This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep - Sikon [Talk] 09:27, 28 June 2006 (UTC).
Super-class Star Destroyer[]
Keep[]
- Keep. Thanos6 20:35, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
- I agree that it should really be reworked alot, fanon speculation have no place here, but the class-name is undisputably canon. What it really means in-universe is another question Charlii
- Keep. -- SFH 23:20, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
- Is there even a point to this? Jasca Ducato 16:29, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. The 8km Super-class exists in canon, even if it's just an in-universe error (and the evidence on that point is at best ambiguous) --McEwok 23:44, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
- Keep KEJ 09:38, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
Delete[]
- Delete. Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) 23:20, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete it. There's already a seperate Super Star Destroyer article. -Finlayson 23:33, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. The term is used interchangably with Super Star Destroyer and we have an article on that already. VT-16 14:28, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
Merge/Redirect[]
- Strip it for parts: put relevant information at Executor-class Star Dreadnaught, Super Star Destroyer, and SSD continuity issues, if it's not already there. (Someone will be along to tell us to delete SSD continuity issues too: I say keep it, but my opinions are not very strong.) Then, redirect it to Executor-class Star Dreadnaught, which most uses of the term are actually referring to, and make note of the possible alternate name there. —Silly Dan (talk) 23:54, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
- Your opinion is not strong? You're an admin! ;P
- I would suggest removing the SSD continuity error for being nothing more than a soap-box instead of an article, but it's not that big a deal. VT-16 14:31, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
Discussion[]
- Ok, I have said most of this before, but I'm saying it again here where it's relevant: The name "Super-class Star Destroyer" have appeared in canon at several occations with no conection to the Executor. For example in The Swarm War, when the lenght retcon of Executor was allready well established. People have pointed out that this was "Probably a misstake" and should therefor be ignored. That is precisely the same as claiming that the Executor is 8km. You cannot decide what is canon and what is not, LFL does that. In other words, the Super-class is canon and the page should therefor not be deleted. What should be done is a complete rewrite of it, removing all fanon speculation and lengthy debating. The old WEG-stats could be mentioned, but I think that they should not be in the fact-box. Since it isn't really fact. The other articles on bordering subjects (Executor-class, SSD, Star Dreadnought) could probably also use an overhaul to better link them together and reduce overlapping info. SSD Continuity Issues should have been deleted long ago, that kind of debate really doesn't have a place in an encyclopedia and most of that info is posted multiple times in the other articles. This is my opinion and I respect and value others who might not agree, but please motivate yourselves more than "This sucks, the Ex is 19km!". Charlii 16:38, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
- I meant that the word Super-class Star Destroyer was used interchangably with Super Star Destroyer, not that it was linked specifically with the Executor-class. VT-16 20:31, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
- I didn't mean specificly anything stated right here, but that is more of a general opinion you often encounter. About the interchangably use, I can only say that while it seems to be true in some cases, it mostly isn't. Unless you actively try to read it that way, in which case I beleive you can be right. Point of view... Charlii 05:31, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
- I'm pretty sure I read both Super-class and SSD for the Executor and the Eclipse. VT-16 11:46, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
- I didn't mean specificly anything stated right here, but that is more of a general opinion you often encounter. About the interchangably use, I can only say that while it seems to be true in some cases, it mostly isn't. Unless you actively try to read it that way, in which case I beleive you can be right. Point of view... Charlii 05:31, 27 June 2006 (UTC)