Aidje had it right in the original article. The SW universe definition for "capital ship" is not the same as the real life definition. In real life, "capital ship" is used only to refer to the largest, most important ships, such as battleships and aircraft carriers. The Essential Guide to Vehicles and Vessels defines a SW capital ship as any military starship with a length greater than 100 meters. A Corellian Gunship is capital ship in the SW universe, but a real life gunship isn't considered a capital ship. JimRaynor55 21:14, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

• I believe that the 100m length comment was used to describe what that book described as a capital ship, not the SW universe. It could be added that given the standard lengths of ships, 100 meters is generally a good measure for a ship's status. A gunship could be considered a capital ship in the real world if it the rest of its fleet was made up of small freighters. A ship's label of "capital ship" is a relative one. --SparqMan 21:17, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

The definition you use yourself says that the term capital ship is used for strategic comparisons. The term is not that flexible, otherwise it would be useless for comparison. If you can call a gunship or frigate a capital ship just because the rest of your fleet is made up of tiny boats and freightors, then the admiral of a weak third world navy could say he has more capital ships than the US fleet. That would be nonsense. Today, capital ship is only used for aircraft carriers, and in the past it was used for battleships, and before that, ships of the line of the first three rates. The SW universe is obviously using a different definition than real life, because even tiny ships like Nebulon-B escort frigates, Carrack cruisers, and Dreadnaughts are considered capital ships, not just by the Rebels, but by the Empire as well. JimRaynor55

• I disagree. It is relative based on perspective. A third world nation would be forced, as the Rebels were, to consider small ships as capital ships because they were matched up in comparison against Imperial ships of great weaponry and defense measures. Few Imperial admirals would consider a Corellian Corvette anything to even notice, where a Rebel Alliance commander would view it as a key component of his strategic options. The definition currently in the article is not perfect (just copied from Wikipedia), but it is certainly more accurate as a starting point than a fixed size of 100 meters. If a starship was 99 meters in length, but boasted more weaponry than a 120 meter Corellian Corvette, why would it be classified as anything less than a capital ship? --SparqMan 22:10, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

Going by the real life definition, you cannot apply the term "capital ship" to anything less than a top warship. The term is used to simplify comparisons, so that you don't have to get bogged down in details like number of guns and tonnage. For example, Navy A could say it's more powerful than Navy B because it has 7 capital ships to B's 5. It would defeat the entire purpose of having the term if one side counts everything including frigates and gunships as capital ships, while the other uses it for battleships or aircraft carriers. It would be just as silly for the Rebels to call their Corellian Corvettes capital ships, while Imperial capital ships are Star Destroyers and Star Dreadnaughts. The term is never, ever used in that way. 100 meters is the definition straight from the EU books. Literal nitpicking such as proposing a heavily armed 99-meter-long ship doesn't matter, 100 meters is the definition. If a non-capital combat ship (and we have never even seen such a powerful ship close to 100 meters, but not at or above it) can defeat a weak capital ship, then so be it. JimRaynor55 22:29, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

No, it would not defeat the purpose of the term. There are capital ships, support/auxiliary ships, and then starfighters. That would be the logical breakdown. But do as you please. --SparqMan 04:07, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

Do you even understand the definition that you are supporting? It says that the term "capital ship" is an alternative to counting guns and tonnage, used to simplify comparisons. As a standard of comparison, it must have a constant meaning. If the definition is "relative" (and the Wiki article you copied from said no such thing), then it is absolutely useless as a means of comparison. A Rebel commander would be foolish to put Corvettes in the same area as Star Destroyers, since one Star Destroyer could literally be the equivalent of dozens of Corvettes. The term "capital ship" is not strictly defined, however, it is definately not used relatively in comparison to smaller ships of a single fleet. In conclusion, not only is this definition not what is said in official EU sources, but the way you have misinterpreted it and applied it to the SW universe in a way which makes no sense. JimRaynor55 04:21, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

I think that you are misinterpreting the meaning of the article. Additionally, the Rebel commanders regularly ran their smaller ships that wouldn't qualify as capital ships under this term against larger, Imperial ships. Regardless, as I said above, you can use what is stated in one EU source (and stated in an out of content manner) as the hardline. I was merely trying to help expand the article in a useful way. Your tone is pleasant.--SparqMan 04:41, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

SizesEdit

• I just need to point this out. Corellian Corvettes are 150 meters and Corellian Gunships are 120 meters, so what's listed in the article is incorrect, regardless of what you decide the definition of a capital ship is. – Brynn Alastayr 22:36, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Cleaned up grammar and tense inconsistencies, elaborated on points and reworded as necessary.