Screencap
I have a screencap from the episodes that give a better look. https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4798/39802408145_dac2fbe01d_o.png this is the cropped version. full screencap is here https://www.flickr.com/photos/121965117@N06/38877927940/in/dateposted-public/ might work better than the cut-off image from the trailer currently being used. Mithril (talk) 21:57, March 8, 2018 (UTC)
2 Versions?
Are there 2 versions of this ship?, or is the Batonn insurgents modified?
The Batonn one looks liek the old legends version/fractalsponges due to it being less boxy in the prow and the circular "clusers" on the side. Can it be as simple as artistic freedom?
--Newmodder (talk) 23:35, June 8, 2019 (UTC)
- Could be that there are two generations of ship, an older model matching the Legends appearance, and then a version built by the empire with a redesigned exterior appearance. Given that the Empire altered the design of the Arquitens and the Gozanti when putting them into production for Imperial service, that they'd redesign the Dreadnought in a similar way seems reasonable. especially if part of the redesign was to standardize the parts and systems aboard to those in use in all the other imperial built vessels. Mithril (talk) 05:29, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
- I'd say the reasoning for the different depictions is artists continued to use classic design after the ship was reintroduced in canon when it was redesigned for Rebels. Imperials altering the vessels would be a good in-universe explanation for that, though the ship canonically having two distinct variations is not confirmed at this point.
Anıl Şerifoğlu (talk) 15:57, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
- I'd say the reasoning for the different depictions is artists continued to use classic design after the ship was reintroduced in canon when it was redesigned for Rebels. Imperials altering the vessels would be a good in-universe explanation for that, though the ship canonically having two distinct variations is not confirmed at this point.
Name
Would this just be the Dreadnought-class or the Dreadnought-class heavy cruiser? I realize that the reference book separates model and type, model being Dreadnought-class and type being heavy cruiser, but the same goes for MC80 Star Cruiser which is separated into MC80 and Star Cruiser. If I remember correctly, Star Wars Encyclopedia of Starfighters and Other Vehicles does the same thing, and we have all of those articles as putting the two together as part of the name. IRL this is also the case, ships have both parts as their official name. Just wondering.--Vitus InfinitusTalk 14:26, October 13, 2019 (UTC)
- You're right about that it does have the model and type separate in some sources and together in other sources. - Red Duel 15:32, October 13, 2019 (UTC)
- For the sake of consistentcy, we either need to move this or those in a similar situation to the ones above --Lewisr (talk) 16:57, October 13, 2019 (UTC)
- I say if we move it should be this one. There isn't just the Starfighter Encyclopedia, there is also from the top of my head the vehicles in the FFG books and I'm assuming other reference books that follow this format. Despite that, they are still referred to by their full name. For example, the MC80 Star Cruiser is labelled as MC80 and then Star Cruiser, but the description has both parts together. I guess we can think of it as a first name and last name. MC80 being the first name and Star Cruiser the last name. The full name would as such be the MC80 Star Cruiser. This is the sole article I'm aware of that doesn't do that. And if this point isn't valid and we move the other articles, it would be a long process since there are many vehicles it seems that would need to be checked and changed.--Vitus InfinitusTalk 17:35, October 13, 2019 (UTC)
- It's not up to us to conflate separate terms into a single term that isn't reflected in any source. No source uses the full term "Dreadnought-class heavy cruiser," so it would be inappropriate, not to mention erroneous, for Wookieepedia to present this as a formal name until something does. Wookieepedia's mission is to document information from source material exactly as it's presented in source material. To extrapolate beyond that borders on fanon. This has always been Wookieepedia's approach to starship article titles, since before Canon. And it doesn't matter how many other starship articles have been doing this the wrong way up to now. Our articles need to be titled properly, no matter how much work that may involve. Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 21:07, October 13, 2019 (UTC)
- I understand that, and I can definitely get behind that. I guess now since we're on this topic of what is actually a correct vehicle name, if a source mentions Dreadnought-class heavy cruiser together would the article then be moved to that name or remain under Dreadnought-class?--Vitus InfinitusTalk 23:00, October 13, 2019 (UTC)
- If a new source identifies this ship class as a "Dreadnought-class heavy cruiser," then yes, we would move the article to that title, per the Naming policy: "...use the most formal and accurate version provided in sources." Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 23:04, October 13, 2019 (UTC)
- Alright, thank you for clearing everything up!--Vitus InfinitusTalk 04:14, October 14, 2019 (UTC)
- If a new source identifies this ship class as a "Dreadnought-class heavy cruiser," then yes, we would move the article to that title, per the Naming policy: "...use the most formal and accurate version provided in sources." Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 23:04, October 13, 2019 (UTC)
- I understand that, and I can definitely get behind that. I guess now since we're on this topic of what is actually a correct vehicle name, if a source mentions Dreadnought-class heavy cruiser together would the article then be moved to that name or remain under Dreadnought-class?--Vitus InfinitusTalk 23:00, October 13, 2019 (UTC)
- It's not up to us to conflate separate terms into a single term that isn't reflected in any source. No source uses the full term "Dreadnought-class heavy cruiser," so it would be inappropriate, not to mention erroneous, for Wookieepedia to present this as a formal name until something does. Wookieepedia's mission is to document information from source material exactly as it's presented in source material. To extrapolate beyond that borders on fanon. This has always been Wookieepedia's approach to starship article titles, since before Canon. And it doesn't matter how many other starship articles have been doing this the wrong way up to now. Our articles need to be titled properly, no matter how much work that may involve. Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 21:07, October 13, 2019 (UTC)
- I say if we move it should be this one. There isn't just the Starfighter Encyclopedia, there is also from the top of my head the vehicles in the FFG books and I'm assuming other reference books that follow this format. Despite that, they are still referred to by their full name. For example, the MC80 Star Cruiser is labelled as MC80 and then Star Cruiser, but the description has both parts together. I guess we can think of it as a first name and last name. MC80 being the first name and Star Cruiser the last name. The full name would as such be the MC80 Star Cruiser. This is the sole article I'm aware of that doesn't do that. And if this point isn't valid and we move the other articles, it would be a long process since there are many vehicles it seems that would need to be checked and changed.--Vitus InfinitusTalk 17:35, October 13, 2019 (UTC)
- For the sake of consistentcy, we either need to move this or those in a similar situation to the ones above --Lewisr (talk) 16:57, October 13, 2019 (UTC)