Talk:Megador

Alliance-class

Alliance-class? I must have missed that one... All other speculation I've heard goes toward Rejuvenator or some Executor-variant. Charlii 15:54, 3 Jan 2006 (UTC)

• It's referred to as an 'Alliance Star Destroyer' in the book, though this doesn't signify class - since Denning also refers to Chiss ships as 'Chiss Star Destroyers', in the same way that we have 'Imperial Star Destroyer' meaning Imperial I-, II- or Imperator-class, and 'Republic Star Destroyer' for the Venator-class. I don't think there's any justification for Allianceclass - Kwenn
  • Ok, then I'll just remove it, rather then having Admiral Acbar designated Pirate-nabber-class. Charlii 16:47, 3 Jan 2006 (UTC)

Sixteen ion engines?

Given that this particular ship has an array of -sixteen- ion engines, whereas the Executor-class has only thirteen ion engines, I believe it's safe to assume that this is some "Super Star Destroyer" variant.

However, I don't recall there being any Imperial Star Destroyers with that any ion engines; even the Eclise-class only had eight, and the only Star Destroyers in Galactic Alliance service are Imperial-class, Republic-class, and Nebula-class.

Unless the Galactic Alliance somehow built a new Star Destroyer even more massive than an Executor, perhaps the sixteen ion engines is incorrect? If it is a new class, it might be safe to assume that it's the Megador-class, given that there doesn't seem to be any other ships of the line from that class... What do you guys think? -Danik Kreldin 06:54, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

• While you're probably right that it's not one of the "established" classes, maybe we shouldn't jump the gun QUITE yet. At least, IMO. Thanos6 06:56, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • "Megador-class Star Dreadnought" (with a conjecture tag) might be a suitable title for an article...except that we don't have any information to put in such an article that this one doesn't already have. Red XIV 03:35, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

• Either calling it a Super Star Destroyer or Star Dreadnought should suffice for now. The number of engines definitly makes it something other than an Executor, but if it's new or not, we don't know. Could have been an older class, made prior to the Empire's collapse. It's a big galaxy, after all. VT-16 21:21, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Very true. Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax ^{(Imperial Holovision)} 23:32, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

"Megador-class"?

I don't know if this is true, but my friend claims he saw something on TheForce.net calling this the "Megador-class". Is this correct? Grand Admiral J. Nebulax ^{(Imperial Holovision)} 23:54, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

• For all I know it's only been featured in one book, and there its class wasn't named. Charlii 00:47, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Yeah, I know it wasn't called such in the book. I was talking about TheForce.net. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax ^{(Imperial Holovision)} 01:31, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
  • What did he "see", and was it an official source? VT-16 01:49, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Well, he just said he say someone call it the "Megador-class". He'll see if he can find the link again. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax ^{(Imperial Holovision)} 12:14, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Super-class

Yeah, kick them while they're down! Invincible called Megador a Super-class Super Star Destroyer. Regardless of the old/fake Super-class, should we link it to this? Charlii 11:02, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

• The Super-class and the SSD terms are both used interchangably for the Executor-class as well, as recently as SOTG07. It's a colloquial term, which is why I used it for the conjectural names instead of a fanon name. You might as well link to the SSD article, like I already did on those articles. ;P VT-16 11:47, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
  • I think more and more authors are starting to use the "Super-class" as a 8km "smaller sibling," if you will, to the Executor-class. Since it's been used so much lately, we should rewrite the Super-class article to state that ships of that class were constructed and redirect the "Super Star Destroyer (8km)" article into the Super-class. Grand Moff Tranner ^(Comlink) 12:28, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Until the 2004 Inside the Worlds of the Star Wars Trilogy came out, the Executor and all Super Star Destroyers were treated as the same class and the same (wrong) size, 8km Super-class Star Destroyers. Except the Eclipse and the Sovereign-classes. Most authors used those specs for stories with an Executor sistership, it's not new. What's relatively new, is that the name is no longer an official designation for anything, according to Starship Battles Preview 1 and Starships of the Galaxy 2007 edition. Anything 8km in size with that term applied to it, will have another official designation as that name is specifically said to be a military colloquialism that stuck only because Star Destroyers were popular during the Clone Wars. That is how canon is these days and I'm not going to repeat this again. If I see these articles edited again, I'm going to complain to the administrators about you. VT-16 23:09, 17 May 2008 (UTC)