Talk:Admiral Giel's flagship

From Wookieepedia, the Star Wars wiki.

Can we think of a better name for this article? --SparqMan 08:36, 15 Dec 2005 (UTC)

• I'd call it "Star Battleship (Giel's)", but then I'd get yelled at. ;P VT-16 12:36, 17 Dec 2005 (UTC)
• No seriously, can I move it to that or at least "Imperial battleship"? There's several old and new sources that describe Imperial battleships (battleships as in 'non-Dreadnought battleships'), and no source has ever identified Imperial warships smaller than ISDs as that, so what say the admins? Giel's flagship was a RL design precursor to the Executor, after all. VT-16 15:28, 22 Dec 2005 (UTC)
• Did the comic ever refer to it as anything other than Giel's flagship? JimRaynor55 16:51, 22 Dec 2005 (UTC)
  • Nope. 'flagship' was it. VT-16 16:59, 22 Dec 2005 (UTC)
    • I'd leave it where it is. Because you know somebody will complain about it, and you'll end up wasting energy that would be better spent elsewhere. —Darth Culator (talk) 17:04, 22 Dec 2005 (UTC)
      • That's true, I only added some speculation in the BtS section a few days ago, but I'll keep it at that. Maybe shorten the name to 'Flagship (Giel's)'? Going through the Marvel issues surrounding the Teezl operation, I see the Executor being called 'starcruiser' in one panel. Nice to see Lucas Licensing employees had "good oversight" 20 years ago as well. :P VT-16 17:17, 22 Dec 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Title-change

With the quote from The Illustrated Star Wars Universe' mentioning the Imperial battleships bigger than ISDs, is it ok to use that word in the title instead of 'flagship'? Any ship with a flag officer onboard can be a flagship, so it's not a fixed title. And with the ship being a lot bigger and bulkier than the Imperial battlecruisers seen elsewhere, it would fit the description. I'm not trying to start an edit-war, I'm just asking nicely. If others can write about Republic or Krath battleships and keep those conjectural titles, Giel's vessel shouldn't be held to a different standard. VT-16 11:35, 16 Jan 2006 (UTC)

• I'd say it's okay. Admiral J. Nebulax 13:03, 16 Jan 2006 (UTC)
  • I'd like more opinions before doing anything, but I thought adding the same disclaimer to the BTS like the articles mentioned above would be enough. VT-16 15:18, 16 Jan 2006 (UTC)
    • Yeah, that might be enough. Admiral J. Nebulax 15:32, 16 Jan 2006 (UTC)
      • What, exatcly, is the quote from The Illustrated Star Wars Universe that you're referring to? Thanks. --McEwok 16:04, 16 Jan 2006 (UTC)
        • No matter the quote, this should be moved to Battleship (Admiral Giel's). Admiral J. Nebulax 19:08, 16 Jan 2006 (UTC)
          • The Illustrated Star Wars Universe (Bantam, 1995) has the Imperial Pollux Hax remark that while "Imperial Star Destroyers were built in the space-dock centers in orbit of Imperial Center, the largest battleships and special weapons platforms were built at other, more sophisticated space construction centers in other systems, notably the Kuat Drive Yards and the Rendili and Loronar space construction facilities."

It's written by Kevin J. Anderson, not a time-travelling Curtis Saxton, I swear! :P VT-16 19:41, 16 Jan 2006 (UTC)

• Well, it's moved now. Admiral J. Nebulax 20:12, 16 Jan 2006 (UTC)
  • /me shrugs. "The largest battleships" does not refer to any sort of SD/BB division; in fact, it rather implies that overall, "battleships" includes ISDs, or at least ISD-sized ships. Personally, I think that Flagship (Admiral Giel's) was better... but perhaps you can convince me: what, exactly, was the justification for the change? --McEwok 20:27, 16 Jan 2006 (UTC) 20:25, 16 Jan 2006 (UTC)
    • Here we go again... McEwok is once again unhappy with something. And "flagship" is a term that describes the ship where the commander is, not what kind of ship it is. Admiral J. Nebulax 22:10, 16 Jan 2006 (UTC)
    • First of all, the sheer bulk of the craft compared to the more flimsy Imperial battlecruisers seen in the same comic series. Secondly, the amount of guns. Although only a fraction is shown in relevant panels, there is little reason to believe they do not cover the side-trenches and dorsal/ventral areas. Thirdly, an actual quote about battleships made long before Saxton's involvement, which I thought would make this less controversial.

Funny enough, In a source (can't remember it right now) Victory-class destroyers are mentioned as being made to pull battleship-duty (though this is a time of few larger ships seeing action in the Republic and Imperial fleets anyway). I would reckon this to be true for Imperial-class ships as well, whenever they are operating as lead craft for fleets consisting of smaller craft. VT-16 22:57, 16 Jan 2006 (UTC)

• Yes, that seems correct. Admiral J. Nebulax 00:27, 17 Jan 2006 (UTC)
  • McEwok is once again unhappy with something.

Hardly. A canon term was removed. On its own, it's not really important at all, but it does seem (at least to me) to be symptomatic of a wider trend, and one which I think is bad for Wookieepedia. /me shrugs. Do you agree that fanon shouldn't be presented like canon in Wookieepedia?

• • And "flagship" is a term that describes the ship where the commander is, not what kind of ship it is.'

It's still the only canon term that's used to identify the ship. It's not perfect, but it works.

• • First of all, the sheer bulk of the craft compared to the more flimsy Imperial battlecruisers seen in the same comic series.

This is a very subjective POV. I wouldn't call the battlecruisers "flimsy". And I wouldn't trust the comics for precise scaling accuracy. So Giel's flagship looks bulky? I'm not going to deny that a battleship designation is within the range of possibilities, but that's hardly strong evidence for assuming she is one.

• • Secondly, the amount of guns. Although only a fraction is shown in relevant panels, there is little reason to believe they do not cover the side-trenches and dorsal/ventral areas.

There's no compelling reason to assume that the flak guns are evenly spread across the hull, either, and, as they're firing at a TIE at very short range, the guns we do see could easily be light flak guns. The comic shows a total of eight guns on the starboard side of the superstructure and aft dorsal hull, and a total of seven in a section of the starboard trench. Assuming a symmetrical arrangement, the minimum would be 30 (compared with the 52 on the Venator). There are probably more than this, perhaps many more. But we don't really know. The variables are too wide to draw any clear conclusions.

• • Thirdly, an actual quote about battleships made long before Saxton's involvement, which I thought would make this less controversial.

The trouble with this quote is that "larger battleships" could easily extend the term "battleship" to Star Destroyers, or all combat warships. It's neither precise, nor clear, nor, necessarily formal.You might as well call this ship a "Star Destroyer", as an in-universe generic.

• • Funny enough, In a source (can't remember it right now) Victory-class destroyers are mentioned as being made to pull battleship-duty (though this is a time of few larger ships seeing action in the Republic and Imperial fleets anyway). I would reckon this to be true for Imperial-class ships as well, whenever they are operating as lead craft for fleets consisting of smaller craft.

I'd be interested to see this, if you do remember it: are you sure you're not thinking of my suggestion that the VicStars could be the "battleships" which the VenStars are supposed to escort...?--McEwok 13:43, 17 Jan 2006 (UTC)

---

Hardly. A canon term was removed. On its own, it's not really important at all, but it does seem (at least to me) to be symptomatic of a wider trend, and one which I think is bad for Wookieepedia. /me shrugs. Do you agree that fanon shouldn't be presented like canon in Wookieepedia?

There's nothing wrong with substituting one canonical term for another. "Flagship" is a term that can be applied to all kinds of warships, as long as they have a flag officer, this status can disappear when the officer changes post. "Battleship" does not stay or leave with a flag officer, nor does it constitute "fanon", as it's been used as a canonical term for Imperial ships for at least ten years by now. If only I had known about this sooner...

This is a very subjective POV. I wouldn't call the battlecruisers "flimsy". And I wouldn't trust the comics for precise scaling accuracy. So Giel's flagship looks bulky? I'm not going to deny that a battleship designation is within the range of possibilities, but that's hardly strong evidence for assuming she is one.

"Subjective view"? Are these Imperial battlecruisers as massive as Giel's ship? The only ones seen have been long and thin, much thinner compared with his vessel.

There's no compelling reason to assume that the flak guns are evenly spread across the hull, either, and, as they're firing at a TIE at very short range, the guns we do see could easily be light flak guns. The comic shows a total of eight guns on the starboard side of the superstructure and aft dorsal hull, and a total of seven in a section of the starboard trench. Assuming a symmetrical arrangement, the minimum would be 30 (compared with the 52 on the Venator). There are probably more than this, perhaps many more. But we don't really know. The variables are too wide to draw any clear conclusions.

If these are smaller guns, which they well may be, then would a smaller amount of bigger guns somehow make Giel's ship no more powerful than an Imperial-class destroyer? or did you mean something else? I also hope you're aware of the fact that guns which would seem big on an ISD, will look much smaller relative to the hull of a much larger vessel.

The trouble with this quote is that "larger battleships" could easily extend the term "battleship" to Star Destroyers, or all combat warships. It's neither precise, nor clear, nor, necessarily formal. You might as well call this ship a "Star Destroyer", as an in-universe generic.

Since the canonical term "Battleship" is mostly used for ships bigger than ISDs (evidently both Imperial and non-Imperial, all sources considered), why not use it instead of marking everything up with Star Destroyer, which is a term used regardless of size and function? You can have both in the article, but why not be more presise in the heading? The ship is more like the Executor than a random ISD anyway, but there's not enough reason to call it a "Star Dreadnought". "Battleship" is almost as general a term as "Star Destroyer", and would not constitute fanon, as it is used in reference to Imperial vessels larger than the standard ISD. Which is why I haven't suggested this before. Back before I found the source, I had no evidence. However, I've never seen any official source that calls all combat warships "battleships", nor is there any evidence that the term is used "informally" in this text.

I'd be interested to see this, if you do remember it: are you sure you're not thinking of my suggestion that the VicStars could be the "battleships" which the VenStars are supposed to escort...?

I've never heard of that particular "hypothesis", but I know I read about the Victory-class being intended for battleship-duty (of course they were relegated to lesser tasks after a while). I just need to find that quote as well. VT-16 19:11, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

• Listen, McEwok, "flagship" still doesn't show what kind of ship it was. "Battleship" is much better for the time being. Admiral J. Nebulax 20:28, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

---

• There's nothing wrong with substituting one canonical term for another. "Flagship" is a term that can be applied to all kinds of warships, as long as they have a flag officer, this status can disappear when the officer changes post. "Battleship" does not stay or leave with a flag officer, nor does it constitute "fanon", as it's been used as a canonical term for Imperial ships for at least ten years by now.

The term "battleship" isn't in itself fanon, inasmuch as it's used in canon; but its use as a term for Giel's flagship is entirely a fan hypothesis, so that is fanon. Does that distinction make sense to you?

• If only I had known about this sooner...

</confused> You made several references to vague quotes about Imperial "battleships" here before; what makes this one different...?

• "Subjective view"? Are these Imperial battlecruisers as massive as Giel's ship? The only ones seen have been long and thin, much thinner compared with his vessel.

Giel's ship appears to be physically bulky for its size, but we don't know exactly what that means, and we don't know the relative sizes of the two ships, either. I'm not convinced we can place too much weight on the implied scaling when compared to ISDs in an issue when a TIE Pilot's mask does this when he's being defiant and this when he's terrified. In short, we can't confidently compare Giel's ship and the "battlecruisers".

• If these are smaller guns, which they well may be, then would a smaller amount of bigger guns somehow make Giel's ship no more powerful than an Imperial-class destroyer? or did you mean something else? I also hope you're aware of the fact that guns which would seem big on an ISD, will look much smaller relative to the hull of a much larger vessel.

I'm pointing out that we have no way of knowing what the overall capabilities of Giel's ship are - except that she's a "flagship", of course....

• Since the canonical term "Battleship" is mostly used for ships bigger than ISDs (evidently both Imperial and non-Imperial, all sources considered), why not use it instead of marking everything up with Star Destroyer, regardless of size?

On the evidence I've seen, I'm not at all convinced that "battleship" tends to refer to ships bigger than ISDs. As to what title we should give in this article, my preference would be Admiral Giel's flagship, that being what she's called in the canon source; any generic term is unneccessary and unevidenced fan postulation, but I'd argue that "Star Destroyer", which is used as a specific canon generic for large dagger-hulled Imperial ships, would be better than "battleship".

• You can have both in the article, but why not be more presise in the heading? The ship is more like the Executor than a random ISD anyway, but there's not enough reason to call it a "Star Dreadnought". "Battleship" is almost as general a term as "Star Destroyer", and would not constitute fanon, as it is used in reference to Imperial vessels larger than the standard ISD. Which is why I haven't suggested this before. Back before I found the source, I had no evidence. However, I've never seen any official source that calls all combat warships "battleships", nor is there any evidence that the term is used "informally" in this text.

Um... the source refers to "larger battleships"; that could simply mean "larger warships than ISDs", rather than "battleships, which are as a rule larger than ISDs".

• I've never heard of that particular "hypothesis", but I know I read about the Victory-class being intended for battleship-duty (of course they were relegated to lesser tasks after a while). I just need to find that quote as well.

Thanks!

• Listen, McEwok, "flagship" still doesn't show what kind of ship it was.

Um, yes it does. It shows that it was a flagship. Perhaps a purpose-designed command ship.

• "Battleship" is much better for the time being.

I disagree. "Battleship" gives only a spurious sense of precision. --McEwok 14:14, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

• "Flagship" tells us nothing about the ship, only that it has a flag officer in command of it. The quote from "The Illustrated Guide..." talks about Imperial battleships in relation to the ISDs made at Coruscant. It's your opinion that this term is meant to be interchangable with "warship", and until I see evidence of this in the context of the source, I'll stick to the canonical "battleship". Which I've yet to see used in an equal "spurious" sense as "Star Destroyer". VT-16 15:14, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
  • McEwok, just because you don't like the title doesn't mean it has to be changed. "Battleship" is a type of ship, "flagship" is the command ship, which could be any type of ship. Admiral J. Nebulax 20:18, 18 January 2006 (UTC)