MisinterpretationEdit

Could we be misinterpreting the text? Perhaps it was a battlecruiser of Star Destroyer-like weapons, scale, etc., and not a named ship class. --SparqMan 21:05, 30 Dec 2005 (UTC)

• I don't think so. I believe this came from a quote in the comic itself... Admiral J. Nebulax 21:10, 30 Dec 2005 (UTC)
  • As strange as it may seem, this was actually explicitly named in Marvel 22. At first I believed it was simply a reference to 'Star Destroyer-class' meaning 'on the same level as Star Destroyers', but that was a different issue, and then I found this: photo bucket dot com )/albums/a242/CptK/SDCBC.jpg Scene from Marvel 22 VT-16 21:20, 30 Dec 2005 (UTC)
    • It's very interesting. Admiral J. Nebulax 21:24, 30 Dec 2005 (UTC)
      • Technically, a "Star-Destroyer class Imperial battle cruiser" need be nothing more than a fancy name for a Star Destroyer. It's a great help that you're providing all these references to the obscure ships from the early Marvels, but I'm not convinced they should be treated as a series of clearly distinct designs with seperate class-names and entries here. --McEwok 19:36, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
        • Oh, Jebus. Here we go again. —Darth Culator (talk) 20:18, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
          • Yeah. No offense Ewok, but your idea sounds a little looney. -MPK 23:29, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
            • I hate to resurrect this debate, but he definitely has a point, at least as far as this particular line and this particular ship go. Despite the line "Ship approaching. X-wing class." in ESB, Luke's X-wing isn't designated as a separate "X-wing class Starfighter", as it's clearly the same ship as others designated an Incom T-65 X-Wing. Similarly, the line used to erect this article names a class that is essentially the same as an already-known class of ship, and the ship itself is visually similar if not identical to the ship the class is seemingly named after, allowing for artistic interpretation. Look at how Marvel Luke's hair changes length from issue to issue, for example, based on who's drawing him- one issue he has the normal length hair, and in another, I've seen him with longer hair than He-Man... Extra sensor globes is nothing, believe me. In fact, I've seen a panel with a similar if not identical four-globed dagger-shaped ship called an, and I quote, "Imperial Star-Destroyer". Tell me if that sounds like a "Star Destroyer-class Battlecruiser" to you rather than a ImpStar shown through Marvel Star Wars' wonky art direction. Dewback rancher 19:05, May 27, 2010 (UTC)

The MergerEdit

I noticed that several of the old articles of the form "Star Destroyer/Battlecruiser/Thingy (some guy)" redirect here, under the assumption that a lot of these Marvel Star Wars ships which were almost, but not quite, like the regular ISDs were the same class. That's probably correct: I never was big on the idea of every minor variation in the drawings being a whole new class with only one known example. However, if some of our resident fleet experts could revert some of the redirects so that we still have articles on those particular ships, while still identifying them as apparently the same class, that would be helpful. Thanks, —Silly Dan _(talk) 20:01, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

• Ah, like the regular "individual ship" articles? That might be good after all. :) VT-16 21:30, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Yeah, it's better to still have the individual ship articles. Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax ^{(Imperial Holovision)} 19:26, 21 July 2006 (UTC)