Forum:TC:Super Star Destroyer (pre-Yavin)

Forums > Trash compactor archive > TC:Super Star Destroyer (pre-Yavin)

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was delete. Toprawa and Ralltiir 20:13, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Super Star Destroyer (pre-Yavin) (talk - history - links - logs)

This one's pretty straightforward. This article is based on the assumption that the referenced "Super-class Star Destroyer" in the novel Death Star is somehow a different ship class than the actual Super-class Star Destroyer. Simply put, the novel is making a reference to what has since become known as the Executor-class Star Dreadnought using one of the most well-established terms in continuity. A reference to a "Super-class Star Destroyer" is a reference to a Super-class Star Destroyer. Nothing more. This isn't a new ship class.

In case we need further evidence of this well-established terminology proving that this is not another ship class, the Death Star excerpt from which this article is derived (Note that the novel takes place roughly 1-2 BBY): "Tenn hoped to be transferred, one day, to one of the four new Super-class Star Destroyers that were currently being built." The same paragraph goes on to refer to these four ships by the universal "SSD" abbreviation.

This reference to the four SSDs under construction is in fact drawing upon information originally created by West End Games, which is presented in a number of sources:

  • From Galaxy Guide 3: "The Executor is the first of four Super-class Star Destroyers."
  • From The Essential Guide to Vehicles and Vessels: "While only four Super Star Destroyers were in service by the Battle of Hoth..."
  • From the "NewsNets" feature in Adventure Journal 12, concerning the Executor's public unveiling ceremony: "Three additional Super-class Star Destroyers are in their final phases of construction..."

There are other similar mentions in other sources, but I think that the point is made. This is a reference to the Executor-class, not a new class. Delete the article and merge any relevant information to the Executor- and Super-class articles. Toprawa and Ralltiir 05:10, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Delete/Merge

  1. Toprawa and Ralltiir 05:10, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
  2. Looks silly to me. Mauser 09:19, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
  3. Grunny (Talk) 09:22, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
  4. Cylka-talk- 09:26, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
  5. SoresuMakashi(Everything I tell you is a lie) 10:06, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
  6. Grand Moff Tranner Imperial Department of Military Research (Comlink) 11:11, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
  7. I need a name (Complain here) 14:18, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
  8. Sounds to me like he's referring to either the fictitious Super-class, or the actual Executor-class ships. Any inaccuracies in the description of them probably stems OOU from authorial error or loose description, and IU from character error. —Silly Dan (talk) 14:53, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
  9. Green Tentacle (Talk) 18:35, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
  10. Here's hoping this is continuing a trend. . . Beyond ridiculous. -- AdmirableAckbar (Talk) 18:43, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
  11. There should be a rule against articles like these, its could get out of hand. MecenarylordEnter if you dare 20:57, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
  12. Graestan(Talk) 01:57, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
  13. IFYLOFD (Come with me if you want to live.) 23:17, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Keep

  1. The description of the design itself is markedly different from the actual Executor-class. If anything, these vessels under construction seem more like updates on the Sarlacc Project than the Executor-class. Which was a Super Star Destroyer from before the Executor's time, remember? And the Executor was at least built separately from KDY's facilities, thanks to The Force Unleashed. We also know from several sources that the Super-class term is used from everything from the Executor to the Eclipse, Sovereign, Megador etc. But I'm sure you checked that out before making your argument... VT-16 14:33, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
  2. I, for one, agree with VT-16. Master JonathanJedi Council Chambers 03:08, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Comments

Let me just comment on the ridiculous use of original research and suppositions made by T&R on this issue. The entire paragraph of "evidence" presupposes that his conclusions are obvious and that in itself should be taken as evidence. You're using outdated sources from the WEG to prove... outdated sources from the WEG era. You don't take into account the absolute disconnect of the Executor's history, revised as it is, that has nothing to do with any 12,8-16km vessels, armed with only one heavy battery, and built at KDY. None of which matches the Executor.

If you can actually counter my objections that are listed above, and preferably draw upon the Death Star authors' own quotes, I would actually take you seriously. The Inside the Worlds of the Star Wars Trilogy specifies that "Super Star Destroyer" was a term for several different ship types larger than Star Destroyers, of which the Executor-class was the "ultimate" by the Battle of Hoth. Death Star describes four 12,8-16km long vessels being built at Kuat Drive Yards, which a) doesn't match the Executor-class size, b) doesn't match the Executor's history. Even without those there's the 12km Sarlacc Project vessel from decades before Yavin (Dawn of Defiance) and the Star Battlecruisers and Star Dreadnaughts from decades before that again (Attack of the Clones Cross-Secions, The Complete Star Wars Encyclopedia).

So I ask: Where is the actual relevant information? What are you trying to prove? I have sourced and written in several articles how Super-class Star Destroyer is used for a variety of classes, just like SSD. Your entire line of argument is to say "it isn't, I can see it isn't, therefore it isn't and people on this site agree, so it isn't". That's not convincing, and it's strange to see people posting without actually looking at the evidence. VT-16 07:16, 11 March 2009 (UTC)