Article milestones Date Process Result 12 May 2010 Good article nomination Success 19 May 2010 Good article
Current status: Good article

As both a specific ship, and a representative of its class, shouldn't the Allegiance and other similar articles be in bothe the "Capital ships" and the new "Capital ship classes" categories? JimRaynor55 05:49, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• No, because it's not a ship class. It's a ship that Saxton used to assume it was from a class. It could simply be a unique or modified ship. --SparqMan 14:25, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• A class can consist of a single unique ship. In real life, only one Enterprise-class aircraft carrier was ever built by the US Navy. If the Allegiance is unique, it's still the representative for a class of warship with an unknown name. Also, there were numerous other Star Destroyers drawn with the same features and dimensions as the Allegiance throughout the Dark Empire series. JimRaynor55 15:18, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Any thoughts about whether this is the same design as the standard Star Destroyers at Byss in DE2? I think they're called "Gauntlet Star Destroyers"... -- McEwok 13:21, 11 Aug 2005 (UTC)

nightmare: The lenght of the Allegiance is not 2200 m. That is merely a low end number based on the assumption that the foreground destroyer in the image is 1200 m, for which there is no support, plus needlessly creating a whole new ship class. The correct number is almost exactly 2800 m.

• I just looked at Saxton's site, and I don't think he derived the Allegiance's length by assuming the smaller Star Destroyer was 1.2 km long. He doesn't clearly say where he got the length from, but he does talk about how similar ships were seen near the Eclipse, which has a known length of 17.5 km. If anything, I think Saxton derived the Allegiance length from the Eclipse, which allowed him to calculate the length of the smaller Star Destroyer. Also, if you read the SWTC, Saxton explains why that ship couldn't have been an ISD. It IS a new class. JimRaynor55 02:02, 29 Nov 2005 (UTC)

Contents 1 Image 2 Other Allegiance 3 Move? 4 Category

ImageEdit

• Where is that image from? --SparqMan 14:25, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• On your own talk page, Erl says he's using images from that Warlords fan mod for Homeworld 2. I don't think it should be used, since it's just fanart. JimRaynor55 05:12, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Other AllegianceEdit

There was an ISD Allegiance used by Han Solo in his hunt for Zsinj in Solo Command. --SparqMan 14:25, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Move? Edit

Shouldn't we move this to "Allegiance (Super Star Destroyer)"? Other articles have their names spelled out, and I don't think the abbreviation "SSD" was ever even used in-universe. JimRaynor55 19:59, 15 Dec 2005 (UTC)

• I think the move is fine, although I "SSD" may have been used in BFC. --SparqMan 21:57, 15 Dec 2005 (UTC)
  • I also agree. Admiral J. Nebulax 22:09, 15 Dec 2005 (UTC)
    • I read DE II today, and something McEwok mentioned above came up on a page (where the freighters escape Byss): Gauntlet Star Destroyers. Is this used as a class-name or does it just describe the Star Destroyers "being like gauntlets"? I'd like to know, since this could have a bearing on the name "Gauntlet-class Star Cruiser", for instance.

Here's the passage:

In order to avoid the gauntlet Star Destroyers, the three smuggler ships track a risky escape run near the huge orbiting drydock.

The problem is, everything is written with capital letters, so there's no way of telling whether it's 'gauntlet' with a capital 'G' or not. VT-16 23:41, 15 Dec 2005 (UTC)

• An Additional piece of informtaion comes from WOTC, where they describe:

A web of sensor arrays known as the Gauntlet Scanners crisscrosses the entire world, continually monitoring IFF transponders, security codes, and other forms of authorization for anyone showing even the slightest signs of forged documentation. The Star Destroyers in orbit have standing orders to open fire immediately on anyone identified by the Gauntlet Scanners with full and lethal force.

Maybe the Allegiance´s class is called Gauntlet due to its use in conjunction with these monitoring stations? VT-16 00:01, 16 Dec 2005 (UTC)

• Perhaps... But we'd need confirmation on that. Admiral J. Nebulax 00:24, 16 Dec 2005 (UTC)
  • Yeah, probably. I just thought this was interesting considering WOTC have been known to do these kinds of connections before, like adding to old Marvel stories and stuff. VT-16 01:04, 16 Dec 2005 (UTC)
• At first I thought it was probably just a typo (they meant to refer to a gauntlet of Star Destroyers), but now that WOTC mentions gauntlet sensors, there could be more to it. Asking a VIP at the official site seems to be the easiest way, but I don't know whether they're that knowledgable about minutia. Leland Chee, who's in charge of the Holocron, probably has the most possible access to EU info, but he has stated that he doesn't want any specific continuity questions in the Holocron thread. JimRaynor55 01:24, 16 Dec 2005 (UTC)
  • What are we going to do, then? Admiral J. Nebulax 12:34, 16 Dec 2005 (UTC)
    • How about moving it to Gauntlet-class Star Cruiser, and justify the name in the BTS-section until a Lucas Licensing VIP can provide an answer. Since I'm not a member on SW.com and I don't have a clue who's relevant to ask (if Chee doesn't do specific requests like this), I don't know what else to do. VT-16 13:18, 16 Dec 2005 (UTC)
      • I guess that will have to do for now. Admiral J. Nebulax 13:19, 16 Dec 2005 (UTC)
        • Ok, I'm gonna do it now, put my reasoning in the article, and see what others think. VT-16 13:21, 16 Dec 2005 (UTC)
          • Hopefully others will agree. Admiral J. Nebulax 13:25, 16 Dec 2005 (UTC)
  • Semantically speaking, "gauntlet star destroyers" could easily be taken to mean, "the star destroyers of the gauntlet," or the "star destroyers comprising the gauntlet," etc. I really don't think that this signifies a class name. It seems like this is a generalization of "Imperial Star Destroyer" often being synonymous with "Imperial-class Star Destroyer," but in that case, the ships just happen to be "Imperial Star Destroyers" because they are part of the Imperial Navy as well as Imperial-class. However, it is not possible to generalize this to say that one implies the other and therefore that "gauntlet star destroyers" means "Gauntlet-class Star Destroyers.MarkAD 17:22, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
    • It's conjecture. Due to the fact that there's no canonical name for it, we have it at Gauntlet-class Star Cruiser due to the reference of "gauntlet Star Destroyers". Admiral J. Nebulax ^(talk) 17:30, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
      • It seems like this is a generalization of "Imperial Star Destroyer" often being synonymous with "Imperial-class Star Destroyer," but in that case, the ships just happen to be "Imperial Star Destroyers" because they are part of the Imperial Navy as well as Imperial-class.

Actually, that's exactly the reason they got the Imperial-class name. It's a retarded practice that caught wind during the revitalizing of EU sourcebooks, foregoing the earliest sourcebooks, where these ships were called Imperator-class. (Although those books contained numerous errors as well, so I guess WEG considered Imperator one of them :P) VT-16 00:11, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

• The whole "Imperial over Imperator" thing is stupid, if you ask me. It was at first the Imperator-class, then someone changed it. Admiral J. Nebulax ^(talk) 03:17, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

CategoryEdit

We made a separate article for this ship's class, so there's no longer any need to put this in Capital ship classes as a class representative. JimRaynor55 15:46, 29 Dec 2005 (UTC)

• Oops, my mistake. Admiral J. Nebulax 16:52, 29 Dec 2005 (UTC)