Talk: Allegiance-class battlecruiser/Archive1

Back to page |
< Talk:Allegiance-class battlecruiser
Wiki-shrinkable

This is the talk page for the article "Allegiance-class battlecruiser/Archive1."

This space is used for discussion relating to changes to the article, not for discussing the topic in question. For general questions about the article's topic, please visit Wookieepedia Discussions. Please remember to stay civil and sign all of your comments with four tildes (~~~~). Click here to start a new topic.

VT-16 - you do realise that I suggested the "Gauntlet Star Destroyer"="Gauntlet-class" possibility, right? :¬p *good-humoured chuckle*

But, just on technicalities: how clear is it that Allegiance is a GSD? And aren't you putting a lot of weight behind the implications of that one line on Star Cruisers in ItW, because you think it supports your opinion... where someone like me would argue that that opinion might be in contravention to all the rest of the canon?

Not asking you to change it, just to consider why you think she should be a SC rather than an SD. Personally, I would argue that what makes a SC a SC could equally be that (going by WEG) they are less oriented to all-out attack for their size, and lack the dagger hull; hence the SC/Ex contrast. --McEwok 14:09, 16 Dec 2005 (UTC)

  • Yes, that's where I first saw it, and the irony is not lost on me, I can tell you that.=P
I'd say the term for these Imperial ships that are slightly bigger than ISDs yet still in the SSD-range is as conservative as I could get it, given all sources involved. I also mentioned all three official terms relevant and avoided pulling the "SSD as slang only" argument, as I don't really support that notion. From my point of view, the sub-class upon sub-class definitions work quite well, as they never contradict the older WEG-inspired sources, nor do they leave doubt when people talk of SSDs, as there's so many different types floating about. Basically, in this case, Star Destroyer-line ---> Super Star Destroyer-line ---> Imperial Star Cruiser works out well in describing the class, as the ships are not big enough to compete with Imperial battlecruisers and battleships (who's only real difference amongst themselves, is that BCs have less armor and more enginepower than BSs to make them faster), yet they're not small enough to be counted as 'destroyers' in the same way as Imperial-, Venator- and Victory-class ships. VT-16 14:35, 16 Dec 2005 (UTC)
    • Heh! *grins and bows* ;)
Three points:
1.) I guess I'm just not convinced that "Star Cruiser" is anything to do with size at all. By inference, at least, you could argue that there's no scaling implication in the SC/SD contrast, but that Star Cruiser=attack/defence balance, TLs disposed around the hull, and Star Destroyer=attack-oriented design, dagger hull, no aft battery. With regard to this, I'm trying to find where the oft-cited association of SDs with a forward-blast "alpha strike" comes from.
1b.) I'd argue that potentially, "Super Star Destroyer" can cover a large number of large ships, including Star Cruisers (which aren't really Star Destroyers), large Star Destroyers (the category I'd place the GSDs in), and perhaps some ships that at lesat some people might think of as SDDs, such as the Ex (although I think she's really a large SD by design).
2.) Where's there any evidence for how Star Battlecruisers Star Dreadnoughts differentiate from each other, as opposed to rl "battlecruisers" and "dreadnoughts"?
3.) I think even the Iron Fist is called an "Imperial destroyer" in Courtship of Princess Leia. I'll check!!
As ever, no malice meant, just thoughts. *note to self: to get on better with people, don't edit from the hip* :p --McEwok 17:15, 16 Dec 2005 (UTC)
      • 1.) In all navies, both RL and in SW there's a measure of scale and power associated with different terms, that's why we have these terms in the first place, so different warships can be seperated from one another. Then there's the issue of the different companies and cultures using different standards (which is something I intend to add to once the ship classification page is re-opened) and that's how you get Mon Cal Star Cruisers smaller than Imperial Star Destroyers, and Imperial Star Cruisers even bigger in turn. The only contentious bit is that ISDs can fullfill several roles, including operating independently, which makes them destroyer/cruiser hybrids. This is actually similar to modern-day destroyers, so that's another connection to RL navies. ;)
I'd even go so far as to say that while ISDs are destroyers with cruiser (and carrier) characteristics, the Gauntlets are cruisers with destroyer characteristics (being little more than up-scaled ISDs).
2.) Well, the only mention of power is the Mandator II dreadnought compared with Recusant destroyers, 1000:1. And the Praetor battlecruiser reactor being picked out of a derelict hull and used to power Echo Base. The Executor trumphs both of these, and its a dreadnought as well. The only other means we have of knowing are the Latin names and their designations. And if you're not going to use that, then I don't see the point in giving any warships in SW designations, since they'd be meaningless anyway.
A 'destroyer' is a fast and maneuverable yet long-endurance warship intended to escort larger vessels in a fleet or battle group and defend them against smaller, short-range attackers (originally torpedo boats, later submarines and aircraft). At the beginning of the 21st century, destroyers are the heaviest surface combatants in general use, with only two nations (the United States and Russia) operating cruisers and none operating battleships or battlecruisers.
In military terminology, a cruiser is a large warship capable of engaging multiple targets simultaneously. Historically they were generally considered the smallest ships capable of independent operations — destroyers usually requiring outside support such as tenders — but in modern parlance this difference has disappeared.
This is basically the ISDs in a nutshell, note also how the last sentence fits with the ISDs as presented and how one of the few means left to tell destroyers apart from cruisers is their size. Which also fits in with the Imperial/Gauntlet relationship. :)
As an aside: In naval warfare, a battleship was the most powerful gun-armed, most heavily armored and most effective type of warship at any particular time. In the CW-era, this would be the Mandator II for the Republic and the Lucrehulk for the Confederacy. In the GCW, we had the Executor for the Empire and the Home One type for the Rebels. VT-16 18:04, 16 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Can somebody tell me which issue and page # "Gauntlet Star Destroyers" appears on? JimRaynor55 18:40, 16 Dec 2005 (UTC)

  • Issue 5 of DE II, on page 14, when Zalla and Co. flee Byss, past Palpatine's Galaxy Gun. VT-16 18:53, 16 Dec 2005 (UTC)
    • Oh, shoot. I look over to the beginning of issue 3 and what do I see?
A gauntlet of Imperial warships now stands watch over all inbound traffic
"Let them go. If their code passes the gauntlet scanners I'll notify dockside security to detain them for questioning."
"You are cleared to enter the gauntlet, Salvager Three!"
Hmm, now what? It's still a funny way to talk about ships, though...=/
Gauntlet-class ships maintaining a security gauntlet? No stranger than Imperial-class ships fighting for the Empire.=P VT-16 19:18, 16 Dec 2005 (UTC)
  • Could someone explain to me how the line "a gauntlet of Imperial warships" is sufficient evidence to call these ships Gauntlet-class? It seems to me that this is just a way of describing the group of ships. If it said "a squadron of Imperial warships," I wouldn't jump to call them "Squadron-class Star Cruisers." The "gauntlet scanners" line also more than likely just refers to the scanners of the group of ships- there's no reason in this context to prefix with the class name. MarkAD 17:11, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  • It's conjecture, not the actual name, so why does it matter now? If they are ever given a canonical name, the article will be moved. Admiral J. Nebulax (talk) 20px 17:14, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  • If it said "a squadron of Imperial warships," I wouldn't jump to call them "Squadron-class Star Cruisers."
Congratulations, you've just showed the stupidity inherent in certain class-names, like the Imperial-class (because it's an Imperial destroyer, of all things...)
The conjectural name started with the awkward writing in Dark Empire II, where it sounded like the ships were named that way. Like I said, it's the exact reasoning that led to the Imperial-class, and since it's conjectural, who cares? If they get a proper name in somewhere, then good, it will be moved there. VT-16 23:07, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Some Ewok thoughts, with regard to what VT-16 said above

Firstly, it's only hypothesis that the MC80 is a "Star Cruiser" by Mon Cal designations; and even if that was originally the case, isn't possible that the Mon Cal usage has affected general understanding of the term... of course, you can argue these points either way, but that just highlights the point: we don't know for sure how the "Star" system works in canon.

More importantly, though: naval terminology evolves. In the real world, the continuing Russian use of kreyser for all its larger surface warships, prompted the USN to preserve the "cruiser" designation by the sleight of reclassifying ships that were originally designed as "frigates" and "destroyers". On the other hand, the Royal Navy had to save one new missile cruiser, HMS Bristol, by redesignating her as a destroyer when the government decided to scrap all cruisers - and no matter what you call her, Bristol was actually smaller than the County-class destroyers which preceded her!

So one of only two ships designed as a cruiser outside Russia since 1945 (the other was USS Long Beach) actually served her entire operational life as a destroyer, and was actually shorter on the keel (albeit beamier and heavier) than the destroyer class which had preceded her...

In other words, there's no rule that says that cruisers have to be larger than destroyers, and certainly not in Star Wars; the proposed USN DD(X), at 600', looks set to be larger and heavier than the Ticonderoga-class cruiser, which is "really" just a big destroyer anyway. If you insist that there should be a hierarchy of scale, consider the "frigate" designation; this was revived 1943 by the RN for a new mid-sized escort type, and broadened in 1950 to be the designation for all RN escorts. Also in 1950, however, the USN revived the term independantly for large guided missile ships, and only in 1975 did the USN fall into line with the RN: Russia, since the 1960s, has had no "frigate" or "destroyer" designations, but simply korabl`, "warship", for all ships smaller than a kreyser.

There is no strict "measure of scale and power associated with different terms". The way designations are deployed in Star Wars should, IMHO, be inferred entirely from the empirical evidence, not from any abstract pattern of the sort that SWTC presents. And while I'm not saying you're definately cast-iron wrong in your inference (the "truth" is after all only a distillation from lots of people's inconsistent fantasies), I do disagree with your interpretation, on what I think are reasoned grounds...

I agree with you on the GSD, though—right down to the=p!! --McEwok 00:24, 17 Dec 2005 (UTC)

  • There is thus no warrant for saying that Star Destroyers are necessarily smaller than "cruisers"
I am aware that designations are subject to changes and revisions in RL and in SW. Judging from the POW of the GCW-era described above, Imperial Star Cruisers were bigger than Imperial Star Destroyers, says right there, in ITW:OT and CLOSW. Whether someone likes these sources or not, is irrelevant. The Mon Cal 'Star Cruiser'-system is a different beast altogether (most likely the Mon Cals follow the older official system more closely, due to the Empire's massive expansion of both fleets and ship-sizes, leading to re-evaluation of ship-types), where not all "Star Cruisers" are cruisers, similarly to not all "Star Destroyers" being destroyers. But that's a debate for another time. VT-16 00:32, 17 Dec 2005 (UTC)
  • not from any abstract pattern of the sort that SWTC presents
I fail to see why you brought up that site, since I haven't said anything about it. I guess it's just your little way of being an attention-whore, as usual. VT-16 00:37, 17 Dec 2005 (UTC)
    • Imperial Star Cruisers were bigger than Imperial Star Destroyers, says right there, in ITW:OT and CLOSW
Not necessarily! (I edited the specific line you picked up on, btw; I felt it was a bit pompously put, so it's now there's no rule that says that cruisers have to be larger than destroyers).
I'm not sure what CLOSW is, but the way I see it is that ItW doesn't strictly say more than that some Star Cruisers (doesn't actuall say they're Imperial!) are larger than "a Star Destroyer", and accordingly called "Super Star Destroyers". For all we know, this could be a "Rebel slang" term for Home One!!
Now bearing in mind the evidence for smaller Star Cruisers (eg Mon Cals) and large ships being called "Star Destroyers" (especially the Executor-class, but also Eclipse, Sovereign, GSDs, the EX-F, and Wermis and Tagge's ships), there's IMHO no proof of an SD/SC size-discrepancy. I don't say you have to agree with me, though!! --McEwok 00:41, 17 Dec 2005 (UTC)
On your second point; in truth, I'd much rather we could find forms of words for the articles here that everyone was happy with! Perhaps it was unneccessary of me to mention SWTC, but it has been central to popularizing the fanon idea that Star Cruisers are larger than Star Destroyers. Would you be happier if I said: "The way designations are deployed in Star Wars (and the limits of what we can pretend we "know" about the fictional GFFA) should, IMHO, be inferred entirely from the official publications, not from abstract patterns in sources that aren't part of SW canon"?
Ultimately, what I'm saying is that you can believe SCs are bigger than SDs; but you can't prove it, and I can offer an alternative which I (personally) think fits better. So what then? --McEwok 00:49, 17 Dec 2005 (UTC)
      • Not necessarily!
Have there ever been non-Imperial ships called 'Super Star Destroyers'? No? I didn't think so. VT-16 01:04, 17 Dec 2005 (UTC)
      • there's IMHO no proof of an SD/SC size-discrepancy
Dark Empire I & II. Allegiance and her class.
You know what? Fuck you. I am never, EVER, going to respond to a single post you make in ANY discussion from now on. Doesn't matter if its ship-related or not, I'm simply going to ignore any problem you might have with something, even if there's an answer I know of. I have no need to further waste my time with debating with a blithering idiot like you. VT-16 01:09, 17 Dec 2005 (UTC)
        • Have there ever been non-Imperial ships called 'Super Star Destroyers'?
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. In "Rebel slang", I'd imagine the usage might be quite loose. *shrugs* I'm not saying it is, but I'm saying it's possible.
And, of course, that cuts the other way as well. We don't know that Allegiance and the GSDs aren't called Star Cruisers. Personally, you are 100% entitled to believe that they are. But we don't have any evidence that they are. We do, however, have plently of evidence to call them simply Star Destroyers!
All we really know about larger SCs is that, according to the author of ItW, some "Star Cruisers", larger than "a Star Destroyer", are among the bottom-end ships called "Super Star Destroyers" in "Rebel slang". Which could mean several things, right? --McEwok 01:17, 17 Dec 2005 (UTC)
  • Correct, McEwok. While I don't have enough time to read over the whole discussion, I have read only a bit of it, and I believe McEwok has a very good point here. Admiral J. Nebulax 01:26, 17 Dec 2005 (UTC)
No, he doesn't. Star Cruisers are round, while Star Destroyers are all dagger-shaped? Never mind the fact that he completely pulled this out of his ass. If Star Cruisers aren't even the same general shape as Star Destroyers (which must be a certain shape, by McEwok's definition), then why the hell would they be called "Super Star Destroyer" in slang? We KNOW that size plays a part in whether something is a Star Destroyer, since ITW said that SSD is used for ships larger than a Star Destroyer (in general, no class name or other modifier). Not to mention the CANON fact that the Bakura-class is designated as a Star Destroyer, when it's definately not dagger-shaped. I've gone over all of these facts a MILLION times before with McEwok. He's just being stupid and repetitive here. JimRaynor55 01:34, 17 Dec 2005 (UTC)
  • I missed some of that, then. Now that I have read more over, I agree with JimRaynor. McEwok is being "stupid and repetitive". Admiral J. Nebulax 01:37, 17 Dec 2005 (UTC)
  • The Bakura-class is just called a destroyer, not a Star Destroyer. Except according to Cracken's Threat Dossier, which also claims the Namana-class light cruisers are smaller escort ships for the Bakura-class destroyers, even though the Corellian Trilogy specifically establishes the Namana-class Intruder as being more powerful than its escorts, the Bakura-class destroyers Watchkeeper, Defender, and Sentinel. As with many things (likely including, given the book's track record, the pictures of the Bakura-class destroyers, which despite being a single class look like 3 different designs), CTD is wrong on so many levels that I'm sure it's destined to become S-canon, or maybe even N-canon. 68.47.234.131 01:50, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Charming!=p ;)

In reply to what JimRaynor55 said...

1.) The difference I'm suggesting is to do with how WEG dispose their guns: Star Destroyers typically have strong bow and flank fire arcs, and a weak aft fire-arc with no heav TLs, as distinct from most other "cruisers", which have weapons more evenly arranged around the hull. The distinctive weakness of aft TLs is still found in the Bakura-class Star Destroyer, and while they don't have sharp-edged triangle-hulls, I'd say they still have pointy blade-shaped hulls, at least inasmuch as we can say anything for sure within the limitations of CtD's pictures. However, all this is simply a hypothesis of mine, to show how a non-scale-based SD/SC division might work. It doesn't affect the rest of my argument at all.
2.) A single passing reference to SSD describing ships "larger than a Star Destroyer" need not indicate a precise, "hard" limit on the size of ships called "Star Destroyers" (note in contrast multiple references to "Star Destroyer" as a term for ships up to and including the largest in the Empire); it could simply be a vague way of saying "larger than an ISD".
3.) Similarly, there's no size limit on SCs: all ItW says is that, some "Star Cruisers", larger than "a Star Destroyer", are among the bottom-end ships called "Super Star Destroyers" in "Rebel slang". As I said already.

Does that change your mind at all, Nebulax? Or can you at least see where I'm coming from here? Or, failing that, can you tell me where and why you think I'm wrong?! --McEwok 02:14, 17 Dec 2005 (UTC)

  • The Defender-class Star Destroyer has its heavy weapons distributed evenly, with an equal amount covering the rear. So much for your "theory" that Star Destroyer means that the ship ignores covering the rear. You're desperately grasping for straws, and you know it.JimRaynor55 02:36, 17 Dec 2005 (UTC)
  • If you don't like the ITW quote, then you have to deal with it. We already know that the Executor and other large ships are only called "Super Star Destroyer" in slang, and that "Super-class Star Destroyer" is a FAKE class name that is applied to the Eclipse and Sovereign-classes as well. ITW was trying to clear up slang in that quote, and flat out put limits on the term "Star Destroyer" can cover. JimRaynor55 02:36, 17 Dec 2005 (UTC)
    • Good catch on the Defender. It's an exception to the rule, obviously - but also the most modern "Star Destroyer" we know much about. It doesn't disprove the hypothesis that the basic difference between "destroyer" and "cruiser" design is one of weapons arrangement; we've seen a shift towards a scale-based differentiaton (in which Star Destroyers are bigger than cruisers) for thirty years by the time they enter service...
    • If SWTC reflects Curtis Saxton's POV, then he's clearly prepared to dismiss or redefine SW terminology according to personal taste; the ItW definition of "Super Star Destroyer" seems superficially to follow this pattern. You choose to accept the passage in terms of what you evidently believe; I point to (a.) what a sneaky sort Jim Luceno seems to be, (b.) the fundamental ambiguity of language, and (c.) oodles of other canon evidence to say (1.) I don't have to agree with you; (2.) on current evidence, your POV amounts to opinion, well short of proof. I don't deny you your right to interpret the ItW passage according to your "personal canon"; I merely contend that I can do exactly the same thing, and that you cannot foist your interpretation on others (or on Wookieepedia) when the canon evidence doesn't categorically and explicitly endorse it. Your opinion should be given the space it fully deserves as an opinion; but it shouldn't be confused with canon. --McEwok 03:06, 17 Dec 2005 (UTC)

"Good catch on the Defender. It's an exception to the rule, obviously - but also the most modern "Star Destroyer" we know much about. It doesn't disprove the hypothesis that the basic difference between "destroyer" and "cruiser" design is one of weapons arrangement;" What rule, you deluded weirdo? I repeat: You completely pulled that out of your ass. If the defining characteristic of a Star Destroyer is a high concentration of weaponry in the forward arc at the cost of the rear arc, then the Defender-class would not have been designated as a Star Destroyer from the start. JimRaynor55 05:09, 17 Dec 2005 (UTC)

"You choose to accept the passage in terms of what you evidently believe;" No, I choose to see exactly what was stated. There is a size limit on Star Destroyers in general, deal with it. You're the one who's desperately grasping for straws in an attempt to adhere to your own twisted, narrow view of SW canon. JimRaynor55 05:09, 17 Dec 2005 (UTC)

  • If the defining characteristic of a Star Destroyer is a high concentration of weaponry in the forward arc at the cost of the rear arc, then the Defender-class would not have been designated as a Star Destroyer from the start
No. If the defining characteristic of a Star Destroyer in SW was at one stage a high concentration of weaponry in the forward arc at the cost of the rear arc, then the DSD would represent a modification/evolution of the meaning of the term. Anyway, it's just a hypothesis of mine, nothing more. I'd missed the DSD's stats, and I'm grateful to you for pointing them out.
  • There is a size limit on Star Destroyers in general
No. A strictly literal interpretation of the semantics of one particular comment would imply that there was; but there are far more official publications where a similarly strictly-literal reading would imply that the term Star Destroyer remains appropriate for far larger ships, including the largest warships in the GFFA.
Perhaps we can take this from a different direction: tell me why, beyond the fact that you think the ItW quote implies it, you think that Star Cruisers "must" be larger than Star Destroyers? --McEwok 14:23, 17 Dec 2005 (UTC)
  • Well, McEwok, we are pretty much fed up with your "hypothesis", as you can tell. Maybe if you wouldn't have bothered posting this in the first place, everyone wouldn't be pissed off at you. Admiral J. Nebulax 14:31, 17 Dec 2005 (UTC)
  • No. A strictly literal interpretation of the semantics of one particular comment would imply that there was
Similar to the strictly literal interpretation of the WEG-based Imperial system you like citing as absolute, you pitiful bullshitter? VT-16 15:40, 17 Dec 2005 (UTC)
  • It seems that everyone here rather dislikes McEwok's "hypothesis". I hope he gets the hit to knock it off. Admiral J. Nebulax 19:14, 17 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Chee

I don't know the protocol for Leland Chee questions, but any chance we could get his interpretation of the all-caps text? --SparqMan 18:09, 16 Dec 2005 (UTC)

  • Chee has stated that he will only answer general questions, such as how different types of sources compare to each other, or questions about the Holocron itself (what program does it use, how big is it, etc). He doesn't want to get into any specific continuity issues. I'm trying to think of a way to ask him without annoying him. JimRaynor55 18:37, 16 Dec 2005 (UTC)

You could ask if there are non-all caps versions the comic scripts available. --SparqMan 18:42, 16 Dec 2005 (UTC)

McEwok history

I've heard some people talk about this individual in the context of TFN debates. They say he keeps reappearing from time to time with the standard 'Star Destroyer' arguments, only to be schooled over and over on the boards. And that this has been going on for years now. Is that true? Has he really become so self-absorbed and obsessed with this non-sensical discussion, and that he peddles WEG-based information around like it's the Holy Bible? I thought he was just an arrogant little sod, but I never knew his obnoxious behaviour actually spanned YEARS. Anyone able to give some input on this? I also find his constant use of "there are no rigid sets of classification as things can change over time" and "The Imperial classification system is perfect." to be most humorous. Doesn't this weedy little shit realize his contradictions just make him look even dumber? VT-16 10:23, 17 Dec 2005 (UTC)

  • As much as personal opinions should be kept to youself, thank you for bringing this to our attention. Admiral J. Nebulax 13:58, 17 Dec 2005 (UTC)
    • I figured, since this discussion has veered off already, this won't make any real difference. Frankly, Thrawn McEwok (that's his TFN name, btw), is little more than a well-written troll by now, and I'm not interested in entertaining trolls any longer. VT-16 15:26, 17 Dec 2005 (UTC)

This bickering is pointless!!

Well, this page is a right waste of everyone's time, isn't it?

I opened this "talk" page up in the hope that VT-16 and myself could have a productive and civilized discussion. Maybe that was arrogant of me, and maybe I expressed myself badly at some point, but I don't think I was being entirely unreasonable. I've never denied that the GSD might be a Star Cruiser; all I was saying was that there's nothing to say that she must be, and I was asking people to consider that possibility, and perhaps to look again at the evidence they're basing their ideas about cruisers on.

What I've seen instead is people getting angry, and Nebulax becoming convinced that I'm an ass. If VT-16 and JimRaynor55 wish to consider that as a victory for them, they are entirely welcome to it. I'm sure I could have handled myself better, and not made any more enemies. It's something of a bad habit of mine, although it's emphatically not my intent.=p

Nonetheless, it seems to be impossible for us to have a productive discussion on this topic. Perhaps VT-16 and JimRaynor55 aren't interested in having one. They seem to see the purpose of this whole discussion as being to validate what they see as the truth of their opinion, and they're as inflexibly committed to that position as I am to my belief that none of our opinions is necessarily right—which means that all we're achieving in here is butting heads. That doesn't, of course, resolve what to do when our opinions clash on the actual article pages, but this clearly isn't helping resolve that problem, and I've annoyed Nebulax as well.

So I'll go away, and try to find a better way to fix the disagreement on the articles, since this attempt to hold a civilized discussion has failed. --McEwok 19:12, 17 Dec 2005 (UTC)

  • If this was a big waste, why did you start and/or continue it? Admiral J. Nebulax 19:19, 17 Dec 2005 (UTC)
    • Well, I hoped it wouldn't be a waste of time. As I already said, I opened this "talk" page up in the hope that VT-16 and myself could have a productive and civilized discussion. Maybe that was arrogant of me, and maybe I expressed myself badly at some point, but I don't think I was being entirely unreasonable. I'm a believer in negotiation and consensus, and I was hoping that VT-16 and myself could work out how to work together, rather than getting bogged down in more pointless "Wookiee Wars". For a while at the start, I thought things were going quite well. Then again, when I'm trying particularly hard to be understanding and fair-minded, I often seem to end up really irritating people. It's the exact opposite of what I'm trying to achieve, but it's what seems to have happened here again. *frowns* --McEwok 19:36, 17 Dec 2005 (UTC)
      • Well, you constantly say things that get people really pissed off at you. And another thing: Would you stop bolding everyone's names? Admiral J. Nebulax 19:39, 17 Dec 2005 (UTC)
        • Sorry. Old habits die hard on the bolding. And since when was I responsible for other people's tempers? I do my level best to keep calm, rational, cooperative and communicative, and if any of what I say annoys other people, perhaps that's partially my fault (though I regret it deeply). If other people act annoyed, on the other hand... well, I think that's something for them to deal with, not me. --McEwok 01:03, 18 Dec 2005 (UTC)
      • I see you're trying to paint yourself in a good light, as usual. If you're trying to raise sympathy for your plight, I sincerely doubt you'll find it here. According to some TFN debaters, you've been doing this for a looong time, so any pity anyone might have had for your "struggle" is long gone. I don't believe that "none of our opinions is necessarily right", there are certain issues (in SW and in the real world) where there's no room for "interpretation" or "reading it differently" or "it can be something else".
If we all followed the McEwok-method on every single article, nothing would ever get done on sites like this, no arguments would ever get settled. I've been more than willing to maintain what WEG established, as long as it doesn't intrude on recent materials. Hell, I've even grown to like SSD as a term! The only problem I have, is when "WEG-whores" pop up to scream and yell and mis-quote their favorite sources to give them an "advantage" in "winning" over sources they don't like. And this is something I've yet to understand: The motive.
What is it with these people that can't stand certain revisionism or even simple additions to their favorite works? What is it about, say, Curtis Saxton, that drives some people up the wall? I've never seen such behaviour around any other SW author on this site before, he is the only one being subjected to this kind of public bad-mouthing. It's actually quite astounding. I'm sure the fans who win entry-contests on "What's the Story" get a better overall rap than him. Even the gang at WEG and Wizards of the Coast (who are all SW fans themselves) get their material reasonably well-handled without a big fight. Ugh. VT-16 19:52, 17 Dec 2005 (UTC)
        • I don't believe that "none of our opinions is necessarily right", there are certain issues (in SW and in the real world) where there's no room for "interpretation" or "reading it differently" or "it can be something else".
There are a lot of issues, both in SW and in rl, where there's no real wiggle room. But in these particular cases, there is plenty of room for interpretation. You have failed to explain to me why "a term that covers many warship classes bigger than a Star Destroyer, from Star Cruisers to ultimate Star Dreadnoughts like Executor" must mean what you believe it does. Your interpretation is something like "a term that covers many warship classes too big to fit under the cap of the Star Destroyer designation, running up an ascending range of formally-fixed scale-based designations from Star Cruiser to Star Dreadnought". My view is that it could also mean "a term that covers many warship classes larger than a ship of the standard Star Destroyer class (formally designated as the Imperial-class Star Destroyer), ranging from large capital ships with a less aggressive mission profile than Star Destroyers to the largest combat warships ever built", and that this better fits with the rest of canon, whjer Executor-class, Eclipse-class and Sovereign-class ships are repeatedly called "Star Destroyers", as though this was their base designation.
        • If we all followed the McEwok-method on every single article, nothing would ever get done on sites like this, no arguments would ever get settled.
Hmm... you don't seem keen to actually hold a constructive discussion to resolve the lock on the Talk:Ship_classification|the ship classification page properly. Or here, for that matter. Of course, I get the sense that you don't really want your POV put in the place where it belongs: alongside the other current interpretations in as unbiased a discursive framework as possible. The Executrix page is a good example of what I'd consider a successfully-resolved dispute, though. Speaking personally, I'm confident I'm right on that one, but I'm prepared to be proved wrong, and in terms of the page itself, I'm entirely happy with a final result that gives both opinions equal weight until more evidence comes along.
      • What is it about, say, Curtis Saxton, that drives some people up the wall?
Simple answer: SWTC is full of errors and misleading statements. It is constructed in such a way that many of the arguments presented appear more convincing and canon-based or scientific than they are. This happens; people get enthusiastic about their opinions. In a proper discursive environment, the flaws would be identified and corrected, and they wouldn't linger for years and years to decieve innocent readers and detract from the many superb features of the site (scale, scope, passion, copious illustration, real-world scientific understanding). But the rabid behaviour of some of the site's contributors and fans has prevented a genuine discussion, and resultingly, Saxton has attempted to incorporate a number of elements of SWTC's fanfic fantasy into canon, where the result is merely too create contradictions.
I'll throw up just a couple of minor points to illustrate what I'm saying. I would really appreciate evidence to support the claim here that "the comfortable Australian city of Perth" is comparable in population density to New York County (Manhattan Island, "by far the most densely populated county in... the entire United States"). And I would also appreciate any evidence to justify the description of "Officer Cass" from ANH as "General Cass" here under "Major-General": I have failed to find any evidence that he's ever given a specific rank in any official source: while it is entirely valid for SWTC to suggest that Cass is a General, it should be made clear in the discussion if the man is given no explicit rank in canon. --McEwok 01:03, 18 Dec 2005 (UTC)
I would really appreciate evidence to support the claim that "the comfortable Australian city of Perth" is comparable in population density to New York County.
I hope you realize he was talking about the inner residential/business areas which have all buildings and no cavities such as parks and gardens? There are such suburbs in the city of Perth where the population density reaches heights like Manhattan. (Which is why it was used as a comparison in the first place, that even a "comfortable" city from his own regional backyard have areas comparable to Manhattan and subsequently areas on the heavily urbanized city-planet.)
Of course, the mean value of the entire area, including all the parks and office complexes will yield a much smaller number, but concentrating on the heavily populated urban areas do in fact yield the relevant figure.
Also, most of the rank article is based on information he's gotten from other people. If they don't deliever, he can't revise anything. Of course, I find this fixation on the correctness of another person's fansite quite amusing. If only people kept as watchful an eye on the more official channels. *chuckle* VT-16 01:21, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Let's focus on canon, okay?

Wookieepedia policy, as I understand it, is that we always go with what's canon even some of us think it doesn't make sense. Hence the ever-unpopular Cracken's Threat Dossier images being used and, more pertinent to this article, the Eclipse and Sovereign classes being listed as Star Destroyers rather than Star Dreadnoughts. While the Eclipses and Sovereigns would presumably be Star Dreadnoughts like the Executor class, they've never been listed as such in a canon source, and thus they're called Star Destroyers here. The Allegiance and her sister ships have certainly never been designated as Star Cruisers in canon, they should be listed as what they were called in their only canon appearance: Star Destroyers. 68.47.234.131 03:39, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

  • The Executor-class and ships preceding it that had comparable firepower were all called "Star Dreadnoughts", ships in the range of the Executor were the largest of the "Super Star Destroyer", namely Star Dreadnoughts, as per the ITW:OT and CLOSW books.
There is no reason not to call the Sovereign and the Eclipse the same, as they greatly exceed these other ships in terms of firepower, and in the Executor´s case, in terms of mass. The only vessel apart from the superweapons that exceed the Eclipse, is the Eye of Palpatine, also called a Dreadnought.
As for the Gauntlet-class, it is the only canonical evidence for a name: the smuggling ships escaping fire from "Gauntlet Star Destroyers" around Byss in Dark Empire II, and the smallest of the "Super Star Destroyers" being Star Cruisers (ITW:OT, CLOSW). With the Allegiance and her sister-ships being the smallest ships called SSDs, this is the only use of Star Cruiser that can be justified, since the system doesn't specify how far up the Star Cruiser term goes. If a smaller SSD is disclosed in a canonical source, this will then get the distinction and the Gauntlet will be called "Super Star Destroyer" or "battleship" or another more general term for these larger warships.
So, yes, I am focusing on canon. VT-16 16:36, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
  • "It's the smallest" does not definitively define the Gauntlet as a "Star Cruiser", though. A designation on that slim a basis should go in Behind the scenes rather than the infobox. I agree with McEwok. Yrfeloran 17:41, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Naming those articles "Eclipe-class Star Destroyer" and "Sovereign-class Star Destroyer" is completely WRONG, because even the EU makes it clear that they are SUPER Star Destroyers. This is important, because SSDs are NOT Star Destroyers, but a slang term for ships larger than them. McEwok just fought for those names because he's got a vendetta against Curtis Saxton, and wants to push his twisted view of the EU on everyone else, where Saxton's books are completely irreconcilable with other sources (they're not), and "Star Destroyer" is a meaningless term that no one has ever defined (which is pretty stupid). I would still like to see those article titles changed, perhaps to something like "-class Super Star Destroyer" (if you want to throw out any logical inferences and rely 100% on only what we see in canon). That said, I can't help but feel that we weren't conservative in naming this article. Since the Golan battlestations used around Byss were called "Gauntlet scanner stations," it is possible that "Gauntlet Star Destroyer" could be a class name, OR a term for Star Destroyers used in that Gauntlet defense system. JimRaynor55 18:18, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Look, I'd be more than happy to call them Star Battlecruisers or Star Dreadnoughts instead, but I can't. Super Star Destroyer is a broad term used in slang, that covers everything from Imperial Star Cruisers to Star Dreadnoughts. That's the low-end and the high-end. Without any more specifics, this is the smallest SSD every described, and it's not even twice the size of an ISD. Without any further info, this can only be given an arbitrary title, and until it's proven it has a different name, I can only use the smallest title among the SSDs.
Btw. certain debaters thinks it's just a "cool" name that's meant to "scare people" because it implies an SD can "destroy stars" or whatever. Just as RL destroyers "destroy" and cruisers "cruise", right? :P VT-16 19:35, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Well, I don't think that's why they called them "Star Destroyers" in Star Wars. Admiral J. Nebulax (talk) 20:10, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
    • (I was being diplomatic) ;)
Ok, here's a chart I made for most of the significant types of warships in SW:
photo bucket dot com )/albums/a242/CptK/StarDestroyersandtheirranges.jpg Chart
Notice the extreme gap from most "regular" big warships up to the Empire's heaviest. This signifies their unprecedent obsession with bigger and stronger warships, even as early on as 18 BBY. Also note that the size of the "Imperial battlecruiser" of which several were seen in the Marvel comics, is an extreme lower estimate, as they were bigger than twice the size of an ISD. VT-16 20:55, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
  • "I was being diplomatic". I know. ;) Admiral J. Nebulax (talk) 20:57, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Just checking. ;p VT-16 21:06, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Eclipse and Sovereign are listed as Star Destroyers because that's what they're called in canon. Their Behind the Scenes sections note that they're presumably Star Dreadnaughts based on the latest retcon of Imperial ship classifications, but that they're not listed as such here because they're not directly called Star Dreadnaughts in a canon source. If we're going to re-title their articles and keep this one's title as is, should we also, for example, change the Warrior-class gunship's hyperdrive rating, since Class 3 was almost certainly a typo? No; until a new canon source corrects the error, we leave it as is. 68.47.234.131 22:37, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
      • You haven't heard a thing we've said, have you? Geez louise. "Eclipse and Sovereign are listed as Star Destroyers because that's what they're called in canon."
And the largest SSDs were called Star Dreadnoughts, also in canon.
And what the hell is this Hyperdrive rating error about? VT-16 22:44, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
  • To 68.47.234.131: While you're right, this article title can stay. Why? Because it has a conjecture warning, saying that "Although this article is based on canonical information, the actual name of this subject is pure conjecture". See? It may be a Star Destroyer, but it could also be a Star Cruiser. Also, see here, specifically the third paragraph. Maybe someone already said this, but I'm hoping that this issue will be solved. Admiral J. Nebulax (talk) 22:47, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Ok, I've checked up on this Hyperdrive thing. CUSWE doesn't say anything about the Warrior-class' rating, only that it was based on the Agave design. It only mentions the Agave-class as having Class 1. Once again, what is the problem? If it doesn't say anywhere that the Warrior-class got a new, slower engine, then yes, put Class 1 on it.
Back to the issue: I'm not willing to put "Star Cruiser" on everything I want, because the limits have not been laid out for the different SSDs. It's only due to the Allegiance being the smallest SSD documented, that I put SC as part of the article-name. If an SSD is revealed as being smaller, then this article-name will change and the new one will get SC behind it (unless, of course, an official source puts SC in the name). It's that simple.
And technically speaking, they all belong to the bigger Star Destroyer production line, whether they're destroyers, cruisers, battlecruisers or battleships, so that is a non-issue, as far as I'm concerned. VT-16 23:08, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Eclipse and Sovereign are listed as Star Destroyers because that's what they're called in canon. Their Behind the Scenes sections note that they're presumably Star Dreadnaughts based on the latest retcon of Imperial ship classifications, but that they're not listed as such here because they're not directly called Star Dreadnaughts in a canon source. The issue isn't even about whether they're Star Dreadnaughts. The issue is that they're called "Star Destroyer," even though the canon says that they're SSDs. Even titling the articles as "Eclipse-class Super Star Destroyer" would be better since it's technically correct, and calling it just a Star Destroyer is a LIE. JimRaynor55 23:09, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Not really. All of the Super Star Destroyers and Star Dreadnoughts are still Star Destroyers, as are some type of Star Cruisers, like this one. Admiral J. Nebulax (talk) 23:23, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
    • But that is the core of the problem, it's simply too general a term. Super Star Destroyer narrows it down, but Star Dreadnought narrows the big ships down even further. It should be used for them, since they both eclipse (no pun intended) the Executors. VT-16 23:36, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
      • I agree. But which should be used: "Super Star Destroyer" or "Star Dreadnought"? Admiral J. Nebulax (talk) 00:05, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
        • Star Dreadnought. Why? Because ships smaller than them in terms of firepower and mass (the Mandator I and II-class and the Executor-class) were called Star Dreadnoughts, and a bigger vessel was also called a "Dreadnought" (the Eye of Palpatine). The Eclipse-class and the Sovereign-class are both called "Super Star Destroyer" in the Dark Empire Sourcebook, and the biggest Super Star Destroyers were Star Dreadnoughts, as according to the Inside the Worlds of SW Trilogy. VT-16 07:03, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Length?

I recently changed the length of the ship from >3200m to >2200m based on estimates from SWTC. It was then reverted, based on an earlier edit by VT-16 citing "multi-mile SDs referenced and enough leeway in the DE drawings". Admittedly I haven't got DE, but given the reliable source (Saxton) I belive that his estimate should be retained unless there are specific refferences to the Allegiance-type ships being multi-mile. If this is indeed the case, apologies. MartinMcCann 11:18, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

  • Saxton isn't really an official source. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) 20px 12:21, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
    • True, that's why I said 'reliable' rather than 'official'. Agreed if there are specific references to the Allegiance-type (rather than a general reference to a group of SDs that may or may or may not include Allegiances) being multi-mile fine, but Saxton has calculated it as 2200m, and has a track record of being a good source for such data. Also, ">2200m" includes ">3200m" with the advantage of referencing the minimum length calculated from view of the ship, rather than the minimum length derived from a quote which may or may not refer to the class in question.
    • Sorry, forgot to sign. MartinMcCann 14:53, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
      • It's probably best to keep it as is. Saxton could have made a mistake. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) 20px 22:25, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
        • Although Saxton has done a great deal to help systemize the big ships of the Republic and Imperial fleets, the estimates on his website are specified by him as only estimates, and some of the info he's got can sometimes be outdated after a few years, if new info comes along. The only images we have of these small SSDs with bigger and smaller ships, don't really put the size down to something only 500 m longer than ISDs. Even if the ships in the Allegiance shot are Victory derivatives, they could both be in front of the Allegiance, thus making it even bigger then what he estimated. One of the vessels accompanying the Eclipse is shown image shack dot U S )/img240/7884/eclipse1yr5.jpg beside it and another image shack dot U S )/img297/6927/eclipse2ys4.jpg in front of it, giving an upper estimate of between 1/4 and 1/5 its size. That's roughly 4,4 and 3,5 km in length. Now, the book ICS:AOTC (which he wrote long after starting his website) mentions miles-long Star Destroyers, that's 3,2 km at the smallest. Since the Allegiance and its sister ships are Super Star Destroyers, they'd have to be bigger than this, as ITW:OT had SSDs begin at Star Cruisers, the next class above Star Destroyers. Ergo, >3,2 km in length, since KDY's designs are consistently dagger-shaped at this scale. VT-16 11:10, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand why this article is still here?

All the info has already gone into the Allegiance and Imperial-class SSD articles already. This is like creating a duplicate for Imperial-class Star Destroyer by omitting the 'Star' part, or Obi-Wan's article into an article about 'Ben' Kenobi. Seriously, I can't understand any of the reasons for keeping this specific article. The Allegiance appears to be a singular design or modification of the Imperial-class SSD at best. At least move it properly, if I can't do that. :/ VT-16 09:18, 27 September 2008 (UTC)