Class naming and other problemsEdit

I think we can't really solve the problem of the class naming and the prototype vessel. But because there is at least one Imperial Class Star Destroyer named 'Imperator' there is then the possibility that the former designation as Imperator Class came from that ship. But who ever came up with the explanation that the Imperator class was perhaps not named after the ISD Imperator, because the first ship of the Defender/Nebula Class Star Destroyer was named not Defender/Nebula and because of this Star Destroyer Classes must not be named after the prototype vessel, well this is total bullshit at its best... You can't compare to Star Destroyer Classes of two different goverments. Doing this would be in real life comparision like the US Navy can't name a carrier class after the lead ship of the class, because the germans never did this... stupid as you see... And could you give me the page where in the book Wedge's Gamble stands that Coruscant was defended by Victory class ships, and so the Emperor's Will was a Victory? Fleetadmiral Jack Ryan 22:47, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

• You misunderstand: you need to have proof that Imperial designs are always named after their lead ship. Such proof doesn't exist. And I don't have the book to hand right now, but there's a reference somewhere. I'll see if I can dig it out. I'll also point out that the page as written tries to be fair to the possibilities that (a.) the only Star Destroyer Imperator was Imperial-class, and (b.) she was the lead ship... while acknowledging the alternative possibilities too. --McEwok 21:11, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
  • We have the class starting its career as Imperator-class and a known ship of this class as the Imperator. I haven't heard of a class that has a ship bear its name and not be a lead ship. And with the Empire we already have Executor and the Executor-class, Eclipse and the Eclipse-class, Sovereign and the Sovereign-class. VT-16 07:52, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

• Executor seems to have originally been designated Super-class, and continued to be widely known by that name. The ISD-II is known as the ISD-II, not as the Empire-class. With most Imperial classses, we don't know for sure what the lead ship was called. Also, by the time that the Star Destroyer Imperator entered service, it's possible that the Imperial-class designation had become standard, so they wouldn't be naming the ship after the class-name at all—do the game levels in either X-Wing: Alliance or TIE Fighter (the only solid evidence for an Imperial-class ship called Imperator) enable us to determine whether she's an ISD-I or ISD-II?
• In short, there's certainly an argument that can be made for Imperator as lead ship, but there's an equally strong argument that Executrix was, and when it comes down to it, we simply don't know. And so, we shouldn't assume. --McEwok 11:15, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

• Going by established Imperial practice, they named classes after lead ships. Maybe not all, but several prominent examples exist. Since Imperator was the original name for the class, and the Imperator is a ship in this class, that belongs to its first generation of ships, its a more than likely match, regardless of what the New Republic did later on, and we know they named the Mediator-class and Viscount-class after their lead ships. With your arguments, you might as well put the same disclaimer on every single ISD-I, that it might have been the class's lead ship. As far as the Executor-class is concerned, it was only named Super-class in falsified documents, not as a genuine proposal. VT-16 12:11, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

• It's not "a more than likely match". It's a possible match, that's all.
• The NR evidence, showing Mediator and Viscount as lead-ship names, but Nebula/Defender as an approximately contemporary type where the class name doesn't use the lead-ship name, actually strengthens my case: Executor-class, Eclipse-class and Sovereign-class can coexist with an Imperator/Imperial-class where the lead ship was Executrix.
• And yes, every ISD-I could potentially be the lead ship of the class. The only two for which we have any sort of positive evidence, however, are Executrix (which is all-but-explicitly described as the first of the class in Dark Lord) and Imperator (because she shares what's been retconned as being the original class name); in both cases, however, the evidence falls well short of proof, and the evidence for Executrix raises further doubts about Imperator (and we can't quite rule out a Star Destroyer Imperial, either). --McEwok 14:48, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

• Well, if it's "all-but-explicit", couldn't Luceno have made it actually "explicit" instead? Fine, so maybe it's the first one built or the first one commissioned, whichever it is. That still leaves another rl parallell for determining a lead ship, which is the first vessel approved for construction, that could very well have been the Imperator, especially since I've never heard of a class name and a ship being named the same as the class, and not have these two be connected. Might even have shifted the lead ship title around, ending up on an Imperial. But multiple naming conventions in the NR is still different from the government it replaced. Even if the New Republic used the conventions similar to the English Navy, which we know, we don't know if that was the same for the Galactic Empire. VT-16 17:11, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Um... is there any direct proof that the Imperator-class was named for a lead ship Imperator, rather than with a generic noun comparable to the in-universe Defender-class and real-world Duke-class, Surveyors of the Navy-class, Hunt-class, and the like? Executrix and Exactor both have names that fit the general meaning of imperator as "person with power to command". Yes, we have an ImpStar called Imperator, but at present I'd say there's no clear evidence that she was the first... --McEwok 01:41, 13 Dec 2005 (UTC)

• Granted, that is an assumption. It seems highly likely, though, so I've made it ambiguous but not removed it completely. —Darth Culator (talk) 02:48, 13 Dec 2005 (UTC)
  • Since McEwok seems to have forgotten other systems in real life who utilize the "first commissioned/first ordered ship" rule in naming classes, I suggest we drop the ambiguity. He may be pushing a strictly English standard, but even that isn't consistent: "The Royal Navy has managed to have a dual system operating over the years. While some classes of ships have been given a name after that of the first in commission, they have also had class names because the ships names all had something in common". I wonder why he neglected to mention that fact? Another problem is that the names throughout the class have little in common, which is the purpose of having a class-name which symbolizes a common subject.VT-16 12:26, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
• Should this page and Imperator (Interdictor) be merged? --Xwing328 02:40, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

• Xwing328: The reason that they're seperate is because we know that there are at least two seperate ships - an Imperial-class Star Destroyer and a 600m interdictor. There may be more than this, but those are the two whose identities we can apparently be sure of.
• VT-16: none of that proves that the Imperator was the name of the lead ship, though. If there was a dual system in use, the first one could have been Imperial, or the lead-ship-based name could have been "Executrix-class Star Destroyer"! :-p --McEwok 21:28, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

• The class wasn't formally named Imperial until after the Jedi Purge, which means somewhere between 0 and 19 years after the Clone Wars ended. Imperator was the original name and the Imperator is therefore the lead ship, regardless if it was the first ever constructed or not. It only needs to be the first one approved or the first one commissioned, and could therefore be number 1 or 3 etc. of its class actually made in a shipyard. VT-16 07:34, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

• You're assuming there was an early Imperial-class ship called Imperator at all. Your argument is pure speculation, and the formal re-naming of the class could, equally speculatively, have been to bring it in line with lead-ship naming protocols. We simply don't know. --McEwok 11:15, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

• This entire article is rubbish as it now stands, since other ships with the same names have always gotten their own, seperate articles. Someone needs to do that here as well, unless it's already been taken care of. VT-16 12:11, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

• The difficulty is that we're delaing with an ambiguous number of ships. We know that there is an Imperial-class Star Destroyer called Imperator and a 600m Interdictor called Imperator. There's also evidence for a 1.6km Interdictor and a Victory-class Star Destroyer with the same name, and that's even before we consider the question of multiple ships of the same name in the same class. More pages would lead to duplicate information, and would mask the uncertainty about the identities of the ships involved. --McEwok 14:48, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

• Well, the first four sound straightforward enough, but the same name in the same class is not possible, one would have to be destroyed/decommissioned/scrapped before another could take its name, and there's probably plenty of words to choose from in-universe. IIRC correctly, Jerec changed Star Destroyers and called the second one Vengeance II in honor of the first, then a Super Star Destroyer with the same name again. VT-16 17:11, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Word stress Edit

The article mentions that "Imperator" has the stress on the third syllable. I would disagree, because in my experience it is the second syllable that is stressed.

Sources ? Edit

What? Dark Force Rising ??? strange.. and there is nothing in the Text about the events of that book. --Modgamers 12:08, 3 August 2007 (UTC)