Forums > Administrators' noticeboard archive > Super-class Star Destroyer

Okay, here's my issue. I was recently reading Legacy of the Force: Invincible, and on page 212 it describes the Megador as a Super-class Star Destroyer. So I recently added it to the Megador article. I later came across a Super Star Destroyer (8km) article and asked User:VT-16 if that article should be merged into the Super-class article, seeing as the Super-class seems to been more that a made-up class for budgetary reasons. A day and many edits on a few pages later, VT-16 is basically threatening me if I state that the Super-class is a real class. He's undone my legitimate edits on the Megador article, removed my addition to the Super Star Destroyer article involving the use of Super-class Star Destroyer, and is "going to complain to the administrators about" me. I'd appreciate it if an admin would intervene and fairly judge the situation. I would like to continue with my edits that I believe to be just, but I will not until this matter is solved. Thank you. Grand Moff Tranner Imperial Department of Military Research (Comlink) 00:30, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

  • I've stated and restated the point over and over with all the canon sources that actually say what I say. I'm sick and tired of reverting his personal opinion which he's inserting into the articles. I even went as far as to complete more reference lists and even use the word Super-class in some places, linking back to the general Super Star Destroyer article, of course. If he reverts this again to his personal fanon, I'm gonna report him.
EDIT: And he did do it after all. Clean this up, admins, I'm sick of it. I endured this bs with McEwok for three years. Not again. VT-16 01:14, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
    • This is not "personal fanon" when I have a source: Invincible. As far as I'm concerned, you're twisting everything to better suit your opinion. Additionally, you created an article on an 8km Super Star Destroyer when we already have one: the Super-class article. Grand Moff Tranner Imperial Department of Military Research (Comlink) 01:17, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
      • Oh god. It's not about seeing the word in a source. That's not the issue. The canonical explanation is that Super-class is used like SSD, a colloquial term for heavy, dagger-shaped warships, not as an official designation for a class. Super Star Destroyers/Super-class Star Destroyers are not actually designated Star Destroyers, like the Executor-class, for instance. That's from Starship Battles Preview 1. Starships of the Galaxy 2007 reiterates that Star Destroyer was not an official designation for Super Star Destroyers even when they were called it in-universe. Showing an example of this practice in-universe only shows the term is used, not that the Megador is designated a Super-class Star Destroyer. You also don't seem to understand there can be more of one thing, like a type of ship that's 8km long. One is real, unless otherwise stated, while the other is a fake, as stated in canonical sources. The name of said ship class was also fabricated, and is not used in official designations only in colloquial terms, therefore saying that it exists because it's used later on, is fanon. VT-16 01:26, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
        • Regardless, the Megador is specifically referred to as a Super-class Star Destroyer in a source - a canon source - and therefore, that's what should be in its article, not a link to Super Star Destroyer hidden behind "Super-class Star Destroyer." Besides, it seems a little too convenient for there to be another 8km-long Super Star Destroyer. Looks like the Empire did construct a few Super-class ships to keep the Senate happy. And I'm curious as to what you mean by "And he did do it after all." Do what? Put legitimate information into articles? Isn't that the purpose of this site? Perhaps your edits belong on the Fanon Wiki, where canon isn't as much of an issue. Educate me, VT-16. What exactly do the sources for the "Super Star Destroyer (8km)" say? Grand Moff Tranner Imperial Department of Military Research (Comlink) 01:30, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
          • WHY DON'T YOU UNDERSTAND THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE? THERE IS NO SUPER-CLASS, THERE IS ONLY THE COLLOQUIAL TERM. THAT IS IT. THAT'S ALL THAT REMAINS OF THAT FAKE SHIP DESIGN. NOTHING ELSE. Any ship that's said to be a Super-class Star Destroyer, is just a Super Star Destroyer. It's class and designation is another issue entirely. That is the canon state of things right now. Not canon from ten years ago, but that's tough. The Executor is still designated Executor-class Star Dreadnaught and called colloquially a Super-class Star Destroyer, as is a number of other ships of various sizes and shapes. None of which are formally designated Super-class Star Destroyers. VT-16 01:41, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
            • I believe I asked you a question, VT-16. I would like an answer, unless said sources would somehow throw out your entire argument. Grand Moff Tranner Imperial Department of Military Research (Comlink) 01:42, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
  • VT-16, the fact remains that people still use Super-class Star Destroyer in the fiction. This means one of two things. Either the authors are all a bunch of idiots who don't consult LucasFilm on their work...or your sources are outdated. -- SFH 01:48, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Thank you, SFH. You've summed up what I've basically been trying to say. Grand Moff Tranner Imperial Department of Military Research (Comlink) 01:49, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
  • It's a colloquial term. It gets used in novels. The sky is falling here. It's like I said all along, but apparantly some mental pygmees can't understand the difference between designations and colloquial terms. Thanks for missing the point. I've have been answering the same thing over and over using all the sources that are readily available. The colloquial term Super-class Star Destroyer (SBP1, SOTG07) is used in recent novels. What a surprise. Even more of a surprise is that it's used for different types of ships (DS, DNIII, NJO, LOTF). Apparantly to some who haven't been paying any attention to what I've been saying all along. VT-16 01:51, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Regardless, it's used in the novels, and the authors apparently use it as a class name. Grand Moff Tranner Imperial Department of Military Research (Comlink) 01:56, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
    • apparently
Ah yes, this fanon assessment you've been trying to put into these articles all along. Where is it explicitly used as a class designation and not a simple colloquialism? VT-16 01:58, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
  • It's not fanon. How many times must I say that? It's explicitly used in Invincible to name the class of the Megador. Grand Moff Tranner Imperial Department of Military Research (Comlink) 02:01, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
    • What if the author of Invincible intended the Megador to be a true blue Super-class Star Destroyer? From what Grand Moff Tranner has said, it isn't identified otherwise. Its use as slang during the Galactic Civil War doesn't preclude the construction of an unrelated Super-class vessel forty years later. In lieu of that, unless I'm mistaken and Megador is identified by another -class name as well, which I doubt because then otherwise the author wouldn't have used Super-class, I think it would be appropriate to refer to Megador as a Super-class until it is identified as something else, if that ever happens. The continuity is not static. And I think it would be best if the ad hominem attacks stopped. Starkar Mace 02:01, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
  • It's also used for the Executor in SOTG07, yet the same book designates the Executor an Executor-class Star Dreadnaught. Your fanon assumption is that this is an official designation of any ships called Super-class Star Destroyers. Judging from the remarks, it doesn't say that anywhere in the book. Boohoo. Saying writers keep using a term means it's an official designation, is like saying the B-52 bomber is now designated the BUFF because pilots keep calling it that nickname. VT-16 02:13, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Invincible, page 212: "The Megador was a Super-class Star Destroyer." You were saying something about that not being in the book? Grand Moff Tranner Imperial Department of Military Research (Comlink) 02:17, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
      • You liar, where did I say that? I said provide the evidence of that being used as an official designation, not a colloquialism. Show where in Invincible it's identified as an official designation. VT-16 02:20, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
      • How exactly would I do that? I don't know the author's thoughts. I only know what he put in the book. Grand Moff Tranner Imperial Department of Military Research (Comlink) 02:22, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
        • What he put in the book, was a term officially retconned as a colloquialism. Sicne you just admitted that you don't know what he was thinking, you also can't make the claim that it's suddenly an official designation for said ship. VT-16 02:25, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
  • "Either the authors are all a bunch of idiots who don't consult LucasFilm on their work" actually, there's no "or" there. You've summed it up nicely. Now if this continues, there will be blocking. And not of VT-16. -- Darth Culator (Talk) 02:19, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
    • That's unfair, since I've provided a source. Grand Moff Tranner Imperial Department of Military Research (Comlink) 02:22, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
      • That is also a rather flawed analogy, VT-16; BUFF is pilot and ground-crew slang, meaning "Big Ugly Fat Fucker". A rather apt description for the Super-class Star Destroyer, to be sure, but the fact that it is, even at this date, still written into C-canon works, makes it a class of vessel. For all we know, the Megador and the Dominion are not the same thing as the Executor; there is not enough information to tell. It is therefore highly disingenuous of you to apply the label of "fanon" to the folks who hold this viewpoint.--Goodwood Redstarbird (Alliance Intelligence) 02:26, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
  • But it's a general colloquial term! That's what it's been retconned as. You can't look at a use of a colloquial term and say it overrides canon! What exactly does it override? The 12-16km ships in DS, the 12.8 ships in SOTG 2001, the 8km ships mentioned in NJO/DNIII, all called Super-class Star Destroyer. How does that entitle someone to pretend the Megador is officially designated a Super-class Star Destroyer when it's not an official designation anymore? VT-16 02:33, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Why does the use of Super-class Star Destroyer as a colloquial term during the GCW preclude the existence of a legitimate Super-class Star Destroyer forty years later? The whole concept of it as a colloquial term is derived from a retcon, so if a new ship is given that name in the future as its legitimate class, why is it suddenly that the canon is static about Super-class being a colloquialism? That's my thoughts on it. Starkar Mace 02:39, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
      • The text apparantly says nothing one way or another, therefore assuming that there was a designation change in the then-current navies or that canon changed again, is an unnecessary leap of logic, particularly with the continuation of the "Super Star Destroyer ships being called Star Destroyers while this is not an official designation for them" standpoint in LFL material. You're basically arguing something that there's not any official support for. Therefore, don't add that to an article. That's the thing I've been saying for over a day now on this matter. VT-16 02:50, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Starkar Mace has a point. How do you explain that? And don't you even think of blocking us, Culator. I know you don't have any respect for me as an admin, a contributer, or as a human being, but we will recieve our answer. -- SFH 02:46, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Er... That's a bit of a leap. And an incredibly inappropriate forum in which to make such a leap. I'm actually rather indifferent toward you as a contributor and I don't know you at all as a human being, but as an admin that was a surprisingly unprofessional thing to say. -- Darth Culator (Talk) 03:31, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
      • I can understand VT-16's (and I assume Darth Culator's as well) viewpoint. For clarification, basically, you're saying that given that it has previously been established that usage the of the term Super-class Star Destroyer is merely a colloquialism in reference to the Executor-class Star Dreadnaught (and I suppose other Star Dreadnaughts as well, though "Super Star Destroyer" seems more frequently used in that regard), future use of it should be assumed a colloquialism unless otherwise stated? I think that position is reasonable, but I would recommend that you be more patient with people that don't understand or disagree. It is a confusing issue due to the massive retcon that established Super-class Star Destroyer as a budgetary cover-up, and is not helped by the fact that some authors continue to use the term, especially in Invincible, where it's more difficult to explain as a colloquialism as it is in Death Star, since the events of the latter specifically took place during the construction of Executor and the fraudulent budget request whereas the events of the former are forty years afterward. The fact that Denning called it a Super-class Star Destroyer in Invincible and notes that it has sixteen ion engines in The Swarm War further confuses the issue, since the Executor-class has thirteen engines, and Super-class is most frequently used as a reference to the Executor-class. It would be nice if Denning gave it an actual class rather than refer to it confusing as Super-class, and it would also be nice if the editors would catch it, and their failure to do so could foster the impression that it's intentional, as previously stated by SFH. Starkar Mace 04:05, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
        • The problem largely stems from the fact that most of the "editors" are probably unaware of 99.7% of what goes on in the development of Star Wars canon. But we have a clear-cut definition of "Super-class" as being a proper name only for a fictional ship (the context of which I suppose would make it a metafictional ship :-P) and a colloquialism for anything else, and the class it was originally used as a proper name for now has a very specific and more realistic name. And "Super-class" just sounds dumb. The fact that people like Troy Denning can't evolve beyond the mindset that WEG cramped them into is sad. -- Darth Culator (Talk) 04:22, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
          • I believe Denning actually worked on a few WEG materials, so that would explain why. Starkar Mace 04:32, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Just to jump in here, user VT-16 seems to be having a heart attack over the situation and is personally attacking any other user who opposes his side of the story. Calling someone a mental pygmee and typing bold face just makes you look like an asshole. So, chill out. The sky is not falling here. k?riridadaecho7 04:59, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Thank you for not reading the whole debate, which arguably went over several talk pages before it ended up here. I appreciate the tried-and-true method of jumping into the middle of a debate. VT-16 11:42, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
    • VT-16, please be civil and cease with the name callings, either here or elsewhere; Personal attacks of any kind will be dealt with by a block by myself or another administrator. And, no, I haven't read this entire post, nor do I care in the least about these SSD debates or intend to start anytime soon—all I care about when looking at this stuff is if people are lowering themselves to use personal attacks or not, and they have, so here I am warning anyone who has or plans to use them. Regardless of the opinions on this page, a PA is a PA, clean and simple, and any future ones on this page will be dealt with as they are seen. Also, k?riridadaecho7 and any others who want to post on this forum, please heed that same advise and don't stoop so low as to use personal attacks against anyone. Be civil or don't bother posting at all, since it will only lead to trouble for those who do post negatively. Thanks, Greyman@wikiajanitor(Talk) 13:10, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
      • I have been civil up to the point where restating official sources and positions seem to go over someone's head and they continue to use the same flawed arguments. I had to put up with that with McEwok for three years, I'm not interested in starting up all over again with new users who can't tell the difference between colloquialism and designation. The user right above just strawmanned me without going through the debate, trying to claim some moral high ground. Either he/she read the debate and the problem first, and then reply, or they shouldn't bother at all, imho. And it seems the problem is about to be resolved. VT-16 13:33, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
        • Yes, it does appear that a resolution to these debates will hopefully be provided soon, since I know I'm not alone in wanting these petty SSD debates to finally come to an end—not just here on this forum, but everywhere on this site. And, regardless of if you think you've been civil or not is beside the point. My warning and advise still stands to any user who feels the need to post here in the future. Greyman@wikiajanitor(Talk) 13:42, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
          • Actually, I was referring to my latest edits, which do link to the Super-class now. :) VT-16 13:52, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Ok, got down a cohesive timeline of LFL sources, I'm fairly sick and tired of writing the same names and sources over and over again, so every time someone starts something again, I'll show this file and let that be that. VT-16 11:42, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

  • I just wish to say one more thing without being blocked. I've brought this up here. Hopefully Mr. Chee will settle this once and for all. Grand Moff Tranner Imperial Department of Military Research (Comlink) 13:02, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
    • I think he'll either say it's supposed to be an Executor, an actual Super-class ship or it's not decided. Or he'll think we'll equate Executor with Super-class and not get the question. =/ VT-16 13:33, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Ad blocker interference detected!

Wikia is a free-to-use site that makes money from advertising. We have a modified experience for viewers using ad blockers

Wikia is not accessible if you’ve made further modifications. Remove the custom ad blocker rule(s) and the page will load as expected.