Contents 1 General nattering 2 "Star Dreadnought" over "Star Destroyer" 3 header for convenience of editing 4 Splitting off the nomenclature discussion again 5 Picture 6 Sovereign Destruction 7 Picture 8 Picture of Sovereign 9 Sovereign class used by Warlord Zsinj 10 Executor was larger?

General natteringEdit

"Sovereign-class Star Dreadnought was to be the penultimate Imperial warship class" - wanted to check with whoever wrote that to see how you meant to use penultimate. The word means "second to last" - did you mean in size? Was it to be the second to last class of ship produced? I'm not seeing how it would work in there. Please explain. --SparqMan 00:10, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• It wasn't me, but the usage makes sense. The Eclipse was to be the ultimate Imperial warship class, in terms of power, capability, size, and prestige. The Sovereign was designed to excel in all of those areas, but not to the same degree as the Eclipse; thus, penultimate. jSarek 00:26, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • It makes sense: it's a distinctive usage I've seen one or two "Objectivist" (ie very pro-SWTC) fans use before; I don't mind it. But more to the point... do we accept the fan inference that "Star Dreadnought" applies to these ships? --McEwok 01:11, 7 Sep 2005 (UTC)
    • Since the firepower exceeds Executor-class Star Dreadnoughts, I´d say 'yes'. VT-16 11:01, 14 Sep 2005 (UTC)
      • So? The firepower of an Imperial-class Star Destroyer exceeds that of an MC80 Star Cruiser. The "frigates" built by the USN in the '60s and '70s were larger than contemporary destroyers, and some of them employed the state-based naming-pattern traditionally the preserve of battleships: although reclassified as cruisers in 1975, this only serves to prove that warship designation schemes are not fixed according to any one peramenent system. This means that we must base the designations we accord these ships on specific evidence, not, abstract theories. And there is no canon evidence for the Star Dreadnought classification being applied to Sovereign-class or Eclipse-class ships. The latest reference I know of, dating from April, describes the Eclipse and Sovereign as "Star Destroyers", and as larger than "Super Star Destroyers". This may change, or it may not. In the meantime, is there some formal procedure I should go through to propose changinmg these titles round to avoid these pages being headed by a fanon designation, which is the situation at present? --McEwok 13:31, 14 Sep 2005 (UTC)
        • warship designation schemes are not fixed according to any one peramenent system.

Exactly, so next time you complain about Super Star Destroyers being called Star Dreadnoughts, I´ll pull that quote on you. Thanks! VT-16 17:46, 14 Sep 2005 (UTC)

I know that "Star Dreadnought" has now been applied canonically to the Ex-class; but we're talking about Sovereign-class ships here, and Eclipse-class ones in the other thread. Where's your canon evidence for applying the "Star Dreadnought" designation to these classes... without depending on a hypothetical, non-canon extrapolation from the fact that it's one of the designations applied to other classes of similar tonnage? --McEwok 19:21, 14 Sep 2005 (UTC)

• Well, here's something to ponder, McEwok: If an Executor-class Star Dreadnought is, in fact, a dreadnought, wouldn't something larger than it also be considered a Star Dreadnought??? Cmdr. J. Nebulax 19:23, 14 Sep 2005 (UTC)
  • It's been a while since you asked, but not necessarily, no. We don't know that the terminological scheme under which the term "Star Dreadnought" was applied to Super-class ships was in operation when the Sovereigns were designed and built; we don't know that even if the term was in use, it would be appropriate for these ships simply because they're approximately the same size (no-one's going to call an MC80 a Star Destroyer, are they!!); and we do know that "Star Dreadnought" is not part of the standard Imperial classification, within which the Super-class is explicitly identified as a cruiser/Star Destroyer. For these reasons, I'd urge changing the main page here to Sovereign-class Star Destroyer, and similarly for the Eclipse-class; but I'm well aware that this is more contentious than, say, what I did with Supreme Commander: is there a formal way to discuss it with the webmasters?
  • In additon, can anyone give me a canon-evidence citation that the Sovvys are KDY designs? Thanks!! --86.140.249.134 16:21, 3 Nov 2005 (UTC)

Seeing as you asked for it over on the Eclipse page...

'The Sovereign'

Craft: KDY’s Sovereign-class Super Star Destroyer

Type: Super Star Destroyer

Scale: Capital

Length: 15,000 meters

Skill: Capital ship piloting

Crew: 601,670. gunners: 4,075. skeleton: 86,000/+10

Crew Skill: Astrogation 4D+1, capital ship gunnery 4D+1, capital ship piloting 4D, capital ship shields 4D, sensors 3D+1

Passengers: 130,100 (troops)

Cargo Capacity: 400,000 metric tons

Consumables: 5 years

Cost: Not available for sale

Hyperdrive Multiplier: x3

Hyperdrive Backup: x8

Nav Computer: Yes

Maneuverability: 1D

Space: 3

Hull: 11D

Shields: 8D

Sensors:

Passive: 250/2D

Scan: 350/3D

Search: 500/4D

Focus: 70/5D

Weapons

Axial Superlaser

Fire Arc: Front

Crew: 75

Scale: Death Star

Skill: Capital ship gunnery: superlaser

Fire Control: 5D

Space Range: 5-25/75/150

Damage: Gradational Output can fire once every minute at minimum energy (1D Damage). It can also build a charge of 1D per minute up to 8D. Current reactor can only generate 8D total per day.

500 Heavy Laser Cannons

Fire Arc: 200 front, 150 left, 150 right

Crew: 4

Skill: Capital ship gunnery

Fire Control: 2D

Space Range: 3-15/35/75

Atmosphere Range: 6-15/72/150KM

Damage: 8D

500 Turbolaser Batteries

Fire Arc: 150 front, 125 left, 125 right. 100 back

Crew: 2

Scale: Starfighter

Skill: Starship Gunnery

Fire Control: 4D

Space Range: 3-15/36/75

Atmosphere Range: 600-1.5/7/15KM

Damage: 5D

75 Ion Cannon

Fire Arc: 25 front. 25 left. 25 right

Crew: 6

Skill: Capital ship gunnery

Fire Control: 2D+2

Space Range: l-10/25/7>0

Atmosphere Range: 2-20/50/100KM

Damage: 3D

100 Tractor Beam Emplacements

Fire Arc: 55 front, 20 left, 20 right, 5 back

Crew: 5

Skill: Capital ship gunnery

Fire Control: 4D

Space Range: 1-5/15/30

Atmosphere Range: 2-10/30/60 KM

Damage: 6D

5 Gravity Well Projectors

Fire Arc: 3 front, 1 left, 1 right

Crew: 10

Skill: Capital ship gunnery: gravity well projector

Fire Control: 4D

Space Range: l-/15/30

Damage: Blocks Hyperspace Travel

Hope that can be of use to you. :) --Jaymach Ral'Tir 00:19, 4 Nov 2005 (UTC)

"Star Dreadnought" over "Star Destroyer" Edit

From the text: "...one of the largest Imperial warship designs, surpassed only by the Eclipse-class Star Dreadnought and the Executor-class Star Dreadnought". That makes it definitely not a standard Star Destroyer. From the Star Dreadnought page: "...a formal designation for some of the largest and presumably strongest warships in the starfleets of regional and galactic governments". It's a Star Dreadnought. Admiral J. Nebulax 00:09, 7 Jan 2006 (UTC)

• You're citing a Wookieepedia page in support of itself?! You'll have to do better than that, not least because I just reverted again. Your only evidence just ceased to exist. As to the Star Dreadnought page, well... that's another Wookieepedia page... and surely I don't have to point out that just because the term "Star Dreadnought" is applied to some big ships, that doesn't mean it's appropriate to all big ships? --McEwok 00:30, 7 Jan 2006 (UTC)
  • It's at least a Super Star Destroyer. Maybe not a Star Dreadnought, but definitely not a regular Star Destroyer. Admiral J. Nebulax 00:31, 7 Jan 2006 (UTC)
• I've locked the page until you boys figure this out the mature way: by discussing. --Imp 00:32, 7 Jan 2006 (UTC)
  • Thank you for locking it, Imperialles. Admiral J. Nebulax 00:33, 7 Jan 2006 (UTC)
    • It's DEFINATELY not a Star Destroyer, since it's a SUPER Star Destroyer, a slang term for ships larger than Star Destroyers. JimRaynor55 02:02, 7 Jan 2006 (UTC)

---

• Imperiales: There's discussion further up this page, and the last comment came from me, more than two months ago. But if the Admins think more discussion is needed, then that's fine by me....

The basic question is: what should we call the Sovereign-class on Wookieepedia?

1.) Sovereign-class Star Dreadnought? The term "Star Dreadnought" is only formally applied in canon to Prequel-era Mandator-class ships; there is not even a canon reference to "Executor-class Star Dreadnoughts", only the more ambiguous phrase "ultimate Star Dreadnoughts like the Executor" in Inside the Worlds. It is never used in any way of the Sovereign-class, and while it might hypothetically be correct, this suggestion remains at present only a fanon surmise. Comparable size does not automatically define a ship's class, or MC80s would be Star Destroyers; and even if LFL do some day give the Sovereign-class ships a Saxton-style designation, they might define them as, for instance, "Star Battlecruisers".

2.) Sovereign-class Super Star Destroyer? This is, I believe, the term most commonly used in official material: the Dark Empire Sourcebook, which introduced the ship, calls it a "Sovereign-class Super Star Destroyer." It may also be used in other sources. I'd be entirely happy with it. However, Inside the Worlds associates the term "Super Star Destroyer" with "Rebel slang", and some fans are strident in their opinion that this excludes any formal classification of ships as "Super Star Destroyers".

3.) Sovereign-class Star Destroyer? The most recent reference (April 2005) refers to "Eclipse-class and Sovereign-class Star Destroyers". An article at the Databank describes Eclipse and Sovereign as belonging to the "last generation of Super-class Star Destroyers", using an additional class-term which places them in a broad group of large "Star Destroyers". While some fans object to the very wide range of sizes of ship described by the term "Star Destroyer", this is merely their opinion. In an effort to "cap" the size-range denoted by the term, they cite a single source which says that the term "Super Star Destroyer" denotes "many warship classes larger than a Star Destroyer": against their interpretation of this phrase can be cited multiple examples of the term "Star Destroyer" being used on the one hand to denote specifically Imperial-class vessels, and on the other, its being applied to ships up to and including Executor and Eclipse.

In conclusion, then: it is possible that at some future time, a canon source might refer to a ship of this type as a "Sovereign-class Star Dreadnought", "Sovereign-class Star Battlecruiser", "Sovereign-class Star Battleship", "Sovereign-class dreadnought", "Sovereign-class Star Executor" or some other similar term. Until such time as such a source might come into being, however, the only canonical class-designations used for this ship are "Sovereign-class Super Star Destroyer" and "Sovereign-class Star Destroyer". The choice is between these two terms. No other option is currently avaliable. --McEwok 02:27, 7 Jan 2006 (UTC)

• McEwok, enough with your nonsense. "Super Star Destroyer" is a slang term for Star Dreadnought. "Super-class Star Destroyer"s do not exist. And Inside the Worlds of the Original Trilogy is canon. You even said that it could be "Sovereign-class Super Star Destroyer", meaning it's fine here, since "Super Star Destroyer" is slang for "Star Dreadnought". So, enough with thinking you're right at everything you do and leave it alone. Admiral J. Nebulax 12:58, 7 Jan 2006 (UTC)
  • "Super Star Destroyer" is a slang term for Star Dreadnought

Um. It's a term used for ships that can be called by a variety of other terms, from "Star Cruisers" to "ultimate Star Dreadnoughts", probably including "Star Battlecruisers" and other different designations. The actual quote, given in full, says that an an Executor-class ship "is usually referred to in Rebel slang as a "Super Star Destroyer"—a term that covers many warship classes bigger than a Star Destroyer, from Star Cruisers to ultimate Star Dreadnoughts like Executor."

Now, personally, I'm not convinced that this actually excludes usage of "Super Star Destroyer" in more formal contexts than "Rebel slang": the reference to "Rebel slang" implies an in-universe timeframe before the establishment of the New Republic, or else a self-conscious, ideologically-motivated choice of terminology in the narrative voice; either way, we cannot assume in the face of other evidence that "Super Star Destroyer" never came to be used as a formal term, and we should also note that the real-world author Jim Luceno seems to take some delight in wordplay and narrative games. But even if this remark does exclude the usage of "Super Star Destroyer" as a formal designation, the passage implies that the term is applied to ships described by several different designations (one of which may simply have been "Star Destroyer"), and we have no way of saying that "Star Dreadnought" is the particular designation appropriate for Sovereign-class, or Eclipse-class ships.

What we do have, however, are empirical references to ships of this class as "Sovereign-class Star Destroyers" and "Sovereign-class Super Star Destroyers". In the absence of any alternative evidence, we must choose one of these two canon terms for use in the article here. --McEwok 15:00, 7 Jan 2006 (UTC)

• It's definitely not a standard Star Destroyer, so, if you must have your way, move it to "Sovereign-class Super Star Destroyer". But I'm telling you, if the move was needed, it would have been moved a long time ago. Admiral J. Nebulax 15:03, 7 Jan 2006 (UTC)
  • Well, "Star Destroyer" and "Super Star Destroyer" are the terms used in the official storyline. "Star Dreadnought" isn't. I'll leave it up to the Admins to decide between the two canon designations, but, at the risk of repeating myself, I'll point out that "Star Destroyer" is a widely-used canon term for arrowhead-hulled ships much bigger than Imperial-class, including the most recent reference to "Sovereign-class Star Destroyers". --McEwok 15:52, 7 Jan 2006 (UTC)
    • The term "Star Dreadnought" is only formally applied in canon to Prequel-era Mandator-class ships; there is not even a canon reference to "Executor-class Star Dreadnoughts", only the more ambiguous phrase "ultimate Star Dreadnoughts like the Executor" in Inside the Worlds'. Inside the Worlds FLAT OUT says the Executor is a Star Dreadnaught. Ambiguous my ass. JimRaynor55 17:39, 7 Jan 2006 (UTC)
    • It is never used in any way of the Sovereign-class, and while it might hypothetically be correct, this suggestion remains at present only a fanon surmise. Comparable size does not automatically define a ship's class, or MC80s would be Star Destroyers; Size isn't the end all, be all, because the TRUE determinant of type is function and role. Size is RELATED to the kind of functions a ship can perform. The Sovereign is bigger, and BETTER than the Executor. Furthermore, "Star Dreadnaught" is an actual canon type, while calling it "Super Star Destroyer" is using a known slang term.
    • and even if LFL do some day give the Sovereign-class ships a Saxton-style designation, they might define them as, for instance, "Star Battlecruisers". Riiiiight. They would really downgrade a ship which is more massive and completely better than the Executor, and mounts a freaking SUPERLASER. *rolls eyes* JimRaynor55 17:39, 7 Jan 2006 (UTC)
    • ::Now, personally, I'm not convinced that this actually excludes usage of "Super Star Destroyer" in more formal contexts than "Rebel slang": the reference to "Rebel slang" implies an in-universe timeframe before the establishment of the New Republic, or else a self-conscious, ideologically-motivated choice of terminology in the narrative voice; The in-universe motivation of the person in that ITW passage was to clear up confusion from slang. JimRaynor55 17:39, 7 Jan 2006 (UTC)
    • either way, we cannot assume in the face of other evidence that "Super Star Destroyer" never came to be used as a formal term This is a negative. Come back when you have proof that "Super Star Destroyer" WAS used in a formal manner. JimRaynor55 17:39, 7 Jan 2006 (UTC)
    • and we should also note that the real-world author Jim Luceno seems to take some delight in wordplay and narrative games. What does this matter? Should we take note of the fact that the WEG authors didn't know what the hell they were doing? JimRaynor55 17:39, 7 Jan 2006 (UTC)
      • Thank you, JimRaynor. Again, there is no need for a move. "Sovereign-class Star Dreadnought" is perfectly fine, as it is a Star Dreadnought. So, McEwok, just because you think everything you do is right, it's not. Admiral J. Nebulax 17:44, 7 Jan 2006 (UTC)
        • Inside the Worlds FLAT OUT says the Executor is a Star Dreadnaught.

I was under the impression that there was no reference except the remark that the largest SSDs were "ultimate Star Dreadnoughts like the Executor". Feel free to supply additional references to "Executor-class Star Dreadnought(s)" if there are any; if no such references exist, then "ultimate SDD" alone could be simply a rhetorical flourish to give an impression of the size and strength of the largest SSDs: I concede that it may indicate that the Ex-class is now a Star Dreadnought by designation as far as LFL are concerned, but I'd contend that it does not quite prove it, and that it's doubly unreliable when you try to extrapolate that term out to the other SSDs, since the passage clearly indicates that other SSDs are called by other terms.

• • • • • Size isn't the end all, be all, because the TRUE determinant of type is function and role.

No, type is defined by what it's actually called. At present, we have canon references to the Sovvy as a "Star Destroyer" or "Super Star Destroyer". Nothing else.

• • • • • Furthermore, "Star Dreadnaught" is an actual canon type, while calling it "Super Star Destroyer" is using a known slang term.

'"Super Star Destroyer" is said to be a term used "in Rebel slang" in Inside the Worlds; but it's used like a formal term in "Sovereign-class Super Star Destroyer" in the Dark Empire Sourcebook. You will note, of course, that my preferred option has always been simply "Star Destroyer".

• • • • • They would really downgrade a ship which is more massive and completely better than the Executor, and mounts a freaking SUPERLASER.

They're not "downgrading" anything. "They" (the fictional characters, and the continuity people at LFL) can call whatever they want, really. Some day, they might give the Sovereign a designation like Star Dreadnought or Star Battlecruiser or Ultimate Battle Platform; but at present, the canon terms applied to the ship are "Star Destroyer" and "Super Star Destroyer". I assume you can understand this. But if the "slang" nature of "Super Star Destroyer" offends you... didn't "Dreadnought" and "Battlecruiser" originate as informal media terms for the latest battleships and armoured cruisers of the 1900s?

• • • • • The in-universe motivation of the person in that ITW passage was to clear up confusion from slang.

How do you know? It could be that the in-universe motivation was meant to be left ambiguous for the reader, or that Mr. Luceno was imagining a character driving forward a particular agenda within the storyline....

• • • • • Come back when you have proof that "Super Star Destroyer" WAS used in a formal manner.

Are the initial stats with which the ship was introduced (further back on this page) not good enough for you? Do you have proof that "Star Dreadnought" is used as a formal term for anything except the Mandator? Do you have proof that it's appropriate for the Sovvy? Can you deny that "Star Destroyer" and "Super Star Destroyer" are used for the Sovvy?

• • • • • What does this matter?

It matters inasmuch as it reflects on the potential range of meaning for that passage. It's not central to the argument, though.

• • • • • JackNebulax: Thank you, JimRaynor. Again, there is no need for a move. "Sovereign-class Star Dreadnought" is perfectly fine, as it is a Star Dreadnought.

No it isn't. It's a fanon designation with no canon support, but which you happen to like. --McEwok 23:29, 7 Jan 2006 (UTC)23:29, 7 Jan 2006 (UTC)

• "Star Dreadnought" is not a fanon term, McEwok. Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it has to be your way. Why don't you go back to the ship classification talk page and go annoy VT-16 and everyone over there. Star Dreadnought is not fanon, your theories are. So shut up. Admiral J. Nebulax 00:18, 8 Jan 2006 (UTC)
  • I'm well aware that the term "Star Dreadnought" is canon. What's fanon is the claim that it's the appropriate designation for Sovereign-class ships—or Eclipse-class, for that matter... which is the crux of this discussion. --McEwok 00:24, 8 Jan 2006 (UTC)
    • Why wouldn't it be? They're definitely not standard Star Destroyers, as they are far too large to be. That leaves Super Star Destroyer and Star Dreadnought, which are the same. Admiral J. Nebulax 00:27, 8 Jan 2006 (UTC)
• Where exactly does Sovereign-class Star Dreadnought come from? -- SFH 00:46, 8 Jan 2006 (UTC)
  • I'll have to check on that, but I assume it comes from it's size. Admiral J. Nebulax 00:50, 8 Jan 2006 (UTC)
    • Nebulax: They're definitely not standard Star Destroyers, as they are far too large to be.

If the people who decide such things for the Empire (or in the real world, LFL) call them "Star Destroyers", then, yes they are....

• • • That leaves Super Star Destroyer and Star Dreadnought, which are the same.

"Super Star Destroyer"—a term that covers many warship classes bigger than a Star Destroyer, from Star Cruisers to ultimate Star Dreadnoughts like Executor"...?

• • • SFH: Where exactly does Sovereign-class Star Dreadnought come from?

At guess, SWTC? I think Saxton changed it from "command ship" after ItW settled on "Star Dreadnought" for Ex, but there's certainly no canon reference calling a Sovvy a "Star Dreadnought". --McEwok 00:54, 8 Jan 2006 (UTC)

• If you must, move it to "Sovereign-class Super Star Destroyer", or even "Sovereign-class Star Cruiser". But again, why wasn't it moved previously? Admiral J. Nebulax 00:56, 8 Jan 2006 (UTC)
  • Okay, I found this. While the "Imperium Ultra-class Star Destroyer" does not exist, and the fact that it comes from a fan site, it shows the (supposed) canon and proportional sizes of the Eclipse-class and the Sovereign-class. If the smaller Sovereign is really the actual size of it, it proves it's a Star Dreadnought. However, I doubt this, but I thought I'd bring it to everyone's attention. Admiral J. Nebulax 01:13, 8 Jan 2006 (UTC)

---

Let me ask all of you one simple question: With a size and mass comparable to an Executor-class dreadnought, enough firepower to break though shields that the Executor could not, and an intended use similar to the Executor, what is the Sovereign more like: a dreadnought or a destroyer? VT-16 02:47, 8 Jan 2006 (UTC)

• A Star Destroyer. I call it that quite comfortably, as a matter of fact, for one simple reason: Star Dreadnought was not the official title, but the slang title. Every source outside the Inside the Worlds books use Super Star Destroyer instead of Star Dreadnought. EXAMPLES: in The Swarm War, on page 223, the hive ships used by the Killiks were said to be the size of a Super-class Star Destroyer, italicized as though Super was the proper term. And to consider SSD "Rebel Slang" is innacurate as well. Gilad Pellaeon, in the novel Dark Tide II: Ruin, on page 239, was informed by a subordinate that the Legacy of Torment was the size of a Super Star Destroyer. Pellaeon himself called the Knight Hammer a Super Star Destroyer in Darksaber, on page 155. Certainly a high ranking Imperial officer such as Pellaeon would use the proper designation, instead of the slang used by those who destroyed the New Order. And when the Databank refers to the Executor, it calls it a Super Star Destroyer, not a Star Dreadnought. VT-16, do you really want to say that ALL of those sources are inacurate? Are you seriously comfortable with that? Because I am unwilling to dismiss several years of canonical sources just because a few reference books say Star Dreadnought. -- SFH 03:33, 8 Jan 2006 (UTC)
• I wasn't asking about it being called a Star Destroyer or Super Star Destroyer, and as there is no contradiction between all these terms, I'm not focusing on their canonicity. I was asking about what kind of ship it most resembled, a dreadnought or a destroyer. VT-16 11:24, 8 Jan 2006 (UTC)
  • It resembles a Star Dreadnought. If it has the firepower, meaning a superlaser, to crack a planet's crust, it's not a standard Star Destroyer. Admiral J. Nebulax 13:02, 8 Jan 2006 (UTC)
    • With a size and mass comparable to an Executor-class dreadnought, enough firepower to break though shields that the Executor could not, and an intended use similar to the Executor, what is the Sovereign more like: a dreadnought or a destroyer?

Well, your evidence that it's a "dreadnought" is its similarity to the so-called "Executor-class dreadnought"; this term is your own extrapolation from a reference to the largest Super Star Destroyers as "ultimate Star Dreadnoughts like Executor", which could simply be rhetorical. Referring to G-canon... let's look at what Executor is called in the scripts:

ESB

• "Darth Vader's Star Destroyer" (2 times)
• "Vader's Star Destroyer" (16 times)
• "Vader's Imperial Star Destroyer" (2 times)
• "the huge Imperial Star Destroyer" (1 time)
• "Star Destroyer" (1 time, dialogue)

RotJ

• "Super Star Destroyer" (7 times, 1 in dialogue)
• "Vader's Star Destroyer" (2 times)
• "Star Destroyer" (2 times)
• "(the) command ship" (3 times, dialogue)
• battleship (1 time; term also used for what appear to be Corellian corvettes in RotJ, and for ships including ISDs in ESB)

In both films, the term "Star Destroyers" is also used consistently, both in dialogue and script, to indicate Ex together with her Imperial-class consorts.

So, if Executor is a Star Destroyer... I guess Sovereign is too.

• I was asking about what kind of ship it most resembled, a dreadnought or a destroyer.

It looks to me like a very large Star Destroyer. That's also what it's called in canon, as you well know.

• If it has the firepower, meaning a superlaser, to crack a planet's crust, it's not a standard Star Destroyer.

No, it's a very large Star Destroyer.

The way I see it, it's a straight choice between:

1.) terms that are used to designate this class in canon

2.) terms that are not used to designate this class in canon

Clearly, fans personal opinions differ over which term is appropriate, and obviously, I have a POV on this; but I honestly can't understand how a fan theory can take priority over canon usage here. If there's a dispute, surely the canonical use of "Star Destroyer" and "Super Star Destroyer" to describe the ship is the deciding factor. --McEwok 03:27, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

---

None of your arguments mean anything other than to show that it's in the 'Star Destroyer' design family, which is says in the article already. These ships, along with the Eclipse-class, carry more weight and firepower than any Executor-class vessel. Since the term 'Star Destroyer' is used for a wide variety of ships, it serves no real purpose when specifying what kind of warship something is. "Star Destroyer" would make readers think it's a destroyer, since it has that word in it. "Star Dreadnought", or just "dreadnought" after the name, would connect these ships with similar craft, like the Mandator-class, Executor-class and even the Eye of Palpatine, all having "dreadnought" as part of their classification. I do thank you for providing a source for ISDs being used as battleships, although I'm not sure about that interpretation of Corellian corvettes as battleships, seeing as they are.. corvettes... VT-16 12:50, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

• I do thank you for providing a source for ISDs being used as battleships, although I'm not sure about that interpretation of Corellian corvettes as battleships, seeing as they are.. corvettes...

Happy to help! I'm not sure that the "dozen small Corellian battleships" are necessarily Corvettes, but those are the only Corellian ships in the establishing shots of the Rebel fleet; they are "small", and "battleship" can be a generic for "warship"...

• None of your arguments mean anything other than to show that it's in the 'Star Destroyer' design family, which is says in the article already.

Well, that's your opinion. Personally, I thought the fact that variants of "Star Destroyer", and only variants of "Star Destroyer", are used in canon to describe ships of this class was fairly compelling....

• Since the term 'Star Destroyer' is used for a wide variety of ships, it serves no real purpose when specifying what kind of warship something is.

The most important thing is that the Sovvy is called a Star Destroyer. Even if the term is ineffective at specifying what kind of warship she is, it's still the term that's used - and on the topic of whether the term is effective, I presume you understand the range of ways in which "Super-class Star Destroyer", "Sovereign-class Star Destroyer", and "Super Star Destroyer" are used just fine: the only problem is that it disagrees with an abstract non-canon model that you like.

• "Star Destroyer" would make readers think it's a destroyer, since it has that word in it. "Star Dreadnought", or just "dreadnought" after the name, would connect these ships with similar craft, like the Mandator-class, Executor-class and even the Eye of Palpatine, all having "dreadnought" as part of their classification.

You're assuming that the average reader's perceptions of the are dictated by an awareness of a terminology that was starting to sound old in the 1920s (when "dreadnaught" faded out and "battleship" came back in). To the casual fan, "Dreadnought" might suggest 600m ships; to the casual non-fan, it might suggest World War I, and black-and-white photos of Edwardian ironclads lumbering along beneath clouds of coal-smoke. To the casual fan, "Destroyer" might suggest ISDs and Ex; to the casual non-fan, it might suggest modern combat warships, and destruction. There is no prima facie reason why "dreadnought" implies "better than destroyer".

• Your denial of this canonical term for the Executor will of course be ignored, as it is based on nothing but personal opinion.

Uhh, the person who's doing the ignoring here is you... sure, the Ex is called an "ultimate Star Dreadnought" once; but does that mean she's an "Executor-class Star Dreadnought"? Perhaps, but not necessarily. You could call WW-II era battleships "ultimate ships of the line like Iowa", but that doesn't mean they're Iowa-class ships of the line. And there's a whole lot more evidence in favour of Ex being a Star Destroyer than there is in favour of her being a Star Dreadnought.

"But", I hear you protest, "Star Destroyer is a silly term for such big ships - it violates all rational classification". Well - I put it to you that that's precisely the point: these are insanely huge for their designation; in fact, they're insanely huge by any sense.

Which is scarier, which a better expression of the New Order's rule-through-fear philosophy - a staid, stately Star Dreadnought, or a monstrously upscalled Star Destroyer, bigger than any dreadnought ever built, casually violating expected order and imposing a new meaning on the very words and thoughts we use? --McEwok 16:25, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

• they are "small", and "battleship" can be a generic for "warship"...

No, that is your assumption, as is the assumption that the ship talked about are the CR90 corvettes seen in the film.

• Personally, I thought the fact that variants of "Star Destroyer", and only variants of "Star Destroyer", are used in canon to describe ships of this class was fairly compelling....

Not if they seem to imply the same roles for Imperial and Executor-class vessels, as both ships are wildly different in both design, firepower and serve different purposes.

• the only problem is that it disagrees with an abstract non-canon model that you like.

Since when did proper ship-characterization become an abstract and non-canonical concept? This is a site meant to "educate" people on SW and hopefully concepts used in that universe relative to ours, that's what I'm interested in. You can lobby for a change back to "Star Destroyer" in this and the Eclipse article, but the text itself should reflect the ship's functions and any RL basis for which the ships would be modelled after.

• Uhh, the person who's doing the ignoring here is you... sure, the Ex is called an "ultimate Star Dreadnought" once; but does that mean she's an "Executor-class Star Dreadnought"? Perhaps, but not necessarily. You could call WW-II era battleships "ultimate ships of the line like Iowa", but that doesn't mean they're Iowa-class ships of the line.

First of all, don't respond to deleted text.

Secondly, both terms are in the article, and the "Star Dreadnought" term actually narrows the use of Executor vessels further down than "Star Destroyer", as it's been consistently shown in the role of a heavily armed battleship rather than a destroyer. (Which is why your "ships-of-the-line" analogy isn't appropriate) And as I don't feel like underestimating the intelligence of the readers, I chose to link this class with very similar types of ship, namely the Sovereign and the Eclipse, therefore giving them the same naming pattern. If you feel compelled to change them into "Star Destroyer" in each respective title, fine, but don't cut out anything from the articles themselves, as you've had a habit of doing before...

• And there's a whole lot more evidence in favour of Ex being a Star Destroyer than there is in favour of her being a Star Dreadnought.

Well, broadly speaking, most of everything the Empire has in terms of dagger-shaped warships are considered "Star Destroyers", so I don't see what you're getting at here. Of course, if you're suggesting that the Executor is a destroyer and not a heavily armed battleship (i.e a dreadnought), then you'll excuse me if I find that rather silly.

• Which is scarier, which a better expression of the New Order's rule-through-fear philosophy - a staid, stately Star Dreadnought, or a monstrously upscalled Star Destroyer, bigger than any dreadnought ever built, casually violating expected order and imposing a new meaning on the very words and thoughts we use?

Since "destroyer" is connected to "destruction" and "dreadnought" might mean "has no fear" (having English as a second language, I'm not sure if this is the correct interpretation of the word), it's hard to say, though the second sounds more omnious.

However, I don't like this assumption that the "cooler" name gets to decide what the ship in question is or what it does. Changing "corvette" into "battlecruiser" doesn't mean the ship automatically gains bigger or more guns or heavier armor or that it can magically travel further or faster when it's engines stay the same. VT-16 18:53, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

• I'm fine with the move now. Admiral J. Nebulax 21:31, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

header for convenience of editingEdit

First of all... I'm really sorry this reply is so long!

• No, that is your assumption, as is the assumption that the ship talked about are the CR90 corvettes seen in the film.

I think it's slightly more than that: CR90s are the only ships shown in RotJ that can be equate with the "small Corellian battleships" of the script; if the specific shot in question shows a formation of them, then the identification seems IMHO very likely.

• Not if they seem to imply the same roles for Imperial and Executor-class vessels, as both ships are wildly different in both design, firepower and serve different purposes.

This is a point on which people disagree. IMHO, the Executor is simply a very large Star Destroyer - an arrowhead-hulled Imperial warship which can serve as a command ship, front-line combat warship, planetary assault platform, and starfighter carrier. Yes, she is an insanely large Star Destroyer, carrying more firepower than almost any rational situation would require - but that, I think, is a large part of the point. Did Vader need to take a ship the size of Manhattan to Bespin in ANH? No, but he got greater impact that way.

• Since when did proper ship-characterization become an abstract and non-canonical concept?

There is no such thing as "proper ship-characterization". Words are flexible things, that can change their meaning - and the use of terms like "frigate" and "destroyer" in the real world is a prime example of this.

• This is a site meant to "educate" people on SW and hopefully concepts used in that universe relative to ours, that's what I'm interested in.

This, I think, cuts to the heart of the problem. You are interested in connecting concepts (and terminology) used in SW and the real world. At base, what you are saying is that you are replacing canon terminology with the real-world terminology that you believe to be more appropriate. I would criticise this approach, for three basic reasons:

1.) Wookieepedia is supposed to be based on canon evidence from an in-universe point of view. Therefore, real-world parallels are secondary to the terms used in the story.

2.) There is no single consistent real-world system or classification in this context

3.) Even if neither of the above was true, you cannot assume that you are right about where the parallels are.

• You can lobby for a change back to "Star Destroyer" in this and the Eclipse article, but the text itself should reflect the ship's functions and any RL basis for which the ships would be modelled after.

Well, I know of no evidence that Executor, Eclipse and Sovereign have "any RL basis" whatsoever: such evidence that there is suggests that they were concieved of primarily within the context of Star Wars - as huge Star Destroyers:

Darth Vader's Star Destroyer, larger and more awesome than the five Imperial Star Destroyers that surround it, sits in the vastness of space - the Executor is introduced in the ESB script.

A Star Destroyer of prodigious proportions bursts into view over the Pinacle Moon - the Eclipse appears for the first time in DE.

These examples would seem to indicate that both Ex and Eclipse were concieved from the start as massive Star Destroyers; as I understand it, your objection to this is based on two posits:

1.) The name of a Star Destroyer suggests an equation to a real-world "destroyer".

2.) A real-world destroyer is a relatively small ship.

If these assumptions were correct, then you would argue that the term "Star Destroyer" would be inappropriate for much larger ships, and that a term for relatively larger ships should be preferred.

But let's look at the historical context for the origins of the term "Star Destroyer". In its earliest recorded appearance in the early draft scripts for Star Wars, the term "Stardestroyer" was applied to small two-man starfighters, the latest of whch is the first draft, dated July 1974; the term is first used for capital ships in the second draft, dated January 28, 1975. At this time, the US Navy's surface-combat fleet consisted of:

escorts - still popularly known as "destroyer escorts", and using DE hull-numbers.

destroyers

frigates - these had evolved out of "destroyer leaders" and still used DL hull-numbers.

cruisers - all but one of which were old ships from World War Two, largely in the process of being scrapped.

All new or planned building consisted of escorts and destroyers. The revival of the "cruiser" designation could not have then been anticipated. The "destroyer" was, I would suggest, the standard large surface warship in the real-world context of the early 1970s when the term "Star Destroyer" was created. In short, real world parallels do not indicate that a "Star Destroyer" must be a relatively small warship. Even if we look at real-world parallels, the only larger have been cruisers; outside the USSR, this term has only been used for the propagandist renaming of large destroyers and frigates (a reminder in itself that much of real-world naval terminology is decided on a whim or for resonance).

But... all this is essentially irrelevant. Even if the term "destroyer" was limited to small ships in reality, and even if the mile-long Star Destroyers of SW were relatively small and weak compared with other true combat warships in SW, that wouldn't necessarily mean that the Empire couldn't choose to build some really massive ships in the same style, and retain the Star Destroyer name for them. All the evidence is entirely consistent with the hypothesis that that was what George, ILM, and the EU authors intended with massive order-of-magnitude-too-big "Star Destroyers" such as Executor, Eclipse and Sovereign.

• First of all, don't respond to deleted text.

My sincere apologies. I'd begun to reply earlier, and hadn't noticed that change. I will, if you wish, remove that particular reference.

• Secondly, both terms are in the article, and the "Star Dreadnought" term actually narrows the use of Executor vessels further down than "Star Destroyer", as it's been consistently shown in the role of a heavily armed battleship rather than a destroyer. (Which is why your "ships-of-the-line" analogy isn't appropriate)

If you're talking about the Sovvy, I don't see the term "Star Destroyer" in the main body text of the article, and strictly speaking, she hasn't strictly been shown in any role. As to the Ex, while she can certainly function as a massively powerful warship fighting other capital ships, this is only one part of her role; all in all, I would argue that she fulfils the same role as a Star Destroyer, although she is far larger than the standard Imperial-class ships, fleet-sized rather than the size of a Star Cruiser.

• And as I don't feel like underestimating the intelligence of the readers, I chose to link this class with very similar types of ship, namely the Sovereign and the Eclipse, therefore giving them the same naming pattern.

I'd say you're overestimating the casual reader's knowledge of the more obscure EU sources and the niche debates that go along with them. The idea that these three types should be "linked" with the "Star Dreadnought" designation is simply your opinion as a fan. Moreover, the only justification for applying the term to any of these ship is the solitary reference to "ultimate Star Dreadnoughts like the Executor, which is hardly a formal class designation.

Speakingf or myself, I'm happy to present the evidence and opinions as neutrally as possible, and let the reader make up his or her own mind. As part of this, I think that only formal terms actually applied to a particular ship-type in canon should be applied to it in the "in-universe" section.

• If you feel compelled to change them into "Star Destroyer" in each respective title, fine, but don't cut out anything from the articles themselves, as you've had a habit of doing before...

Are you now saying that you're prepared to allow changing the title to Eclipse-class Star Destroyer and Sovereign-class Star Destroyer"? If so, thank you. However, I would contend that everything I've removed/rewritten from the text itself has also been fanon. There seems little point removing the term from the header and leaving it in the text.

• Well, broadly speaking, most of everything the Empire has in terms of dagger-shaped warships are considered "Star Destroyers", so I don't see what you're getting at here.

That's exactly what I'm getting at. "Star Destroyer" is a term that's used widely in canon, and variations on "Star Destroyer" are the only terms used in canon for Sovvy and Eclipse. Anything anyone might think about them possibly being something other than some sort of "Star Destroyer" is simply a fan hypothesis.

• Of course, if you're suggesting that the Executor is a destroyer and not a heavily armed battleship (i.e a dreadnought), then you'll excuse me if I find that rather silly.

Of course that's not what I'm saying: what I will say, though, is that you're insisting on defining "destroyer" according to a comparison with a "heavily-armed battleship" that is is fifty years out of date; fifty years before that, "destroyers" were small, fast ships bult for the specialised purpose of destroying torpedo-boats, and HMS Dreadnought was still being built. Of course, Executor isn't designed to function as a destroyer relative to far larger "heavily-armed battleships", but nor is the Arleigh Burke. Naval terminology changes over time.

• Since "destroyer" is connected to "destruction" and "dreadnought" might mean "has no fear" (having English as a second language, I'm not sure if this is the correct interpretation of the word), it's hard to say, though the second sounds more omnious.

Well, let me say that your English is excellent. But to my ear, "destroyer" sounds more aggressive and modern, though neither name was chosen simply for its meaning: "destroyer" is a contraction of "torpedo-boat destroyer", while Dreadnought was a specific name (like Executor or Chimaera in SW) given to a number of successive ships in the Royal Navy over the centuries; it was chosen for HMS Dreadnought in 1906 and thus was adopted as a generic term for subsequent battleships designed along similar lines. I'll add that in the real world, "destroyer" remains in contemporary use, while "dreadnought" is long out-of-date.

• However, I don't like this assumption that the "cooler" name gets to decide what the ship in question is or what it does. Changing "corvette" into "battlecruiser" doesn't mean the ship automatically gains bigger or more guns or heavier armor or that it can magically travel further or faster when it's engines stay the same.

That wasn't what I was saying at all. It's not about the "cooler" name. It's about the fact that the SSDs are insanely large "Star Destroyers", a violent insult to the expectation that such ships should be ~900-1600m long - the very thing that annoys you, in fact.

To close, I propose a basic rule of thumb: if a particular designation isn't specifically used in canon for a particular class of ship, we can't say with certainty that it is right, and we should stick with the terms that are used. What, if anything. would be your problem with that? --McEwok 21:12, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

• Most of your argumentation seems to center around the term "Star Destroyer" and why it should be used along with "Super Star Destroyer" when there is no other IU alternative. That's fine for a title, but when you start to critizise the analysis done with using terms from both RL and IU sources (battleship, battlecruiser etc.) I take offense to this. It's one thing to say they are outdated in RL use and that the biggest ships today are destroyers and cruisers (of which there is little relative difference anymore), which is both true, but in the universe of SW some of these historic terms are still relevant and I try to reflect this in my writing.

Now, fortunately, recent discoveries have shown me even more of the complexities of SW designations, and so I've added these where they are appropriate (with Giel's battleship, for instance). You may not agree with this, but it's used in official sources and that's what I'm using where appropriate (for instance, Giel's ship was never called an SSD or SD, so the nearest official term available would be battleship). This term is used for the Empire's largest vessels, as well as for Victory and Imperial-class vessels, presumably when they operate as head ships in fleets consisting of smaller ships. (Again, this is reinforced by official writings on Imperial fleet structure.) In other fleets, such as the Confederate and the Alliance, this term is also used for the largest vessels available, so it's pretty much consistent in the different fleets, even though the size and capabilities of each vessel compared with each other may vary. (Another parallel to RL navies.)

Battlecruiser, another obsolete term here in reality, also sees use within several different fleets, pointing to a still relevant type of warship in the SW galaxy (and it makes sense, when most oppositional forces often consist of ships weaker than the battlecruisers themselves, thus pointing to the historical use of the ships that had battleship-level firepower but not their armor. Unlike RL navies, the Galactic Empire would seldom see an opponent with similar levels of naval power and therefore this kind of warship would still serve a purpose.)

With most of post-80s EU being influenced by RPG sources whom mostly concentrated on smaller scale conflicts and quests, I find it refreshing to see some newer stories once again using terms and designs that go beyond the standard 600-1000m "cruisers". This is one of the reasons why I don't like minimalization, and why I can't understand people who have no fondness for big numbers or concepts (and sometimes wanting no-one else to have it either). I'm not saying you're one of these people, but I've had this pervading feeling that any kind of reference to RL subjects or terms in these articles (however canonical they may actually be) have constituted a "threat" to you in some way. Which makes working on these articles more tiresome than interesting, because they get fought, questioned and scrutinized more than any other type of article on this site.

And if you're wondering, no, I'd rather not remove the title from the Executor page, regardless of how many or how few times it's been mentioned (nice argument btw, pitting one term that's been used for decades against another, relevantly recent one and declaring the oldest as an automatic winner...) "Star Dreadnought" has been part of an official designation for two classes (Mandator I and II), and mentioned in direct reference to the Executor itself. That does not constitute "vague" or "uncertain" in any way. You might go down that slippery slope and say "Star Dreadnought" might not be part of the Mandators names either, since they were only mentioned a couple of times as well! Now, I hope you see how this can be turned and twisted around endlessly, which is not what I or anyone else want. Put "Star Destroyer" back in the Eclipse and Sovereigns titles, since that's their only official names and, yes, the titles should reflect this. VT-16 23:21, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

• It would be helpful if we knew the Mandator I and Mandator II sizes. Admiral J. Nebulax 00:20, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
  • The Mandator II can withstand an assault of up to 1000 Recuscant destroyers, that's about all we know about it. Has to be a ship of some considerable power to do that. Either way, the title can be changed, so someone tell the admins to unlock the article, please. VT-16 07:44, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

• Most of your argumentation seems to center around the term "Star Destroyer" and why it should be used along with "Super Star Destroyer" when there is no other IU alternative. That's fine for a title, but when you start to critizise the analysis done with using terms from both RL and IU sources (battleship, battlecruiser etc.) I take offense to this. It's one thing to say they are outdated in RL use and that the biggest ships today are destroyers and cruisers (of which there is little relative difference anymore), which is both true, but in the universe of SW some of these historic terms are still relevant and I try to reflect this in my writing.

Well, this is where we disagree. You're "taking offense", it seems to me, because I'm disagreeing with your personal opinion. Now, I respect your argument as a credible fan theory, a well-thought-out "personal canon"; but ultimately, it's nothing more than that. In technical terms, I don't share your belief that an abstract framework can 'override' other terms, and on the specific topic to hand, I question whether the terms you use are either appropriate or necessary designations for these massive Star Destroyers. Now up to a point, that's just my POV, and I certainly wouldn't take offense if it wasn't your personal preference; but, what it comes down to is that there are certain designations/terms used in certain ways in canon, and anything beyond this is more or less arguable. "Star Dreadnought" is a canon term, but it's not (at present!) applied to the Sovvy or Eclipse. That's why I regard it as inappropriate here. Your opinion that it should be applied because it's (arguably!) used for similar ships is just that... your opinon.

• Now, fortunately, recent discoveries have shown me even more of the complexities of SW designations, and so I've added these where they are appropriate (with Giel's battleship, for instance). You may not agree with this, but it's used in official sources and that's what I'm using where appropriate (for instance, Giel's ship was never called an SSD or SD, so the nearest official term available would be battleship).

Umm... again, that's fan-theory. There is no direct evidence to link the term "battleship" with Giel's flagship. Just because a term is canon in itself doesn't mean that you can apply it to a ship that it's not specifically applied to just because it seems about right to you. If that was the case, I might as well rewrite the Battle Dragon page calling them "Hapan Dreadnaughts".

As to the specific question of whether Giel's flagship is a "battleship"... perhaps you missed the nuance because you're a second-language English-speaker, but the reference you found to "larger battleships" doesn't necessarily imply a contrast between smaller Star Destroyers and larger battleships; it could indicate a wide designation of "battleships" within which Imperial-class Star Destroyers are smaller, and other ships are relatively larger. And even if it did imply "battleships" as a distinct larger class, it wouldn't show that Giel's ship was one!

Unfortunately, this means that Giel's flagship is currently designationless, and until such time as a canon designation appears, I'm not sure what's wrong with Admiral Giel's flagship, which is what she's called in canon.

• This term is used for the Empire's largest vessels, as well as for Victory and Imperial-class vessels, presumably when they operate as head ships in fleets consisting of smaller ships. (Again, this is reinforced by official writings on Imperial fleet structure.) In other fleets, such as the Confederate and the Alliance, this term is also used for the largest vessels available, so it's pretty much consistent in the different fleets, even though the size and capabilities of each vessel compared with each other may vary. (Another parallel to RL navies.)

Do you have any direct evidence for the idea that the "battleship" designation is limited to "head ships" or "the largest vessels available"? That would be fine as personal canon, but unless you have any evidence, it's only fan-theory.

• Battlecruiser, another obsolete term here in reality, also sees use within several different fleets, pointing to a still relevant type of warship in the SW galaxy (and it makes sense, when most oppositional forces often consist of ships weaker than the battlecruisers themselves, thus pointing to the historical use of the ships that had battleship-level firepower but not their armor. Unlike RL navies, the Galactic Empire would seldom see an opponent with similar levels of naval power and therefore this kind of warship would still serve a purpose.)

The main problem with this is that there's no evidence that any of the "battlecruisers" we see are on a scale that would exclude SD-sized ships being "battleships". Even the Procurator need only be twice the length of an ISD (potentially with a much less bulky hull), and the term is applied to 700m Majestic-class ships, which are built to fulfil something close to a battlecruiser role against larger Star Destroyers.

• With most of post-80s EU being influenced by RPG sources whom mostly concentrated on smaller scale conflicts and quests, I find it refreshing to see some newer stories once again using terms and designs that go beyond the standard 600-1000m "cruisers". This is one of the reasons why I don't like minimalization, and why I can't understand people who have no fondness for big numbers or concepts (and sometimes wanting no-one else to have it either). I'm not saying you're one of these people, but I've had this pervading feeling that any kind of reference to RL subjects or terms in these articles (however canonical they may actually be) have constituted a "threat" to you in some way. Which makes working on these articles more tiresome than interesting, because they get fought, questioned and scrutinized more than any other type of article on this site.

It's no "threat" to me at all. What it is, though, is fan hypothesis. You're assuming that terms that "go beyond" cruiser are relevant for the 'contemporary' world of movie-era SW (why should they be?), and you're expressing a personal opinion about "minimalization" (a pejorative term that suggests that mile-long battleships are small rather than ten-mile-long ones being really, really big). I do think that the various POVs and issues should be addressed, but what I object to is that people interested in the depth and complexity of Star Wars might be misled as to the (often ambiguous and always incomplete!) nature of the canon evidence.

I'd be entirely happy to have an in-universe terminology section with a note along the lines of: Although variants of 'Star Destroyer' are the only terms recorded in extant sources to describe these ships, they were exponentially larger than standard Imperial-class ships, and in terms of scale, they can be seen as successors to the massive Star Dreadnoughts of the Kuati defense fleet in the last decades of the Old Republic.

• And if you're wondering, no, I'd rather not remove the title from the Executor page, regardless of how many or how few times it's been mentioned (nice argument btw, pitting one term that's been used for decades against another, relevantly recent one and declaring the oldest as an automatic winner...) "Star Dreadnought" has been part of an official designation for two classes (Mandator I and II), and mentioned in direct reference to the Executor itself. That does not constitute "vague" or "uncertain" in any way. You might go down that slippery slope and say "Star Dreadnought" might not be part of the Mandators names either, since they were only mentioned a couple of times as well!

There's a difference. "Mandator-class Star Dreadnought" is a formal designation, explicitly provided in a canon source; "ultimate Star Dreadnoughts like the Executor"... isn't.

• Now, I hope you see how this can be turned and twisted around endlessly, which is not what I or anyone else want.

I know. Both of us can put together arguments, and I'm happy for both those arguments to appear in Behind the Scenes sections; but the arguments are fan hypotheses, extending beyond canon. That's why I'm proposing that, when dealing with formal terminology, we should limit the in-universe sections to the in-universe terms that are explicitly recorded. The moment we have a direct canon reference to an Executor-class Star Dreadnought or an Eclipse-class Star Dreadnought, I'll be happy (in a reluctant this-is-an-unneccessary-and-problem-causing-retconn sort of way) for Wookieepedia to reflect that fact. But in the mean time, I suggest something like the passage in bold above to resolve the issue - plus, of course, material in Behind the Scenes alluding to the disagreement.

• Put "Star Destroyer" back in the Eclipse and Sovereigns titles, since that's their only official names and, yes, the titles should reflect this.

You're sure? Thank you. --McEwok 14:27, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

• Since there is no size-limit to battlecruisers compared with battleships, I don't see where you're going with this. And battleship is a term used canonically to refer to ships from Victory-class and upwards, with no room for battlecruisers unless explicitly stated so. Furthermore, since you're not willing to include canonical sources that don't agree with you in this discussion, and instead refer to them as "fan theory", this conversation is over. VT-16 16:10, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

• Since there is no size-limit to battlecruisers compared with battleships, I don't see where you're going with this.

I'm not sure what you mean by this, so I don't know what you're objecting to - are you saying that the difference between a real-world battlecruiser and battleship was basically to do with the speed/armour/firepower balance rather than size?

• And battleship is a term used canonically to refer to ships from Victory-class and upwards, with no room for battlecruisers unless explicitly stated so.

Did you find the reference identifying VSDs as "battleships"? I've missed it if you posted it - though I like it! That said, I'm not aware of any quote explicitly stating VSDs as the smallest battleships - there's also that RotJ script reference to "small Corellian battleships", and I need to check to see if the relevant screenshot really does show CR90s.

• Furthermore, since you're not willing to include canonical sources that don't agree with you in this discussion, and instead refer to them as "fan theory", this conversation is over.

I'm not excluding canon sources. I'm trying to establish the difference between canon evidence and fan interpretation.

But all that's ultimately irrelevant to this page now: am I right if I think the basic discussion relative to this page is over and done with? --McEwok 23:26, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

• If you mean by changing "Star Dreadnought" to "Star Destroyer", yes. Admiral J. Nebulax 23:28, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Actually, the EGTVV calls the ship "Eclipse-class Super Star Destroyer". We already know what the SSD term really is, and the same book calls the Executor "Super Star Destroyer" and "Super-class Star Destroyer." Is there even one mention of "Eclipse-class Star Destroyer?" JimRaynor55 02:23, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

• The WOTC article calls it just Star Destroyer.
• I'm not sure what you mean by this, so I don't know what you're objecting to - are you saying that the difference between a real-world battlecruiser and battleship was basically to do with the speed/armour/firepower balance rather than size?

No, what I'm saying is that battlecruisers came to occupy an area inbetween cruisers and battleships, without clear boundaries. It's like with frigates, occupying a wide area inbetween corvettes and destroyers. The main point was they were armored to withstand assaults by ships smaller than them (from cruisers and downwards) but not from other battlecruisers or battleships. Size is still an issue, since they had to be bigger than cruisers (even if only a little) but could occupy a wider size-range. Seeing different sized Imperial battlecruisers would therefore not be strange, and with the Imperial obsession with building bigger vessels than ever before (something which seem to only happen in the CW/GCW era, before the Empire's decline) a wide size range is guaranteed.

• That said, I'm not aware of any quote explicitly stating VSDs as the smallest battleships - there's also that RotJ script reference to "small Corellian battleships", and I need to check to see if the relevant screenshot really does show CR90s.

That's preposturous, Corellian corvettes were known as corvettes for years before ROTJ, and the novelization describes other vessels not seen in the film, so why should these Corellian battleships be explicitly connected to CR90 corvettes? But go on, grasp for those straws all you like. And the ISD is only a battleship in sector operations where it is the largest vessel, as per the "Operations" part of the "Imperial Navy" article. Which came from books that only described engagements limited to a sector, where ISDs were the biggest ships involved. Larger operations, like the debacle with Giel's armada, the blockade of the entire Gordian Reach Sector or Death Squadron's hunt for Rebels are not mentioned at all. All of which had larger vessels present and where ISDs functioned in a cruiser/destroyer role.

• I'm not excluding canon sources. I'm trying to establish the difference between canon evidence and fan interpretation.

It is not fan-interpretation, it is called "reading the actual source". You don't like something, you label it "fanon". That signals the end of any further discussion. VT-16 08:58, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Splitting off the nomenclature discussion againEdit

• What's the deal with "Sovereign-class "Super Star Destroyer""? "Sovereign-class Star Destroyer" is fine. Admiral J. Nebulax 21:26, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • According to the "Behind the Scenes" section of this article, the source that defined this ship, the DESB, called it "Super Star Destroyer." Slang term that it is, it's more accurate than simply "Star Destroyer" (the casual usage of this term in some sources doesn't conflict with it being a SSD), which ITW placed size limits on. JimRaynor55 22:02, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
    • I don't recall seeing it defined as a Super Star Destroyer in the DESB. Nonetheless, "Star Destroyer" should remain. Admiral J. Nebulax 23:24, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
      • The article itself currently states that the DESB called it Super Star Destroyer. I'm all for sticking 100% to canon, and that's what it's called. It also wouldn't contradict ITW, which placed limits on the size of a Star Destroyer, at less than that of a Star Dreadnaught like the Executor. I know McEwok's agenda, and the recent moving of this article, and the Eclipse one to just plain old "Star Destroyer" plays right into it. They're not Star Destroyers, they're something larger, which is Super Star Destroyers (slang term that it is, this moving was done on the logic of sticking 100% to stated canon). JimRaynor55 16:18, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
        • Speaking strictly for myself, if we can't call Eclipse and Sovereign what they are (which I feel is a "star dreadnought" even if they haven't been explicitly named as such), then I don't care much one way or another. They've been officially referred to both as "super star destroyer" and merely "star destroyer," (Eclipse is referred to as SSD and SD on opposite pages of the NEGVV, both are called SSD in their DESB stats and called SDs in the inset comparison chart) so either one is fine with me. I only got into an argument with the anon on the VIP page because he was being an ass. If he had been reasonable about it from the start, I wouldn't have gotten involved. Except for certain things that could affect my life in the real world, I tend to be neutral on virtually any issue until one side starts being more dickish than the other. —Darth Culator (talk) 17:02, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
          • Still, Super Star Destroyers and Star Dreadnoughts are Star Destroyers. Admiral J. Nebulax 20:26, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
            • Going purely on canon evidence, it seems like every pointy Imperial ship from Victory-class on up is a Star Destroyer, and every one from Allegiance/Gauntlet-class and up is a Super Star Destroyer. This does not seem like an intelligent system. —Darth Culator (talk) 20:45, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
              • Exactly. But, Super Star Destroyers are simply larger Star Destroyers, and Star Dreadnoughts are larger Super Star Destroyers, which are larger than Star Destroyers. But no matter what the name, they are all Star Destroyers, as they share the same basic design of a Star Destroyer. Admiral J. Nebulax 20:49, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
                • In the Star Wars Handbook #3: Dark Empire the Eclipse II is called a "super Star Destroyer" (note the lower-case 's'). I'm not sure what to make of that, they called it "Star Destroyer" in its name, and added "super" to it? Or, it's simply meant to be 'SSD' and they made a typo. :P Either way, Imperial ships from Demolisher and up have been called "Star Destroyers", so that's not an issue. The issue is simply dividing the various SDs into additional designations. And since "Star Dreadnought" is a term used for larger vessels of a kind similar to the Executor, it should at least be mentioned as an alternative in the article. Funny how it could stand as part of the article-name for over half a year without complaints, doesn't seem like the serious problem it's made out to be... VT-16 21:36, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
              • This does not seem like an intelligent system

An understatement if I've ever heard one. The "Imperial Classification System" has ships from 90m up to 150-200m as "corvettes", ships from that up to 400m as "frigates" and suddenly "cruiser" occupies everything from 400m up to 19 000m. Now, I give WEG the benefit of the doubt in this matter, because that system was made by them prior to the Dark Empire saga, when most of the larger Imperial vessels really were either Victory, Imperial or Executor (Super) class. The problem really started when sources following that began referencing many intermediate designs (on both sides of the conflict). I do think if the ship classification system was made by WEG today, they would have taken this into account. Still, having other authors pick up where they left off should be good enough. From one set of fanboys to another, right? ;P VT-16 21:45, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

It's not intelligent, but more intelligent explanations exist, in canon. WEG already explained that the definition of cruiser was "loosened" (rather ridiculously) because the ships that the Old Republic deemed as cruisers were put to shame by Star Destroyers. ITW says that Star Cruisers and Star Dreadnaughts are bigger than Star Destroyers (which means that Star Destroyer isn't a no-limit term), but that a lot of large Imperial ships are called Super Star Destroyer in slang. Combining this information (as we should go for an all-inclusive theory, rather than picking one source above another) with all the times the Executor or Eclipse has been called a Star Destroyer (in non-technical context, I may add), it's not that hard to say that all those times might have been using slang, referring to those big ships as "Star Destroyer" because they were Super Star Destroyers. JimRaynor55 23:04, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

• Nonetheless, they are all forms of Star Destroyers, are they not? Admiral J. Nebulax 00:56, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • I think what JimRaynor55 meant was that no, they're not all Star Destroyers, and that the slang-term "Super Star Destroyer" is sometimes shortened down to "Star Destroyer", which leads to mentions of the Executor and the Eclipse as "Star Destroyers", in slang. I don't agree with this assumption, even though it's more logical than "Star Destroyer" being both a term for Imperial destroyers and Imperial dagger-shaped ships in general. Can't remember which ICS said it, but I recall the mention of "multi-mile" Star Destroyers, and since the Allegiance was less than two miles long yet still called a SSD, the "SD as general term" would apply here, with the "multi-mile SDs" being Star Cruisers/Battlecruisers/Battleships etc. VT-16 09:28, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Oh. Thank you. Admiral J. Nebulax 20:27, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Picture Edit

We need a better picture. The current one is terrible.--General Antilles 22:36, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

• Unfortunately, there isn't a better one. An actual image of a Sovereign has never been made. The best picture you can get is one with an outline only—like this one. Admiral J. Nebulax 23:25, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

oh.--General Antilles 23:51, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

• You're not the only one who wants a better image; trust me. Admiral J. Nebulax 23:54, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Sovereign DestructionEdit

If I remember correctly, weren't the 4 Sovereigns under construction not at Byss in the first place?

• Probably, but it is unknown what happened to them. Admiral J. Nebulax ^(talk) 02:29, 17 March 2006 (UTC)]
  • They were more than likely under construction at Kuat. The NR probably scuttled them. --Danik Kreldin 07:22, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
    • I think that they were at Byss, but still, their fates are unknown. Admiral J. Nebulax ^(talk) 21:02, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Picture Edit

There's been mentioned that you want a better image. There's a Homeworld 2 mod for Star Wars that's almost 100% complete, down to the fighters (including the Vong). It includes this class, rendered completely in 3D. —Unsigned comment by 216.196.78.63 (talk • contribs).

• That would be considered fanart though, and we can only use official pictures. -- I need a name (Complain here) 13:18, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Exactly. And for the record, there are no canon pictures of the Sovereign-class Star Dreadnought except for the current image. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax ^{(Imperial Holovision)} 14:09, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Oh,man you gonna be kidding me... There are articles about non-cannon things, so don't say that a 4 cm x 7 cm picture would make any trouble. Anyway, non-canon ships are the same at appearance like canon. And if it is not offical? does it matter? it made after the offical comic pictures and etc.

Picture of Sovereign Edit

There's a web site with a picture of the sovereign although I dont think its official but it comes close to what it will look like. "http://hangarbay.tripod.com/td-sovereign.html". Thats the web site so go check it out and see if that comes close to it or not. —Unsigned comment by 62.77.249.34 (talk • contribs).

• First, always sign your comments. Second, that is a very nice looking image. And it is fanart and therefore has no place here. Thanks. - JMAS ^{Hey, it's me!} 14:53, October 17, 2009 (UTC)

Sovereign class used by Warlord Zsinj Edit

Thats pure rubbish man, the sovereign-class super star destroyer was never used by Zsinj during his campaign against the new republic. Even the thought of its use by Zsinj is pure Fanon. —Unsigned comment by Truthtoseek (talk • contribs).

• 'Fanon': "used to refer to non-canon commonly confused as canon or to fan-made Star Wars fiction"
• 'Canon': "in terms of a fictional universe, is a body of material that is considered to be "genuine" or "official""
• The Complete Star Wars Encyclopedia: "a book written by Steve Sansweet and Pablo Hidalgo. Bob Vitas, Dan Wallace, Chris Cassidy, Mary Franklin, and Josh Kushins are also contributors for the compendium. It is the second edition of the Star Wars Encyclopedia"
• Star Wars Encyclopedia: "a 1998 reference book published by Del Rey Books and written by Stephen J. Sansweet, the director of content management at Lucasfilm and science fiction author"
• Tell me, which one of these definitions best fits fans rejecting things they don't like? -- I need a name (Complain here) 12:30, April 20, 2010 (UTC)
  • From The Complete Star Wars Encyclopedia, Volume III, page 180: Sovereign. A Super Star Destroyer used by Warlord Zsinj. Other planned ships in the line included the Autarch, the Despot, and Heresiarch. Proof that the information is correct and valid, from a recent source. - Cavalier One^{(Squadron channel)} 12:34, April 20, 2010 (UTC)

Executor was larger? Edit

It was obviously longer, but in terms of net mass and volume, the Sovereign certainly must be the larger of the pair. 71.233.11.177 04:06, July 13, 2011 (UTC)