won't settle for just "Mon Calamari Star Cruiser" or even "MC80 Star Cruiser" when we can be more specific. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) Imperial_Emblem.svg 15:19, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Also a fact is the regular seperation between the roles of cruisers and battleships, since the two are kept seperate in many naval forces. I have yet to see any in-universe system with the term battleship in it, which does not refer to the largest warship in a given company product catalogue or a naval hierarcheal structure. They follow the real life definition of battleships very well (largest ships in a fleet). Even if Star Cruisers like Home One serve as cruisers, the RASCB distinguishes between this and battleship, since the vessel can serve as both. Given the real-life definition of cruisers usually required them to be able to travel long distances without extra logistics vessels aiding them, this might be what the cruiser definition is used for here. So, the Home One can travel far and independently as a cruiser, and bring extra firepower to a fleet battle, as a battleship. Given the extra mention of the Rebels having a flotilla at Endor, and we suddenly have the Home One as a destroyer, as well. No doubt owning to different classifications (such a high scale is especially useful when evaluating a battle that included heavy and light destroyers, a possible cruiser, a battleship and a battle station on one side). VT-16 15:24, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Jack, didn't you read VT's suggestion? He proposed MC80 Star Cruiser (Home One-type). Which, BTW, is accurate as it is a Star Cruiser and we don't have a specific class name or designation at the moment. Then, the article itself can mention the various roles (battleship, command ship, cruiser, etc). Then, as VT also suggested, the BTS section can list the various sources that show various sizes (1200- 3200m) and the various classifications. And Jack, with all due respect, you may have to "settle". Compromise is key to ending the dispute and giving various sources mention. And Jack, despite what you want, we cannot be more specific. The only way that would work is to see which may is used the most and stick with it. And, I can tell you as a fan who has researched Mon Cal cruisers for years that "battleship" will lose. Star Cruiser, however, would win hands down. AdmiralNick22 15:28, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
 * It's not so much a game of win/lose, based on any amount of times a word is used. But I get what you're saying. :) VT-16 15:33, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Truthfully, pages like this make me wish LFL would get their acts together and give us some credible info. Instead, I think they love to leave us with conflicting sources. :-) AdmiralNick22 15:37, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
 * It gets tiring, yes. :p VT-16 15:55, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

To sum up: I have no problem with the most widely-explained system (corvette-frigate-cruiser-Star Destroyer) being used to describe a ship's role. In fact, the relevant term from this system should be among its roles in the infobox's "role" section, while the given factory designation of the class should stand in the "class" section.

Here's what I propose, as an example:
 * 1) Vindicator-class heavy cruiser - Class: Heavy cruiser - Roles: cruiser, frigate, capital ship
 * 2) Imperial-class Star Destroyer - Class: Star Destroyer - Roles: destroyer, cruiser, battleship, capital ship
 * 3) Executor-class Star Dreadnought - Class: Star Dreadnought - Roles: battleship, cruiser, capital ship, command ship

If we can find the systems for the designations that are mutually exclusive (the same ship being called a destroyer and a battleship for instance), this should be noted. If none can be found for one of these, let people sort it out for themselves, because most of the systems aren't 100% worked out in canon. VT-16 15:55, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
 * An excellent idea. I support it. All scales given fair mention, plus that format just plain looks good. :-) AdmiralNick22 15:58, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Although I wish this would get discussed by more than just three or four people, I don't think there will be any complaints about all the sources being used for every class. :) VT-16 16:02, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah, there shouldn't be that many complaints. Are you going to start putting the articles into this format? AdmiralNick22 16:26, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Probably, when I get around to all of them. I think I'll start with the movie ships first and gradually move on to EU vessels. :) VT-16 16:33, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not supporting "MC80 Star Cruiser (Home One-type)" if we already have a more appropriate name for it. If someone comes up with a better, less-vague name, I'll support it. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) Imperial_Emblem.svg 23:14, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Any suggestions? Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) Imperial_Emblem.svg 00:08, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
 * So much for "discussion"... Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) Imperial_Emblem.svg 14:43, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry, Jack. My justification for having it as MC80 battleship was to easily seperate between it and other MC80 Star Cruisers (which are already called cruisers in the title), but this one points out the difference as well. VT-16 15:31, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I'd just prefer a more appropriate name. "MC80 battleship" was more IU-like than "MC80 Star Cruiser (Home One type)". Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) Imperial_Emblem.svg 15:35, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Continued again...

 * AdmiralNick: I personally think it would look great if fans with as different viewpoints as McEwok and you could agree to "disagree" and create a article that encompasses everything. Perfect solution? No. But I think it is a fair compromise that in the end will allow both sides to clearly show the different ways Home One has been portrayed.
 * Agreed! Thanks, Nick. A neutral arbiter with the will to get involved in the discussion is what we needed here... *gives the squid-in-chief a Golden Ewok™ bath-toy in gratitude*
 * VT: How about we call them MC80 Star Cruiser (Liberty-type) and MC80 Star Cruiser (Home One-type) and have the conjecture-tag?
 * That works just fine for me!
 * I'm still personally in favour of combining the articles (the seperate Droid Control Ship article is necessitated because it's largely about the individual ship used at Naboo, for instance), but I'd be entirely prepared to go with that as a compromise. What I might do is throw together a Temp page for discussion anyway, so people can see what it would look like. That doesn't mean that I think I should "get my way" on this. It's just a basis for discussion.
 * If we do keep seperate pages, then perhaps MC80 Star Cruiser could become a disambig page like Imperial-class Star Destroyer, with links to those two pages, and also MC80a Star Cruiser and MC80B Star Cruiser...?
 * VT: Here's what I propose, as an example...
 * I can't think of any problem with this in principle.
 * All I'd suggest in addition is that as well as "Class" citing the specific designation (where known), we could add a new line immediately below, citing the "standard classification" (again, where this can be worked out). But that's just a suggestion for discussion, not something I'm insisting on.
 * Of course, while all this was going on, I was writing a long, detailed reply to VT. So, rather than waste it, here it is...
 * Also a fact is the regular seperation between the roles of cruisers and battleships, since the two are kept seperate in many naval forces.
 * As a technical definition, this is true; but not every ship referred to as a "battleship" is technically a battleship; sometimes, the term can just mean vaguely "warship"....
 * I have yet to see any in-universe system with the term battleship in it, which does not refer to the largest warship in a given company product catalogue or a naval hierarcheal structure.
 * In sytsematic usage, it's rare to find "battleship" denoting anything less than a ship of the type carrying the heaviest armour and weaponry (though in the real world, a typical "battlecruiser" was often larger in scale, and faster, but more lightly armoured). However, there's also non-systematic, non-technical usage, where "battleship" can be used rather more loosely and vaguely (see the quotes I presented above); and we have no evidence that any descriptions of the MC80 as a "battleship" are ever technical and systematic designations.
 * Here follows ome classification systems I've been able to find (not complete list):
 * Thanks... discussion follows. I've had to re-edit your formatting slightly, in an attempt to make the quote/reply structure clearer on the page, but I've not touched your actual words....


 * Imperial standard classifications (from various West End Games publications):
 * corvette – frigate – cruiser – [Star Destroyer (messed up system and so lead to a loosening of the term "cruiser") – Super Star Destroyer]


 * Don't really disagree much here, though I know of no evidence for "Super Star Destroyer" as a formal term. The Rebel Alliance Sourcebook describes the 8km SSD as "the biggest cruiser yet built", and larger ships and battlemoons (including the Death Star) as "bizarrities".


 * Classes taken from a variety of sources and in-universe naval forces, most are uniformally divided into classes based on size and power (which even effects GFFA people when they compare YV bioships to their own standards, i.e. "destroyer-analog", "battleship-analog" etc.):
 * corvette – frigate – destroyer – cruiser – battleship – [dreadnought (subsection or alternative to "battleship")]
 * Differences in classifications lead to different sizes for ship defined as the same type. A Rendili Dreadnaught is 1/5 the size of a Trade Federation Battleship, as a consequence of this (ROTS:ICS).
 * The Utapau uses downscaled warships in their defence forces, one of which is this Dreadnaught. Its size matches that of the well-known Dreadnaught-class heavy cruiser, aka. Rendili Dreadnaught. If the ship is not of the same class, then this still puts Rendili StarDrive's system of ship classification at a lower scale than that of the Trade Federation's, as pointed out in the same sentence.'


 * I'm not sure where (except SWTC) you're getting this hierarchy of terms from. They more-or-less represent the system that was used by the Royal Navy fifty years ago (I won't bore anyone with technical quibbles), but that isn't a universal standard even in the real world, and certainly can't override anything in canon terms. Sure, you can show plenty of specific examples that fit it, but you can also show plenty that don't.
 * You have a very good point with the Yuuzhan Vong "analogs", though: looking around the wookieepedia, we seem to have 120m and 315m corvettes, 200-500m frigates, I think 740m cruisers, and a 2,240m battleship. There may be a possibility to infer another system here, perhaps a standard used by the New Republic, but I need to check over the sources, and inconsistency in the size of YV ships may make this more complicated than it seems&mdash;we already seem to have a 100m overlap between corvettes and frigates.
 * I don't disagree that Rendili would be using a non-standard system if they called their 600m ship a dreadnaught; then again, I think the same is true of the Trade Federation with their 3km converted haulers as "battleships". A Rendili Dreadnaught-class ship is a "heavy cruiser" in terms of the "standard" designation, and the TFBB might class as a cruiser or a space station (the Droid Control Ship is called as much in the TPM script).


 * Classification system in Starships of the Galaxy:
 * starfighter – space transport – capital ship – space station (includes ships like Executor and mention various crews and armament depending upon an SSD's role)


 * Aye. "Space station" is applied to the 8,180m Kor Chokk and the 17km Viscount-class Star Defender, too. I suspect this may be an adaption of the WEG system, actually, with "space transport" covering the gap between starfighters and the 100m "minimum" for capital ships, and "space station" covering the larger "bizarrities".


 * Classification system in Empire at War:
 * corvette - frigate - capital ship (latter is from Imperial-class Star Destroyer and up for the Empire and MC80 cruisers for the Rebels)


 * Interesting. This probably deserves to be noted, since it seems to provides a basic system in outline; but we don't really know much about the "in-universe" context, do we? Anyone know what the largest corvette and smallest frigate are?
 * VT: Examples of internal classification systems:
 * Okay. Again, I don't think these are well-defined in canon....


 * Trade Federation:
 * frigate – destroyer – cruiser – battleship (first is from the two Starfighter games, latter three referred to in AOTC:ICS, with destroyer as the smallest and the cruiser better adapted for warfare. Also a Munitions Cruiser smaller than a TF Battleship mentioned in Rogue Planet.)


 * Do we hae a scale for the Trade Federation missile frigate?
 * The Heavy Munitions Cruiser is a relatively small ship, since Admiral Korvin is smaller than the Rim Merchant Einem, which might just be around the size of a Dreadnaught Cruiser, but is certainly smaller than the normal TFBB... which is of course, a converted cargo ship.
 * What we have are:
 * 1) A "missile frigate" and "heavy munitions cruiser" as part of the TF's pre-Naboo Trade Defense forces.
 * 2) At least two sizes of larger cargo hauler converted as warships around the time of the Naboo campaign, the larger being known as a "battleship".
 * 3) A reference to a post-Naboo "destroyer" and (more powerful?) "cruiser", both making use of the standard Core Ship design, and both thus probably classed as large cruisers under the "standard" system.


 * Kuat Drive Yards:
 * destroyer – cruiser – battlecruiser (class names used in informal dialogue between KDY employees. Bounty Hunter Trilogy)
 * Additional mention of KDY battleships being among largest in Empire (comment by Imperial outsider in Illustrated Guide to Star Wars)
 * Star Destroyer – Star Cruiser – Star Battlecruiser – Star Dreadnought (formal names referring to KDY warships. ITW:OT, SW:CL, SB Preview 1)


 * Do you have a quote from the Bounty Hunter wars that presents the terms from the Bounty Hunter books as a size-based scale? Looking through the reference pages at SWTC, I can't see anything like that...
 * Most common are references to KDY building "cruisers" and "destroyers", in no particular order: "heavy cruisers and destroyers" (The Mandalorian Armour, p. 342), "battle cruisers and destroyers" (Slave Ship p. 23-4), "There would be a need afterward for cruisers and destroyers" (Slave Ship p. 27), "heavy destroyers and cruiser" (Slave Ship, p. 12-1), "a destroyer or battle cruiser" (Slave Ship, p. 248), "a fleet of Destroyers and heavy cruisers" (Hard Merchandise, p. 173), "the cruisers and destroyers" (Hard Merchandise'', p. 308).
 * There's also a reference to the cranes spanning the docks being as long as "an Imperial battle destroyer" (Hard Merchandise, p. 248), and at the end, Kuat and Fett are aboard a "Star Destroyer" (Hard Merchandise, page 391).
 * There's also a "light cruiser" on patrol duties, (Hard Merchandise, pp. 242-3), later described as a "KDY security cruiser" and a "cruiser" (Hard Merchandise p. 270). Nothing in the quotes supports the website's suggestion that this is "implicitly probably just larger than a star destroyer".
 * The only quoted reference to frigates comes in dialogue between Rebel military personnel about the ships they stole: we're told that these include "Lancer-class frigates", "Zebulon-B frigates" (presumably a typo) and "the frigate that got caught in the explosions" (all Hard Merchandise, p. 325).
 * From this, it seems that KDY builds "crusiers" and "destroyers", with no obvious evidence that one type is bigger than the other; they also build types which Rebel troops recognize as "frigates", but these may even be among the ships which Kuat thinks of as "destroyers" or "crusiers".
 * As to the names originating in AotC:ICS, is there any evidence that these are specifically Kuati? And is there any evidence to define precisely how these designations are distinguished from each other? You seem to assume that the distinction must be size-based....


 * Corellian Engineering Corporation:
 * corvette – destroyer – cruiser – battleship – Star Defender (first is known from a variety of sources, latter three from the ROTJ novelization, all serving in Rebel fleet and all seemingly smaller than most Mon Calamari ships in the same fleet. Last is from New Jedi Order and Legacy of the Force series, seems to be much smaller and weaker than Mon Calamari type.)'


 * Hmm. The Corellian warship designations we can infer from their alphanumeric system are:
 * 1) PB for "patrol boat", like the 37m PB-950.
 * 2) CR for "corvette", ranging from the 60m CR20 and CR25 to at least the 150m CR90.
 * 3) CC presumably for "cruiser", as with the CC-2200 but often applied to ships called "frigates", like the CC-7700 and CC-9600.
 * 4) XX, probably for "experimental", as with the XX-777, a 120m droid ship referred to as a "frigate".
 * 5) There's also the Corellian Frigate converted into a robot ramship, but I don't know anything about the size or designation of this type.
 * 6) Corellian Star Defenders seem to be larger, but what the designation means is unclear: as you said, they're apparently much smaller than the Mon Calamari Viscount-class. This could have been a New Republic analog to "Star Destroyer", with the same range of scale....
 * The RotJ novellization refers to "Corellian battle ships, cruisers, destroyers, carriers". Are all carriers smaller than destroyers? I don't think we can infer a scale-based system, or even a precise terminology, from this.


 * Mon Calamari Shipyards:
 * corvette – frigate – cruiser – Star Cruiser – Star Defender (first two known from Rebel Alliance Sourcebook. And a frigate model from EAW. Third is from X-wing games. Fourth from numerous sources. Fifth is described as a 'dreadnaught' and designed to take on Star Dreadnoughts of the Empire.)


 * As I said already, the "corvette" "frigate" and "cruiser" in The Rebel Alliance Sourcebook can be read as the "standard Imperial classifications". There's nothing to show how these terms relate to "Star Cruiser" and "Star Defender", except that a Mon Calamari "Star Cruiser" is identified as a type of "cruiser".


 * Mandalorians:
 * corvette - battleship - [dreadnaught (subsection or alternative to "battleship")]


 * These don't necessarily represent one system.
 * "Mandal Hypernautics" in Forces of Corruption builds the Crusader-class Corvette and Keldabe-class battleship in the OT era (neither of which has a clearly-defined length that I know of).
 * It seems that "Mandalorian Dreadnaught" is an older designation, and we also know about "Mandalorian dungeon ships", in use over a period ranging from the Old Republic to the Yuuzhan Vong invasion&mdash;though the two "dungeon ship" types described in detail are both Rendili StarDrive designs - the 764m Lictor-class and the much smaller, but generally similar, 150m Kiltirin-class dungeon ship.


 * Yuuzhan Vong vessels usually are defined by outsiders along some of the designations above. If not, I really don't care too much about YV to go look for their standards.


 * Fair enough. See above. They might actually offer your best evidence for an alternative "standard", ironically enough....
 * And now we resume our scheduled formatting...
 * VT: As for classifiction systems, my replies above and the lists I've made previously follow only canonical sources that I've read.
 * You've interpreted the sources. As I've said, your interpretation is valid in many ways as a personal, unofficial hypothesis; but it's based on rejecting what canon describes as a "standard" in favour of a system involving elements of your own speculation. And that's why I don't think it's right for this wiki.
 * Frigates are shown from time and time again to be smaller than destroyers or comparable to them (as in real life) in any given navy, this is kept consistent from source to source, except for some, most notably the "Imperial classifications system", which jump over the "destroyer" term, for some reason.
 * Uhh... I can't find a single piece of evidence about the relative size of frigates and destroyers in any system, except in "the standard Imperial classifications", where they're smaller than Star Destroyers, which are a "sub-category" of cruisers.
 * However, the Imperial Adz-class patrol destroyer, at 150m, seems too small to be a frigate, and is presumably a fast attack vessel or a corvette according to the "standard Imperial classifications".
 * Need I add again that "frigate" has been used in various ways in the real world, not always for smaller ships than destroyers?
 * Star Battlecruisers can be as big as Star Dreadnoughts in size, I don't think I've put any restrictions on that. I'm merely following the precedence of the later Empire which built Star Dreadnoughts that surpassed earlier classes. The Executor might then not be a golden standard, as 19 years went by in the Empire before its design.
 * We have no scaling indication for any "Star Dreadnought" except Executor, and none whatsoever for any "Star Battlecruiser".
 * As for the ion cannons, if the specialized cannon on Firestorm powered by a Star Destroyer reactor, could destroy a larger Star Destroyer, could it also continue firing for an indefinite period of time, like the one powered by the PSBC reactors? Because the entire assembly is connected to these reactors, as seen on the picture you provided.
 * The cannon on the Firestorm seems to be powered up very quickly in Darksaber by "siphoning off all power from the turbolaser batteries" (though it doesn't "destroy" the Star Destroyer, any more than the shots at Hoth "destroy" Tyrannic&mdash;they just shut the ships down). Assuming that the same level of energy can continue to be supplied, there's nothing to say it's not capable sustained fire. Of course, sustained fire would leave the Firestorm without other weapons, or perhaps even shields, and it may not have quite the rate of fire of a v-150, but individual shots may be more powerful, since one blast takes down Whirlwind compared to several against Tyrannic at Hoth.
 * Okay. I think that's everything I needed to reply to. Sorry about the... length.
 * Once again, though, thanks to AdmiralNick for his intervention! --McEwok 18:37, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
 * So, I think we can just about wrap this discussion up. I would much rather be working on Legacy-era articles that being a mediator. :-P AdmiralNick22 18:48, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Just want to make a note of that once again, no actual direct quotes for CR90 corvettes being "corellian battleships" are forthcoming nor is there any quote mentioning "battleships" as the same as generic "warships". I'm sorry, but your personal opinion of a word is not good enough. Concluding that because the book says Corellian battleships while the movie shows Corellian corvettes, means they're the same thing, is not viable as an argument. Why the Corellian battleships mentioned, why not the Corellian cruisers, or the Corellian destroyers, or the Corellian carriers? Or even the Corellian bombers?

As for the Ugor-made "salvage dreadnought", for one thing, this is not a Corellian warship, this is not even a human-made warship. I really don't care if the "dreadnought" is the size of Luke's landspeeder, unless its directly comparable to other similarly-named vessels in the same culture or by the same company which are vastly different, then this is not a valid point for "battleship/dreadnought" used as a general term everywhere.

As for the more Earth-like use of naval terms, unless there is anything that actually specifies these vessels in the novels themselves, then there is no other alternative than to presume they are analog to real life naval terms. Since the Bounty Hunter trilogy most often refers to Kuati destroyers and cruisers, the best inference is that one is a bigger vessel than the other, like in real life navies. There is no basis to say otherwise, since "destroyer" is a term not covered by the "standard classifications" and neither is "battlecruiser" nor "battleship", yet these are also used for specific types of warships throughout various navies and cultures.(And I have no problems with battlecruisers being larger than battleships, like they often were historically.)

What is specified about larger KDY designs, are the Star Destroyers (SW:ICS, AOTC:ICS, ROTS:ICS, ITW:OT, SW:CL), the Star Battlecruisers (AOTC:ICS) and the Star Dreadnoughts (AOTC:ICS, ROTS:ICS, ITW:OT, SW:CL, SB:P1), which provides us with the only known link to the similar terms used by KDY employees in the BH trilogy (Furthermore, Kuat of Kuat notes that KDY have been selling warships to both the Empire and the Old Republic that came before it, so this provides some basis for the Republic Star Battlecruiser Quaestor mentioned in ROTS:ICS. Unless another pro-Republic company manufactured it). As for carriers, there isn't any "rule" on how big they might be, I just placed them around "destroyers/cruisers" and left it at that. (Presumably, most known carriers in SW are much smaller).

Putting the "standards" in the class section might not be a good idea, since it makes them take precedence over any alternate designation below. Just let the actual designation from each vessel's name stay there, and instead note the appropriate "standard" term in the "role" section.

The Mandalorian Crusader-class corvettes and Kedalbe-class battleships were in EAW:FOC. Since the same culture made them, we have to take their designations as well. At an earlier time, the Mandalorians made a "dreadnaught" which inspired Rendili's design for the Republic navy. Without any inference otherwise, this would have to be some kind of Mandalorian battleship as well. Once again, the real life term is the only clue, when nothing else exists. (The same reason a SW animal with the word "bird" in it, is presumed to be an avian species, unless otherwise stated.)

As for a disambiguation page for the MC cruisers, sure, why not?

Edit: Adding some quotes on the prevalance of Super Star Destroyers:

"A persistent question for New Republic strategists has been the seemingly endless Imperial obsession with super weapons. From Super Star Destroyers to torpedo spheres, it has been nearly impossible to overestimate the amount of destructive force available to the average Moff or Sector Group Commander."

- Dark Empire Sourcebook Chapter 7: World Devastators, from Arhul Hextrophon's speech

"Each Imperial-class Star Destroyer is a mobile command base. The Super-class Star Destroyer was designed to be a sector-level command base and the Death Stars were to be the center of regional commands."

- Cracken’s Threat Dossier, page 75

Going from the relative scarcity of large warships in the pre-CW Republic, where Rendili Dreadnaughts were the largest warships in the neutered, post-Ruusan Republic Navy, and bigger vessels only served in localised sector-fleets (Kuat, Corellia, Humbarine etc.), to the Galactic Empire with its multitude of SSDs of various classes, makes sense, given Palpatine's and other Imperial's obsession with gaining more power, in terms of hardware as well as societies. I wish I had found these quotes years before. VT-16 20:24, 20 January 2007 (UTC)


 * AdmiralNick: So, I think we can just about wrap this discussion up. I would much rather be working on Legacy-era articles that being a mediator. :-P
 * Fair enough, but if it makes you feel happier about it, bear in mind that Mediator-class is a Mon Cal thing... *grin*
 * VT: Putting the "standards" in the class section might not be a good idea, since it makes them take precedence over any alternate designation below. Just let the actual designation from each vessel's name stay there, and instead note the appropriate "standard" term in the "role" section.
 * The whole point is that the "standard" term is standard... but if we note which is the standard designation in the lower infobox, how's that for a compromise?
 * As for a disambiguation page for the MC cruisers, sure, why not?
 * Specifically using MC80 Star Cruiser for the MC80 variants....?
 * I originally wrote a long reply to the rest of VT's post - at some points, he seems to have misunderstood what I was saying, and I had a few thoughts in reply to some of his suggestions; but overall, it's mainly just a lot of side-issues around those two basic questions, so I've edited it out. It's still there to read on the older version of the page, and if anyone want to reply, they can ask me to repost it, or part of it... or else you can take it to my talk page, or send me a message via my TheForce.Net screen-name. --McEwok 23:04, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

if we note which is the standard designation in the lower infobox, how's that for a compromise?

That's what I said, note it in the "roles" section.

As for using the MC80 Star Cruiser article as an disambiguation page, I dunno... There are several sources that seem to indicate the MC80a is a specific subtype. But if this isn't the case, then, sure. VT-16 00:03, 21 January 2007 (UTC)


 * That's what I said, note it in the "roles" section.
 * It wasn't clear to me what you meant. What I'm suggesting isn't simply to include it with the other terms, but to indicate specifically which is the "standard" term?
 * As for using the MC80 Star Cruiser article as an disambiguation page, I dunno... There are several sources that seem to indicate the MC80a is a specific subtype. But if this isn't the case, then, sure.
 * My point is that with MC80 Star Cruiser (Liberty type) and MC80 Star Crusier (Home One type) pages, MC80 Star Cruiser would become defunct. IMHO, it's better to use it as a disambig page than a redirect to one or other; then, once it's become a disambig page, we might as well add MC80a Star Cruiser and MC80B Star Cruiser as well. No? --McEwok 00:19, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

The disambiguation seems alright enough.

I don't agree with marking any "Imperial classification system" above any other the others, however. There is nothing to assume it has a more "special" place in the naval hierarchy, as shown by the navy's attempts to hide its new Star Dreadnought from the Senate budgetary commitee. The very fact that the Imperial Navy adopted such terms, which previously referred to certain ships in localized fleets, shows that alternate classifications were used during the Empire. If alternate scales like this did not exist, the Executor would not be mentioned in any source as being anything else than a large cruiser, or a Star Destroyer, and that is countered by SBP1, ITW:OT and SW:CL, where alternate formal classes are used, as most explicitly noted in the Executor's backstory in SBP1. Claiming only one standard existed at that time to take presedence over others is not supported by canon. Having only the designation from the name in the class section is enough. VT-16 13:24, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

In reply...
"The Viscount-class star defender was designed after the Black Fleet Crisis as it became apparent that the New Republic needed a heavier dreadnaught to serve as the flagship for major engagements. As such, this class was created to be the equal of the Executor-class Super Star Destroyer."
 * Sorry I took so long to reply.
 * If we don't prioritize the "standard" system in some (low-key) way, I'm not sure any more exactly what VT's "proposed" approach (20th January, this edit) actually changes from the system we're using right now, or how it represents any compromise with POVs other than his own. Can you explain, VT?
 * Claiming only one standard existed at that time to take presedence over others is not supported by canon.
 * The use of the "standard Imperial classifications" in The Rebel Alliance Sourcebook rather than the partially modified Rebel Alliance system is evidence that did "take presedence over others". It was the standard system used by the Galactic government. It's also a system we, as fans, more-or-less understand properly based on canon evidence.
 * VT's argument about the Executor is based on two posits: firstly, that the ship was officially redesignated as a "Star Dreadnought", and secondly, that there was no dreadnought classification in the "standard" system. I don't believe that either of these is certain.
 * 1) According to the Starship Battles page, "... the Imperial Navy listed it as a "Super-class Star Destroyer" in budget requests to hide its true nature from the Imperial Senate... the official designation was changed by the time the Executor was operational"; this doesn't actually specify that the official designation became "Executor-class Star Dreadnought", rather than "Executor-class Star Destroyer". It all depends on how we interpret the reference.
 * 2) Even if the Executor was officially classified as a "dreadnought", however, it's not impossible that this designation was actually used in the "standard" system: it could have denoted some of the "bizarrities"&mdash;battlestations rather than true warships&mdash;larger than the largest 8km cruiser, or "Star Dreadnought" could even be another "sub-category" of cruiser, like "Star Destroyer".
 * Thus, I don't believe that VT can use this evidence to argue for the formal use of an alternative system to the "standard" one. There's more than one possible interpretation of the Executor's redesignation, and even if we do interpret it in the way he suggests, we can posit a dreadnaught classification within the "standard" system.
 * On an even more basic level, even assuming VT was right, I'm not sure why this reference should completely overrule my suggestion: a low-key indication of which is the "standard" classification in the relevant infoboxes.
 * I should point out the reply which VT added and edited, in response to the reply I'd earlier edited out myself. I assume he's interested in my reply, but I'll probably shift this somewhere like a subpage of my own talk page&mdash;can I trouble any passing admins to tell me if it's allowed to create a page with a name like User_talk:McEwok/Temp? --McEwok 12:04, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
 * McEwok, why must you dispute canon? &mdash;Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) Imperial_Emblem.svg 12:45, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Since it's been over a week and I thought this was over, I'm gonna answer once and that's it. I've given up on trying to understand what it is you want.

- Starship Battles Preview 1

"Dwarfing even the feared and awe-inspiring Imperial-class Star Destroyer, the Executor-class star dreadnought was one of the largest and most powerful vessels ever built by the Empire. The ship was colloquially known as a "Super Star Destroyer" because the Imperial Navy listed it as a "Super-class Star Destroyer" in budget requests to hide its true nature from the Imperial Senate. Even the ship's size was reported incorrectly to conceal its role from oversight committees. Although the official designation was changed by the time the Executor was operational, the phrase "Super Star Destroyer" stuck, and it was even applied to later vessels such as the Sovereign-class and Eclipse-class."

- Starship Battles Preview 1

Since the official designation of the Executor-class in the same article is "Star Dreadnought", that is the designation it was changed to. Underworld: A Galaxy of Scum and Villainy compiles a list of unsavory characters made in 0 ABY, in the months following the Battle of Yavin. The report on Tyber Zann mentions that his agents were studying the Eclipse-class Star Destroyer. Since Inside the Worlds of Star Wars Trilogy also states that "Super Star Destroyer" was a term used by the Rebels for warships larger than Star Destroyers, going from Star Cruisers to Star Dreadnoughts like Executor, the use of it and the use of just "Star Destroyer" for the, now contemporary, Executor and Eclipse designs, is just colloquialism, with no further complications necessary. Colloquial terms exist to simplify speech (Star Destroyer and Super Star Destroyer is easier to use in everyday speech than Star Destroyer, Star Cruiser, Star Battlecruiser, Star Dreadnought). Star Dreadnought, Star Battlecruiser and Star Cruiser for vessels larger than Star Destroyers, all exist to separate them from not only Star Destroyers, but also each other. That how all classification systems work, that's their purpose. When there is an increase in dimensions and other properties in similar objects, they get classified differently. To argue for another view that makes classification issues even more muddled and confusing, and that is also not supported by official sources, is down-right counterproductive. VT-16 23:05, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Let's just end this whole thing now. &mdash;Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) Imperial_Emblem.svg 23:28, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Nebulax: why must you dispute canon?
 * I'm not. I'm questioning the weight of evidence provided by VT's interpretation of it.
 * VT: I've given up on trying to understand what it is you want.
 * I guess it's easiest to explain what I don't think is appropriate, which is where fan interpretation is presented as if it was a clear canon system, especially when that's done to the exclusion of canon alternatives.
 * In this specific instance, the Starship Battles page nowhere specifies that the Executor was formally designated an Executor-class Star Dreadnought; that's one interpretation, based on inferring a connection between the lines you highlighted; it might even be the most likely interpretation: but nowhere does the page directly come out and say what the Executor was formally redesignated as, except that it's not as a "Super-class Star Destroyer".
 * Although the official designation was changed by the time the Executor was operational, the phrase "Super Star Destroyer" stuck? You could even read that as indicating that she was designated an "Executor-class Super Star Destroyer"....
 * And even if the Ex was redesignated as a "dreadnaught"/"Star Dreadnought" (which I wouldn't rule out!), that term could still be a correct part of the "standard Imperial classifications"&mdash;perhaps a designation used for some of those "bizarrities" larger than the 8km SSD which is the largest "cruiser" or "warship" design.
 * Thus, this isn't compelling evidence that the 19km SSD was formally known by a designation that wasn't part of the "standard Imperial classifications".
 * The report on Tyber Zann mentions that his agents were studying the Eclipse-class Star Destroyer.
 * Star Destroyer? Did you quote that right? Because I don't really understand how that supports your argument...?
 * Inside the Worlds of Star Wars Trilogy also states that "Super Star Destroyer" was a term used by the Rebels
 * But it doesn't limit it to a term used by the Rebels. There are plenty of examples of Imperial personnel using the term in canon. And in fact, Starship Battles implies that this is simply a loose usage of a term with a more precise, more formal meaning. We know that the description of Executor and "later vessels" as "Super Star Destroyers" was due to the designation of Executor as a "Super-class Star Destroyer", and we know that this term is properly the designation of the 8km SSD design (even if none were built).... So technically, the correct usage of "Super Star Destroyer" is as a designation for the 8km Super-class design, just like "Imperial Star Destroyer", "Victory Star Destroyer", "Dreadnaught Cruiser", "Strike Cruiser".
 * the use of it and the use of just "Star Destroyer" for the contemporary Executor and Eclipse designs, is just colloquialism
 * Is it? You could interpret it that way, sure&mdash;but even if it's true of the wider use of "Super Star Destroyer" (which, as I just outlined, seems to have originated as a correct designation of the 8km design), that doesn't mean that the use of the straightforward term "Star Destroyer" for these big ships is "just colloquialism", too....
 * colloquial terms exist to simplify speech (Star Destroyer and Super Star Destroyer is easier to use in everyday speech than Star Destroyer, Star Cruiser, Star Battlecruiser, Star Dreadnought). Star Dreadnought, Star Battlecruiser and Star Cruiser for vessels larger than Star Destroyers, all exist to separate them from not only Star Destroyers, but also each other. That how all classification systems work, that's their purpose. When there is an increase in dimensions and other properties in similar objects, they get classified differently. To argue for another view that makes classification issues even more muddled and confusing, and that is also not supported by official sources, is down-right counterproductive.
 * This is pure hypothesis. These terms are different, yes, but we don't know canonically what sort of difference they define. I'm bemused as to why you say my argument is "not supported by official sources", when in fact it's you who's taking terms and interpreting them in ways that aren't backed up by canon. The term "Super Star Destroyer" is completely adequate to denote the handful of really big Imperial ships, especially if we take your POV that there never were 8km SSDs, and they're all 19km or Eclipse class. Moreover, I think that a seperate "dreadnaught" designation for ships over 8km is entirely possible: the only problem is that there's no clear evidence to support the hypothesis&mdash;we actually agree on the basic idea. Well, that, and I think it's implied they're ship-shaped space-stations rather than true "warships" under the "standard" system, but that's a minor disagreement....
 * All of this comes down to the basic point that I can't see your point here. Why must we adhere to a particular fan interpretation of "dreadnought" terminology, and why shouldn't we give a little priority to the "standard Imperial classifications" in the infoboxes? --McEwok 18:14, 30 January 2007 (UTC)


 * This isn't going anywhere, and nothing either of you say will make it go anywhere. I suggest to both of you to stop. &mdash;Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) Imperial_Emblem.svg 20:55, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Furthermore, what does this have to do with MC80 star cruisers?--BaldFett 13:59, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
 * At this point, nothing, which is why I'm trying to end it. &mdash;Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) Imperial_Emblem.svg 20:46, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Wingless cruiser in seperate article
Given that the schematics for the Liberty type shows the blisters on it to be turbolasers and shield generators, I'm suggesting making a seperate article for the wingless cruisers. Since they do not have wings, and thus a reduced amount of weapons and shield generators, and have one extra engine in the back, they seem too different from the Liberty type to be included here. Anyone disagree? VT-16 13:16, 27 January 2008 (UTC)