I respect the storied history of the Nebula-class, but that almost deserves it's own article as a simple "Behind the Scenes" section would be enormous with that content. Should the article be pushed towards the IU realm? --SparqMan 06:42, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

• The Nebula-class Star Destroyer article itself should remain in the spaceships category, and the first paragraph deals with purly IU details. With a little editing, I could take the information about its armament and put it in that first section as well. The rest of the article could be moved to an OOU article, perhaps one about Cracken's Threat Dossier and Starships of the Galaxy. We could provide links to those new articles from the original Nebula article. JimRaynor55 19:27, 7 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Whoops, I probably should have read this before making my edits. My apologies. At any rate, I hope the changes I made are suitable, despite the fact that I put it in a Behind the Scenes section; I really don't think a seperate article would be appropriate, as the "storied history" is all about this ship. Best solution? Add more IU info to make the BtS section smaller. ;-) jSarek 06:03, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Contents 1 Fan Art 2 New Essential Chronology 3 A couple of things 4 Appeared in Spectre of the Past? 5 Endurance carrier? 6 Resolve 7 Defender and Nebula now separate ship classes. 8 Ship Name Italics 9 EGtW Nebula-class Star Destroyer image

Fan ArtEdit

I don't think unofficial fan art shouldn't be used, especially when an actual official image has been linked to. JimRaynor55 17:34, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

New Essential ChronologyEdit

I've heard that this new book fixed the naming problem by making it clear that the real name is Nebula-class Star Destroyer. Can anybody with the book please post the quote? If this is true, then not only should it be mentioned in the "Behind the Scenes" section, but the article should be renamed. JimRaynor55 23:31, 4 Nov 2005 (UTC)

• I have the book, and yes, it does say Nebula-class instead of Defender-class. It also says that the Nebula-class Star Destroyer was the last ship of the New Class to be produced. This article therefore should be moved to Nebula-class Star Destroyer and have the information changed. Cmdr. J. Nebulax 00:33, 5 Nov 2005 (UTC)

Does it merely state that the class name is Nebula, or does it try to explain the discrepancy? Either way, the retcon has been made. However, I think this info would be an interesting addition to the ship's "long and twisted history" in the EU. JimRaynor55 01:44, 22 Nov 2005 (UTC)

• It clearly says "Nebula-class". Cmdr. J. Nebulax 21:29, 22 Nov 2005 (UTC)

So the NEC only states the re-retconned class name, with no attempt to explain why other sources have called it Defender-class? JimRaynor55 22:16, 30 Nov 2005 (UTC)

• Basically, yes. But, since the book shows it as that name, this article should be changed to Nebula-class, along with all the details within the article. Admiral J. Nebulax 22:48, 30 Nov 2005 (UTC)
  • Well heck I didn't edit it to avoid another revert fight, but if there is agreement that it is the Nebula, we should change it. --Lowkey
    • Article has been moved to Nebula-class Star Destroyer. Admiral J. Nebulax 14:40, 11 Dec 2005 (UTC)

A couple of thingsEdit

1.) The paragraph comparing the Nebula-class and Endurance-class to the VicStar and VenStar - I like the basic comparison, but is it necessary? Is it NPOV? Is it even accurate? The VicStar and VenStar were rival designs with very different capabilities in both weapons and performance, whereas what we're dealing with here is a standard Star Destroyer and an almost completely unarmed fleet carrier built on the same hull with the same basic performance...

2.) Is the Intrepid called "flat-hulled"? Or "fat-hulled"? [1]

--McEwok 20:10, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

• Intrepid is fat-hulled. Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax ^{(Imperial Holovision)} 20:13, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
• Victorys and Venators were about equal in power and could do multiple types of missions, according to ROTS:ICS, only one was specialized for carrier duty and the other wasn't. That's a fair comparison with these two classes, even if the Endurance wasn't as well-armed. VT-16 06:53, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Good point. Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax ^{(Imperial Holovision)} 10:58, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Appeared in Spectre of the Past? Edit

At least, according to the article it did. I don't recall any such mention - does anyone have a cite on that?

• When fleets start gathering around Bothawui, the Diamala are said to have sent "Nebula- and Endurance-class warships" to protect it.--69.121.103.218 05:25, July 20, 2010 (UTC)

Endurance carrier? Edit

How is the Nebula similar to the Endurance class? I've looked at the other article and the picture is noo-where near looking like a nebula! Anomaly Master 98 20:28, September 16, 2009 (UTC)

Resolve Edit

It says that the resolve is MAJESTIC CLASS, not nebula...

Defender and Nebula now separate ship classes.Edit

Star Wars: Invasion 14: Revelations, Part 3 has a pair of Star Destroyers, specifically called Defender-class, and using the art from the CTD. One is even named- Dragonsnake.

AdmiralWesJanson 11:34, September 21, 2011 (UTC)

Just because they are specifically called Defender-class doesn't mean they aren't the same thing as the Nebula-class, more evidence is required. Zeta1127 of the 89th Legion (talk) 18:03, September 21, 2011 (UTC)

Two different designs, each now identified as a different class from the other, seems enough to me to say that that the Defenders have been (knowingly or unknowingly) spun off as a definitive separate class from the Nebulas? Home One 05:20, May 16, 2012 (UTC)

Ship Name Italics Edit

Before anyone attempts to revert my edits removing the italics from some of the class names mentioned from the Royal Navy, please read this explanation. Class names are only italicized when they refer to the class leader (the first ship of the class commissioned or laid down, depending on tradition). Ship classes named after a common theme, such as the County-class do not receive italics. This is because italics are reserved only for ship names, and there was no HMS County. Compare this to one of the sub-classes of this ship, the Kent-class, which does receive italics because it is named after one of the ships, namely HMS Kent. This is the standard style guide that is observed even on Wikipedia when referring to real-world ships. Minor issue I happened to come across, and if Wookiepedia has chosen to ignore it intentionally, then feel free to revert. The one092001 07:26, January 29, 2012 (UTC)

• Please see WP:MOS#Class and ship names. JangFett ^(Talk) 07:27, January 29, 2012 (UTC)
  • Actually, that page has nothing listed on the matter at hand. Firstly, it refers to ships from the universe itself specifically, and provides no provisions for real-world ships. Secondly, it notes that the 'canonical' practice should be followed, which for real-life ships would presumably be their real-life traditional manual of style. The very Wikipedia article linked to in the paragraph specifically does not italicize the Duke-class. And thirdly, it also notes that if the ship class does not refer to an actual ship of the class, it is not to be italicized. In this case, the classes are being presented as nouns in a manner almost identical to the example listed on the MOS page. The one092001 08:07, January 29, 2012 (UTC)

EGtW Nebula-class Star Destroyer image Edit

I believe a image of the Nebula-class Star Destroyer from EGtW is needed. There is an image of the Nebula-class Star Destroyer alongside an image of the Endurance-class fleet carrier, as featured in the Endurance-class article infobox, in the section about the New Class Modernization Program. Zeta1127 of the 89th Legion (talk) 04:41, April 23, 2012 (UTC)