Talk: Executor-class Star Dreadnought/Archive1

Back to page |
< Talk:Executor-class Star Dreadnought

This page is an archive of the discussion of an article. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's current talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.

Dreadnought discussion

As per Inside the Worlds of the Star Wars Trilogy, the proper term for ships of Executor's size is Star Dreadnought. "Super Star Destroyer" is stated to be a slang term for ships larger than a destroyer.

I don't really care what any book says. The MOVIES (the ultimate canon) say that the Executor was a Super Star Destroyer.

--Naylor182 16:41, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Executor was also not the first "Super Star Destroyer". The Republic had the Praetor-class Star Battlecruiser, Quaestor-class Star Battlecruiser, Procurator-class Star Battlecruiser, and Mandator-class Star Dreadnought; all of which were much bigger than a destroyer. In particular, the Mandator looks very similar to the Executor and is supposed to be almost as long. - Vermilion 05:59, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I know that "Super Star Destroyer" is slang, but it means a lot more to people than "Star Dreadnought." Are you sure that those other classes were referred to as "Super Star Destroyers", or is it possible that, though they were large enough, they were not referred to by that term. Just wondering. By the way, I hadn't realized that you meant to change the meaning of the first paragraph in that way. I thought you were just rewording it and lost a bit in the process. If I had realized your intention, I would have said something here before changing your edit. I didn't realize that I was effectively reverting your edit. -- Aidje 23:48, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I haven't seen anything specifically calling them "Super Star Destroyers", but it seems a reasonable assumption. I wouldn't be surprised if Saxton intended those classes to be some of the background ships in Dark Empire. Vermilion 04:21, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
The term "super star destroyer" came at an early time in SW history when people at Lucasfilm thought "Star Destroyer" was just a cool name for big warships and "Super Star Destroyer" was a cool name for even bigger warships. This without considering what purpose the ships served and what their names should reflect. People like Lucas, who are reportedly war-buffs, should have known better than to put "Super" in front of everything just to make it look "cooler". They didn´t care that much and that´s why we have the ret-conning situation of today, giving the ships proper classes in the hierarchy. And judging from the DK line of factbooks, the recent "buzz-word" at Lucasfilm seems to be "Star Dreadnought".
I mean, it´s nice and all when it´s applied to battleships with heavy guns like the Executor-, Eclipse-, and Sovereign-class, but I´m just worried that if they ever get to "normal" battleships, they´ll decide to name them "Star Dreadnoughts", just because it sounds more imposing than "Super Star Destroyer". (For all we know, Mandators could be unnamed EU ships that don´t fit the Dreadnought-profile, yet were named that for fun.) Hopefully this fear is unfounded. ;) VT-16 11:39, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
The Hutt Gambit speaks of "Dreadnaughts". While it doesn't exactly explain what this means, it does mention that the fleet in question doesn't have anything as nice (or as powerful) as a Star Destroyer. Have your fears been realized? -- Aidje 14:43, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
"Dreadnaughts". Ah, that would be the Dreadnaught-class Heavy Cruiser, not Dreadnought, which is defined as "a battleship armed only with heavy guns". The 'a' is the difference, you see, and this ship is known to be much smaller then the Imperial-class star destroyer, so it´s acceptable.
Now, if they start calling everything above Star Destroyers 'Star Dreadnoughts', I´ll go mad. ;) VT-16 16:53, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Just FYI, the databank at Starwars.com refers to this as a Super-class star destroyer and regular Imp Star Destroyers as Imperial-class star destroyers. Heres' a link Star Wars databank-LtNOWIS 21:12, 6 May 2005 (UTC)
    • The databank is using C-level sources, or remarks in G-level sources that are in fact slang or said in the heat of the moment. Note that it also gives an incorrect length for the vessel, 12.8 km. The ICS and ITW are considered G-level cannon. They are found on-set of the movies, and used by the filmmakers--Eion 23:00, 6 May 2005 (UTC)
      • The ICS and ITW are *not* G-level. As Leland Chee notes on this page, "Theses books are treated no differently than any other books; anything created by the author would be C-level. I would guess that 95% of the text info in those books is created by the author or is based on information created by another author other than George Lucas." JSarek 23:51, 6 May 2005 (UTC)
        • Or, might be based on conversations with Lucasfilm, including answers provided by GL. You think CS just rattled off what he think sounded good? As he said (in a quote on your link),
"Ultimately everything in the Star Wars literature is inspired by or deduced from the work of George Lucas. Hans, Richard and I had no direct contact with him. However the important people at LF Licensing meet with Lucas frequently and they were able to obtain answers to questions raised during the development of our book. For example, I understand that the planet Rothana was named in an intervention by George Lucas."
If they are not G-level, as is stated in this sites canon article, then they are assuradly the highest C-level, and still overide the faulty references provided in Pablo Hidalgo's private soapbox, the Official Sites' database.--Eion 23:59, 6 May 2005 (UTC)
I've sometimes wondered if Hidalgo seriously thinks that "American aircraft carrier" means "American-class aircraft carrier," or that "supercarrier" means "super-class carrier." -Vermilion 00:19, 7 May 2005 (UTC)
Yes, I think Saxton rattled off what he thought sounded good, filtered through a number of LFL intermediaries; in fact, I'd say that happened about 95% of the time. This isn't a bad thing; Saxton's background makes what "sounds good" to him far more likely to be realistic than what sounds good to other people.
Also, there isn't such a thing as "highest C-level" - all C-level sources are on equal footing, and contradictions are handled on a case-by-case basis. From here: "In short, whatever is created by the authors of the Visual Dictionaries is "C" canon. No more, no less." JSarek 00:41, 7 May 2005 (UTC)
When I asked if you thought "Saxton rattled off what he thought sounded good," I meant so in a pulled random figures out of his ass kinda way without any supporting evidence. While you are correct that the holocron makes no such distinction, the truth is that the DK books are researched from the original source material, and are thus, in truth, closer to G-level than C-level, whether or not LL declares them as such. All this means that I feel more confident going with DK sources than others. HOWEVER, very little of what is in these DK books is the author's invention. The weapons, size, and other calculations are based on the films, and as such are the invention of Lucas, not the author. As such, those aspects are G-level, and cannot be outranked by any other source.--Eion 01:05, 7 May 2005 (UTC)
Since the production team studied these books during the production of both AOTC and ROTS, I´d say they serve some purpose even on a G-canon level. VT-16 16:59, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
  • That's a bogus argument. How does the self-stated amount of research done by an author make it take precedence over other sources. Saxton created the term and the only mention of it that I can find behind his book and website are from sites that mirror the changes made by Vermillion on Wikipedia. Regardless of what you think of Hidalgo, the Databank entry is just one of many, many sources that refute the term "Executor-class Star Dreadnought", including the annotated screenplay of TESB. I think that we can clear this up by writing the head of the article in a way that does not take a certain stance, and it is clearly disputed with resolution. --SparqMan 13:12, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Regardless of what you think of Hidalgo, the Databank entry is just one of many, many sources that refute the term "Executor-class Star Dreadnought", including the annotated screenplay of TESB.
Irrellevant. It is ultimately up to Lucas Licencing what goes into any books, Saxton does not have final say in this. Since the new policy is to name big warships with big guns Dreadnoughts, that what they are. No amount of old sources will change that fact. VT-16 13:57, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
That's a policy? It might be the most current, but if another C-level source prints them again as Super Star Destroyers, it will flip back. --SparqMan 14:15, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Yes, and they change these things almost as much as Lucas changes the films. ;P I just hope the Ultimate Inside the Worlds DK guide book (which will contain info for all six films) will maintain the names of the previous books, when it comes out later this year. However, the new editions of Ultimate Guide to vehicles and vessels and other books in the this series never changed much after the DK books started coming out, so I don´t expect them to ever follow the naming procedures. Then again, they use and recycle old WEG info, so I don´t take them as seriously. Oh, and I believe it was said somewhere that Saxton wanted to call these ships Star Battlecruisers, but someone at Lucas Licensing (maybe even Lucas himself) liked Star Dreadnought better. Don´t hold me to that, though. VT-16 15:37, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I have moved this article to designate that it´s about the class of ship, not just the Executor itself. Should we split this, so that one part is about the specific ship and one is about the class? VT-16 18:39, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Why has everyone used the spelling "Dreadnought" instead of "Dreadnaught." Aren't they just two different ways of spelling the same thing? Both the AOTC and ROTS ICS books use the "a" spelling, so shouldn't we stick to that one as well? JimRaynor55 07:23, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • I´m not sure which one is the correct spelling, but Dreadnaught is only the class-name for the old heavy cruisers, while Dreadnought is the distinction for these huge, heavily armed battleships. EDIT: It seems both terms are applicable, but only the 'a' for the heavy cruiser´s classname.VT-16 14:32, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[additional: I agree. Isn't it simply arrogance on our part to assume that George Lucas set out the same vehicle naming convention that is used on Earth. After all it is a galaxy far far away.(Edited by Dantes)]

The things is a Super Star Destroyer as said by Akbar (RotJ); it's a Star Destroyer as stated by Vader (ESB)

The two statements back each other up. One of the original toys was called Vader's Star Destroyer

Super is the name given to the type of Star Destroyer that Vader commanded. There's really nothing that beats out Akbar's statement and there's ships guilds that confirm the name. No one has to like the term, but it is what it is.

  • According to canon sources, Super Star Destroyer is a colloquial military term stemming from the false ship profile Super-class Star Destroyer. Since this was already answered on the Star Dreadnought talk page and most likely already answered on this page several times, I advice you not to begin the same debate on multiple talk pages. VT-16 10:43, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Executor

Wasn't Executor also the official title of Vader in the Imperial military? And Sedriss later? That deserves its own article. --SparqMan 19:17, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Quite true--Eion 21:25, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Executor is the name of Vader's flagship, it is not the name of the class of ship. SSD is not slang. —Unsigned comment by 60.240.111.240 (talk • contribs)

  • Wrong, and wrong. The only thing you got right was that Executor was Vader's flagship. Don't argue with canon. This class is the Executor-class of Star Dreadnoughts, and Super Star Destroyer is slang. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) 20px 13:48, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
  • As you say: "Don't argue with canon" the official Site states, that the Executor is still a Super Star Destroyer and I think it's not just called official for fun and the ICS are in fact just C-Canon. —Unsigned comment by 85.16.214.156 (talk • contribs)
    • The Databank always gets things wrong. The most recent sources say Executor-class Star Dreadnought, not Executor-class Super Star Destroyer. You're wrong, anon. —Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) 20px 00:24, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Correction: The Executor is the lead ship of the Executor-class Star Dreadnoughts and is called a Super Star Destroyer, much like the Nimitz-class aircraft carrier is called a supercarrier. Dorling Kindersley books deal with the worlds of the films, and are therefore higher on the canon scale than other books and even the official databank, as these latter sources deal with broader things outside of the films that are also part of continuity, but on a lesser scale. This has been pointed out by LFL officials time and again. VT-16 13:48, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Databank is C-canon anyway. -- I need a name (Complain here) 16:26, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
    • @VT-16:All Books in the Starwars-Universe are C-Canon. If you don't believe me: Read the Statements of Leeland Chee. The Books of Kindersley are not higher nor lower Canon than any novel of the in the Star Wars-Universe. And I think there is reason to call it the "official databank". —Unsigned comment by 80.228.73.159 (talk • contribs)
      • Enough anon. You can't, and won't, win this debate, because "Executor-class Star Dreadnought" is correct. Deal with it. —Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) 20px 22:24, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
      • What is this? "Post a claim, post no proof"? —Unsigned comment by 91.96.84.102 (talk • contribs)
      • First of all, C and G canon and all the other letter categories are for internal filing use at LFL, they're not meant to be utilized elsewhere. That's what we have the various official LFL statements for, which have been consistent for decades. The further away from the films and the environment of the films we get, the more "foggy" does the window into the SW universe become, and the more room for errors we get. That's something they've been clear about all along. The Dorling Kindersley books were made with the cooperation of Lucasfilm staff and production crew and with access to Lucasfilm's model archives etc. It's a bit different from RPG rulebooks. The DK books have even been advertized as the most thoroughly researched resourcebooks in SW. VT-16 18:18, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Title

Regardless of the name of this ship class, is this article meant to be about the ship class or Executor? --SparqMan 14:17, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • It needs to be edited to be class, rather than ship, specific.--Eion 15:50, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Yes, which is what I asked about yesterday. :P Another problem is the article about SSDs, which also talks alot about the Executor. How about removing the Executor-specifics from both articles and have them in a seperate one? If anyone feels up for it, do go ahead. If not, I can do it. VT-16 18:28, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Okay, I've moved the Executor-class stuff from Executor here and vice versa, although both are a bit hollow now. Any specific content about either of those two topics that currently resides in Super Star Destroyers is next. --SparqMan 19:32, 20 Jul 2005 (UTC)

Good grief, and I thought my own contribution to the SSD issues page was complicated. We really need to work out what to do with the different fanboy POVs and pages on this, I think. -- McEwok 23:43, 11 Aug 2005 (UTC)

Length

  • I thought the longest reported length for an Executor was 17,600 meters. Where did 19,000 come from? -- SFH 23:56, 26 Aug 2005 (UTC)

I was told that the Executor was approximately the size of Manhattan. If this is correct, should it be included in "Behind the Scenes"? Θ 03:29, 6 Dec 2005 (UTC)

  • If it is correct, it is valuable information and should be added. But we need a source. Admiral J. Nebulax 22:09, 6 Dec 2005 (UTC)
  • The 'X-Wing' game series reports that the SSD was 8km long.

All sources I've ever seen report the length of the Executor (and therefore the Executor-class) as 8 KM or about 8 times the size of the ISD. If you'd like a list of these sources, I can post them. Nick2253 04:07, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

  • That's OK....if you check around the "See Also" and "Behind the scenes" sections, you'll see some articles and links which will explain (1) why old sources say 8 km and (2) why new sources say 19 km. The Databank says 19 km, and that's what all new sources will say now. —Silly Dan (talk) 04:13, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
  • The way I see it we have no deffinate answer. Some sources say 8 km and others (so you claim, I've never run into them) say 19 km. And what's this about new measurement? Kuat drive engineers make an addition error or something? "Hey remember that ship we designed that one time? What did you write down on the blueprints as the length?" "19 km." "I wrote 8 km. Oh well there's not that much difference." Give me a break. We need to find reliable canon sources and report the most common measurement. We can then add a note saying that the other measurement is either an exaggeration by dumbfounded witnesses or an underestimation of the enemy by foolish rebel informants. Or SOMETHING more concrete than "oh we changed our minds". --24.179.221.235 03:11, 14 July 2006 (UTC)Kyp-Durron

Dude, if you erased his Lego thing, then why don't you delete the statement that the Executor is seen in bluish-green and white colors? Isn't that still nonesense?Malak501 17:51, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Leland Chee´s comment on the Executor

I took the liberty of quoting Leland Chee (Tasty Taste on the OS forum) regarding issues/controversies in continuity and how they are being dealt with (he used the Executor-size as an example of such a process):

Date Posted: Dec 18, 2004 11:41 PM

Q: how are we supposed to read retconns like the revised length of the Ex - as absolute truths and matters of dogma; or as "best guess" conclusions based on the interpretation of evidence?

TT: I'm not sure I understand the question. There's a size field for the Executor entry in the Holocron. That field now say s ~19 km long. It used to say 12 km and before that 8 km. In the Continuity Notes field of the Holocron, it lists some (though not all) sources where the different lengths were stated. There are some notes as to the entire discussion. The next time someone wishes to print a length for the ship, we look at the size field and say, the size is ~19 km long. Could this change yet again? It's unlikely, though never impossible.

Q: ...friends who have a certain nostalgia for...

TT: Taking a cue from the films, things in the EU can always change.

Date Posted: Dec 18, 2004 11:59 PM This message was edited by Tasty Taste on Dec 19, 2004 12:15 AM

Q: these sorts of thought processes are part of what I'm interested in...

TT: In a nut shell, I recall it going something like this:

A: The size is X

B: These sources say X, these other source say Y.

(group discusses)

A: We've agreed that Y seems to reflect more closely what we see in the film, so Y.

C: It's neither X, nor Y, it's actually Z. What's to be done?

A: Nothing, until someone writes about it.

(C finally gets in a position to write about it and submits draft)

A (to group): C is suggesting we use size Z.

(group discusses)

A: We've agreed that new size Z is more accurate to the film, so that's what we're going with.

Really, I assure, you there's nothing diabolical going on here. Rationale discussions take place, sometimes there's even heated debate, and then a decision made. And then, if that decision needs to be revisited for whatever reason, then it is revisted. The Executor discussion is a prime example of this process.

I´m wondering whether to include this exchange somewhere in the BTH sections of this or other Executor-related articles. Any suggestions? VT-16 11:01, 29 Aug 2005 (UTC)

  • Maybe just providing the discussion-page as an external link will be enough? VT-16 11:08, 29 Aug 2005 (UTC)
    • Thanks for digging that up, VT-16 - and yes, a link would be good, not least so I can find that discussion whenever it comes up! For the record, I was the person asking the questions - and yes, as Mr. Chee himself feared, I hadn't quite made my meaning clear (or perhaps he deliberately, and entirely within his rights, avoided a very contentious issue!!). What I didn't get an answer to was the question of exactly how the movie storyline "accuracy" and the evolving LFL/Holocron canon were supposed to relate to the "reality" of the GFFA... --McEwok 18:12, 29 Aug 2005 (UTC)
    • (or perhaps he deliberately, and entirely within his rights, avoided a very contentious issue!!)
All I see is his straight-forward answers, there´s no need for any second-guessing/speculation about the intentions of Lucas Licensing employees. VT-16 23:48, 3 Sep 2005 (UTC)
Well, if you could tell me whether we're supposed to accept the revisions as a more refined and accurate "truth", or simply a new officially-approved theory, then I'd be grateful. If you could tell me whether he gives any hint about how we're meant to deal with the contradictions between sources, that would help too. If you could tell me where there's any developed in-house theory on how the fictional story relates to medium in which it is presented, I'd appreciated it. --McEwok 19:56, 9 Sep 2005 (UTC)
Basically, what he's saying is that C (who, in the scheme of what's happened with the Ex, seems to correspond to Curtis Saxton) persuaded LFL that his argument was right (and power to him!!). However, in the wider scheme of things, this actually raises a whole slew of new continuity questions (what to do with the old sources for length; what sort of 'window' on the GFFA are the films anyway; how do we deal with the type-designation contradictions; was it wise to create these paradoxes in the first place?); and beyond this, Saxton's argument itself can also be questioned - it's a real-world argument by a real human being, and it can (IMHO) be at least questioned. --McEwok 19:56, 9 Sep 2005 (UTC)
Thanks, however, for the links to the DK interviews. I'm afraid I disagree with you, though. Strictly speaking, Jensen and Chasemore's remarks relate only to their visual references: Saxton and the prose text aren't mentioned at all. --McEwok 20:00, 9 Sep 2005 (UTC)
  • The books for the new movies were in many ways easier than the Classics because we were the first to do them. Our work is considered definitive and used for reference by Lucasfilm and ILM!!! We didn't have to reconcile our work with twenty years worth of previously published material which often conflicted with each other. - Jensen. This refers to the visuals only, and it's not clear exactly which/how much of their work is considered definitive. I suspect it refers only to the Prequel ItW Illustrations, which can serve as a definitive visual model for all other EU resources, because they were created as such, direct from the ILM FX material. The older EU stuff, in contrast, is riddled with visual contradictions (as, indeed, are the movies, which is the root of the problems with the Falcon); it was necessary to "reconcile" this simply because an illustration needs at least the illusion of visual integrity - it is not made clear what the status of these "reconciled" illustrations is compared to other EU representations. --McEwok 20:00, 9 Sep 2005 (UTC)
  • It turned out Lucasfilm used my Classic vehicle book as reference for the Slave I in Episode II. - Chasemore. This certainly shows that ILM used one reference from the OT ItW book (on which, IIRC, Saxton wasn't involved): power to them. Interesing insight in the canonization of EU material, but I don't think we can use this to infer a general, official principle for for the status of the OT illustrations, still less for the prose text. --McEwok 20:00, 9 Sep 2005 (UTC)
Of course, I'm sure that at least some people at LFL/ILM are very keen on these books, and would like to see them become a new foundation to supercede previous canon; but as far as I'm aware, that's not official policy, and it can (perhaps even should) be asked whether such a retconn is a good idea - or even necessary. --McEwok 19:56, 9 Sep 2005 (UTC)
  • Since I tire of this debate (this is an encyclopedia, not TFN), this will be my last post on this matter. You are putting your own spin on this in an attempt at denying official stances you don´t like. Ask Leland Chee or shut up. If I ever see you putting any of your slanted garbage in an actual article, I will report you to the admins and hopefully have you banned for inserting fanon. VT-16 17:08, 10 Sep 2005 (UTC)

The Executor and the other Super Star Destroyers aren't called Executor-class Star Dreadnought. That's just wrong. Look on the official site ([1]). Quote of the starwars.com Databank entry for 'Super Star Destroyer': "The Executor was the first of a new generation of immense warships, a Super-class Star Destroyer." That means the Executor is a Super-class Star Destroyer. If there's something other written in a book or elsewhere, you should know that starwars.com is the most important Star Wars source!

  • It is officially called the Executor-class Star Dreadnought. Cmdr. J. Nebulax 21:08, 4 Nov 2005 (UTC)
    • What, the official databank isn't official enough for you? Inside the Worlds of Star Wars Trilogy does not override or negate the databank. -- AdmThrawn --
      • Who was that directed to? Admiral J. Nebulax 22:14, 22 Dec 2005 (UTC)
      • The OS databank is not always up-to-date and is not a comprehensive work. It exists to give some general information on things, that's it. The ITW:OT and CLOSW adds to information already given and helps give more comprehensive information. VT-16 23:25, 22 Dec 2005 (UTC)
        • Exactly. It could very well say something wrong on the Official Site. Admiral J. Nebulax 00:29, 23 Dec 2005 (UTC)

List of Ships

I'm curious...how do we know all of these ships were Executor-class Star Dreadnaughts? The Star Wars: The Official Figurine Collection magazine has a line that seems to imply there were only a maximum of 2 of this type of ship constructed.

"It is possible that the Executor was the only ship of its type that was ever constructed, although the Lusankya - the ship of the director of Imperial intelligence service, Ysanne Isard - may have belonged to this class."
―Star Wars: The Official Figurine Collection Magazine #1, p. 013

So is it not possible that all these other ships were in fact Super-class Star Destroyers? It's never stated anywhere that they're not 8km, it's only been assumed that they're not due to the Executor discrepancies. -Jaymach Ral'Tir 13:06, 29 Dec 2005 (UTC)

  • There is no such thing as "Super-class Star Destroyers". That's a fanon name for Executor-class Star Dreadnought. Admiral J. Nebulax 13:08, 29 Dec 2005 (UTC)
    • Super-class Star Destroyer, Super-class Star Destroyer (although admitedly these 2 examples are referring to 2 classes of Super-class Star Destroyers, not a specific class of its own), Super-class Star Destroyer (though admitedly, that's from an ambig source; but it does say specifically in the article Super-class Star Destroyer), Super-class Star Destroyer (I know CUSWE isn't a source, but the book that ship is in does say Super-class Star Destroyer)...do I need to go on? -Jaymach Ral'Tir 13:17, 29 Dec 2005 (UTC)
      • There is no "Super-class Star Destroyer". In the past, the Official Site's databank has proven to be incorrect, and those links show it. The term is "Super Star Destroyer", which is slang for Star Dreadnought. The class of the Executor and all these other warships listed as members of this class are Executor-class Star Dreadnoughts. Admiral J. Nebulax 14:18, 29 Dec 2005 (UTC)
        • Also, you made the Enforcer page. Plus, it's "source" is an unlicensed source. Admiral J. Nebulax 14:22, 29 Dec 2005 (UTC)
          • I admited previously that it was from an ambig source and, although I did make the page, it is named clearly as a Super-class Star Destroyer in the article...I am more than happy to provide a scan of this if needed. The official databank is not the only place to name them Super-class, the Black Fleet Crisis books do this also, and so there is Super-class Star Destroyer's. None of these ships are ever called Executor-class Star Dreadnaughts, only ever Super Star Destroyers. And you have yet to answer the very reason I started this inquiry...the quote clearly states that only a maximum of 2 of these types of ship have existed. So what else can we call the others, but Super-class Star Destroyers? -Jaymach Ral'Tir 15:04, 29 Dec 2005 (UTC)
            • The Black Fleet Crisis books are mistaken. There is no such class as "Super-class Star Destroyer". They most likely meant "Super Star Destroyer", which means one or both of the following: 1) A slang term for Star Dreadnought, 2) A term used to describe the classes of Star Dreadnoughts, such as Executor-class, Sovereign-class, and Eclipse-class. So get it through your head. "Super-class Star Destroyers" do not exist. Admiral J. Nebulax 15:08, 29 Dec 2005 (UTC)
              • 1) The Sovereign and Eclipse classes are only ever called -class Super Star Destroyers, never -class Star Dreadnaughts, but I really can't be bothered getting into that whole argument right now. 2) Canon sources are not wrong, unless they are contradicted by a higher level of canon. As the term Super-class Star Destroyer has never been proven wrong, fans have simply labelled all Super Star Destroyers as Executor-classes, the Black Fleet Crisis books are not wrong. Until someone else replies to this, I will speak no longer as I have seen your arguments before and I freely admit I have a distinct dislike for you that I do not wish to bring into this argument. So if someone else would like to respond to the quote I provided... -Jaymach Ral'Tir 15:13, 29 Dec 2005 (UTC)
                • Sovereign and Eclipse-classes are known as possible Star Dreadnought classes because they are larger than standard Star Destroyers and fit the Star Dreadnought description. "Super-class Star Destroyer" is fanon because it was made by fans. While there are other classes of Super Star Destroyers without proper class names, there are no "Super-class Star Destroyers". Admiral J. Nebulax 15:19, 29 Dec 2005 (UTC)
                  • And you said you distinctly dislike me. Well, I hope you know that I have the good of the article in mind when I am in debates like this. Admiral J. Nebulax 15:26, 29 Dec 2005 (UTC)
                    • However, I might add that you are right that some of these Super Star Destroyers are most likely not Executor-class Star Dreadnoughts. Admiral J. Nebulax 15:29, 29 Dec 2005 (UTC)
                      • There are no "Super-class Star Destroyers," because Super-class is a FAKE class name. This is proven in that second link (the one about gravity well projectors), which refers to the Eclipse and Sovereign-classes as "Super-class." Therefore, Super-class is a general, informal term for the Executor, Eclipse, and Sovereign-classes (and probably other huge ships as well), likely a corruption/derivative of the slang term "Super Star Destroyer" (which we KNOW is slang from Inside the Worlds of the Star Wars Trilogy). The idea that an 8 km Super-class exists is nothing but FANON conjecture, which has no supporting evidence, and is contradicted by the fact that Super-class is a general slang term. That collector's magazine does NOT cap the number of Executor-class ships at 2, it only says that it's "possible" that there are only that little. We know from other sources that there are more. If you look at that quote from an in-universe perspective, the tone sounds like something from an uninformed person (the use of words such as "possible" and "may"). JimRaynor55 15:57, 29 Dec 2005 (UTC)
                        • Fanon you say? And this would be what, exactly? -Jaymach Ral'Tir 16:37, 29 Dec 2005 (UTC)
                          • You really don't get it, do you? Super-class is FAKE. It's a mistake. Lucasfilm Ltd. has owned up to it. They're just Executor-class ships that were given incorrect stats. JimRaynor55 16:41, 29 Dec 2005 (UTC)
                            • No, Lucasfilm Ltd. has stated that the 8km length for the Executor itself is wrong...show me a single place where they have said that no ships can be 8km and I'll gladly admit I'm wrong, but I know of no such place. Yes, WEG got the Exs length wrong at 8km...no, that does not mean that other ships can't still retain their length of 8km unless it has been stated elsewhere that it is not their correct length. -Jaymach Ral'Tir 16:44, 29 Dec 2005 (UTC)
                              • Face it, Jaymach, you're wrong. So stop trying to prove that you're right. There is no "Super-class". Your arguement is futile. Give it up. Admiral J. Nebulax 16:55, 29 Dec 2005 (UTC)
                                • I've just posted a prime example of a canon Super-class Star Destroyer...until someone shows me a source that states explicitly that there can't be 8km SSD's, rather than just that the Executor isn't 8km, I will not give it up as there's no proof that the class isn't completely canon. So someone prove me wrong. -Jaymach Ral'Tir 17:04, 29 Dec 2005 (UTC)
                                  • How about the fact that I have been? "Super-class Star Destroyer" is a fanon name! Check out the page for it. You'll see. Admiral J. Nebulax 17:05, 29 Dec 2005 (UTC)
  • The book is wrong, then. There is no "Super-class Star Destroyer". The correct term for Guardian is Executor-class Star Dreadnought. Get it through your thick skull. You're wrong, Jaymach. Nothing you can do with ever make "Super-class Star Destroyer" an actual term. Your "sources" are incorrect. If the book was updated, you'd see. Admiral J. Nebulax 17:41, 29 Dec 2005 (UTC)
    • Point me somewhere showing that ship as an Executor-class...show me anywhere that calls it that, anywhere at all...some little obscure source. Until you do Super-class Star Destroyer is the class for that ship. You're wrong Nebulax. -Jaymach Ral'Tir 17:17, 29 Dec 2005 (UTC)
      • You're completely lying when you said they only increased the Executor's length. Does this only say Executor? No, it says "Super Star Destroyer." All of them are 19 km now, which should have been obvious since they're supposed to be the Executor's sister ships. In canon, "Super-class Star Destroyer" is only a general term, probably slang, for several classes of large ships. JimRaynor55 17:19, 29 Dec 2005 (UTC)
        • Being entirely anal retentive, as we all seem to be here, that source only says Super Star Destroyer, a term either you or Nebulax previously said was a "slang" term used to describe the Executor, and so thus may not apply to the Super-class Star Destroyer, but simply to the Executor-class Star Dreadnaught. Until a point in time where the Guardian is either called an Executor-class Star Dreadnaught, or it's length is stated in a canon source as anything other than the 8km the current canon source marks it as, then it is simply fanon conjecture that it should be of the same class and size as the Ex. -Jaymach Ral'Tir 17:25, 29 Dec 2005 (UTC)
          • Jaymach, you don't get it. There is no "Super-class". The Guardian is an Executor-class because they have the same design. "Super Star Destroyer" is a slang term for Executors, Sovereigns, and Eclipses, as well as the other classes larger than a Star Destroyer. And I'm right. You're wrong. For God's sake, you have no common sense. JimRaynor and I are giving you the facts here. Now, stop acting like an idiot and listen to the facts. Admiral J. Nebulax 17:41, 29 Dec 2005 (UTC)
          • Since these sources point back to each ship belonging to the Executor-class and its statistics were changed, their stats would change alongside it. VT-16 20:48, 29 Dec 2005 (UTC)
            • Exactly. We all know that sources can get things messed up, especially those from years ago. Admiral J. Nebulax 20:49, 29 Dec 2005 (UTC)
          • Addition: Every named ship singled out as being the same as the Executor, would have their statistics changed alongside it. Therefore, there should be no confusion and no need to resort to calling them Super-class. VT-16 20:55, 29 Dec 2005 (UTC)
            • Now, let's see what Jaymach says when he finds out he had been wrong all this time... That is, if he didn't realize it any earlier. Admiral J. Nebulax 20:56, 29 Dec 2005 (UTC)
              • I'm sorry, proven wrong? You have not "proven me wrong" in any way...yes the stats were originally devised for the Executor...no, that doesn't mean all the other ships need to be changed to that size too. Because we have canon works calling them 8km, we have to assume that they are 8km until a newer, or indeed any, source says otherwise. Because Super-class Star Destroyer has been printed as a class in a piece of canon works, it is canon itself. -Jaymach Ral'Tir 07:48, 30 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Hang on just a darn minute!!!!

"It is possible that the Executor was the only ship of its type that was ever constructed, although the Lusankya - the ship of the director of Imperial intelligence service, Ysanne Isard - may have belonged to this class."
―Star Wars: The Official Figurine Collection Magazine #1, p. 013

Yikes! *starts laughing helplessly*

Strictly speaking, that quote leaves open the possibility that there were also other ships that "may have" been 19km as well... but it looks like what it's trying to say is that only Ex and maybe Lucy were 19km, and that most of the 5-mile Super Star Destroyers we've seen over the years, perhaps even including Lady Lucy, were exactly that...

As to evidence... well, we have canonical references to Ex as a Star Destroyer from ESB onwards, and "Super-class Star Destroyer" references all over the place, starting with the ISB and RASB; Executor-class Star Destroyer occurs in SoL, and I think Executor-class Super Star Destroyer appears some places (NEGtVV?)... but as to "Executor-class Star Dreadnought", the only evidence consists of one somewhat ambiguous phrase, "ultimate Star Dreadnoughts like the Executor".... --McEwok 19:08, 29 Dec 2005 (UTC)

  • McEwok, don't bring your theories over here. The point is, there are no "Super-class Star Destroyers", and those were Executor-class Star Dreadnoughts. Admiral J. Nebulax 20:30, 29 Dec 2005 (UTC)
    • FYI, The Swarm War mentions Super-class Star Destroyers - Kwenn
      • No one is denying that the term exists in the SW universe. It's just that it's not a real class name, or the name of an 8 km class that's distinct from the Executor and her sister ships. The databank shows that Super-class is applied to a number of different ship classes. JimRaynor55 21:10, 29 Dec 2005 (UTC)
        • Umm... if the (canon) Figurine magazine suggests that only Ex and maybe Lady Lucy were 19km ships, then doesn't that rather imply that all the ships that canon calls 8km Super-class Star Destroyers might have been just that? It's true that the databank uses the "Super-class" designation to describe Eclipse-class and Sovereign-class ships as well, but in real life, it's not completely unknown for a class designation to be extended across new designs: for instance, the RN's County-class cruiser designation was applied to all 8"-gunned heavy cruisers, including three successive and broadly similar (but not identical) designs of ~630' and then to two later and smaller ships, HMS York and HMS Exeter, at 575'. The RN's next cruiser type, the 6" Town-class cruiser originally applied to the 571' Southampton-class, but was then extended to cover the 613' Edinburgh-class. While admittedly the differences here aren't so marked as between an 8km Super and a 10-mile Eclipse-class ship, there is nevertheless adequate real-life precedent for a designation being extended, so that the "Super-class Star Destroyer" designation might originally have applied to the 8km ships, but been extended to the 19km Ex and the later Eclipse-class and Sovereign. --McEwok 21:35, 29 Dec 2005 (UTC)
          • That idiotic COLLECTORS MAGAZINE is flat out wrong, since we have reference books stating that Executor was one of the four original ships of its class. We also have official statements stating that the 8 km length is wrong, and revised to the present 19 km length, NOT that there is a separate, smaller class of ships. JimRaynor55 21:42, 29 Dec 2005 (UTC)
          • If you're seriously suggesting that a 8 km long ship and a 19 km long ship (over twice the size) are part of the same class... *rolls eyes*
And the RL sub-classes didn't have that kind of radically different superstructure. 17 m and 7 m difference? That's not much. VT-16 21:47, 29 Dec 2005 (UTC)
  • This pointless debate is over. We all know that they were all Executor-class Star Destroyers, not non-existant "Super-class Star Destroyers", despite the fact that someone continues to believe that "Super-class Star Destroyer" is an actual class name. Admiral J. Nebulax 23:38, 29 Dec 2005 (UTC)
    • This "pointless" debate is not over...I've noticed that you keep saying that in arguments whenever you think you've won because the other person hasn't posted, even when you've not addressed the issue of previous sources. You can't simply say that canon works are wrong, simply because they don't agree with your point of view...if we can do that then I'm going to say that the book calling the Executor a Star Dreadnaught is wrong. Therefore we can't name them as Star Dreadnaughts at all. However, as ALL canon works have to be taken into consideration, I can't do that. The Guardian, until called something else, is a Super-class Star Destroyer as that is what a canon source calls it. Anything other than that is fanon conjecture, and thus is not allowed on this Wookiee. And can someone please give me the source that states the Executor is the 1st of 4 Ex-class ships? I want to check the exact wording on it as, if it simply says that the Ex is the 1st of 4 Super Star Destroyers, then that invalidates it as an argument for the other side. -Jaymach Ral'Tir 07:48, 30 Dec 2005 (UTC)
      • The source I'm familiar with is the Imperial Sourcebook, pg. 62, in the section about Super Star Destroyers: "The Super-class Star Destroyer is the dream of the Emperor and the epitome of his new navy . . . Four of these massive vessels are now in service. The first, Executor, was presented to Lord Darth Vader by the Emperor to serve as his personal flagship from which to lead the fleet charged with the eradication of the Rebel Alliance." IIRC, this was also the book that introduced the term "Super-class Star Destroyer" to the canon. jSarek 09:33, 30 Dec 2005 (UTC)
        • Okay, thank you for giving me that source, that was exactly what I was wanting. :) From looking at that, I admit that Super-class Star Destroyer may not be a class of it's own, and so that would not be what to call the 8km Super Star Destroyers. However, it doesn't contradict the quote I originally provided, saying that the Executor and Lusankya were possibley the only 2 ships of their kind. If Super-class Star Destroyer is indeed a term used to describe any ships in the range over 1,600 meters, then the quote can still be correct. The Executor was one of the first 4 Super Star Destroyers, but was also one of only 2 Executor-class Star Dreadnaughts. This would mean that there still could be a seperate, 8km SSD, we simply do not have a name for their class. I simply see no need to disregard canon statistics for 8km ships just because the Executor has been retconed to be a 19km ship. -Jaymach Ral'Tir 10:01, 30 Dec 2005 (UTC)
        • That idiotic COLLECTORS MAGAZINE is flat out wrong.
Funny. Last I checked, it was canon, and your opinions weren't. That said, I'm entirely prepared to allow you your opinion/evaluation of the source, if you do me and everyone else the matching courtesy of allowing us our own, as well. Stop confusing your opinion with "fact".
        • We also have official statements stating that the 8 km length is wrong, and revised to the present 19 km length, NOT that there is a separate, smaller class of ships.
Do those statements apply to all Super-class ships, or just to the Executor....?
        • If you're seriously suggesting that a 8 km long ship and a 19 km long ship (over twice the size) are part of the same class... *rolls eyes*
I'm suggesting that "Super-class Star Destroyer" is typologically recognizable as a class-designation, and since there's evidence that it can be used to refer to all of the handful of super-sized Star Destroyer designs used by the Empire, it seems reasonable to me to suggest that yes, it can. The 8km ship is still five times the size of a standard ISD. These are a handful of very, very large ships....
        • 17 m and 7 m difference? That's not much.
8.7% for the Counties and 6.8% for the Towns. I'll give you that the differences are rather more marked between the 8km Super-class and the other SSDs, but still, Super-class Star Destroyer is a class term, and it's applied generally to Super Star Destroyers in the Databank (against which we can note the WotC article on Byss, which distinguishes the Sovereign-class and Eclipse-class Star Destroyers from the "Super Star Destroyers". You're welcome to suggest that that means that it's not a term for 8km ships, but you have no proof. It can equally be argued that it's a term that can be "loosened" to cover several super-sized Star Destroyer classes, without prejudicing its specific application to the more prevalent 8km design... as backed up by all the references to 8km Super-class ships.
        • The source I'm familiar with is the Imperial Sourcebook, pg. 62, in the section about Super Star Destroyers
I was hoping someone would bring that one up, actually. As I'm sure you know, the same ISB entry says the SSD is "five times the length of an Imperial Star Destroyer", and gives "Length: 8,000 meters" in the stats. Clearly, as going by the current Holocron statement, these claims are inaccurate for Ex. However, ISB Ch. 5 is "From a report by the Imperial Navy to the Emperor's advisors on budgetary affairs", and also claims (p. 59) that the torpedo sphere "is designed to accomplish only one mission — to knock out a planet's shields", when other sources show that the torpedo sphere is designed for BDZ operations. Therefore, it seems that the Ex is being passed off in this in-universe source as an 8km Super-class ship, just as the torp. sphere is being passed off as a shield-thwacker rather than a terror weapon. I always said I'd accept a 19km Ex if LFL provided a good explanation for the 8km figures, and it seems we have one here. It's entirely plausible to read the canon as indicating that most of the 8km Super-class Star Destroyers were exactly that, with only Ex and maybe Lady Lucy being 19km as seen on-screen in the movies; and even they were presented to the public as 8km ships. It's also entirely plausible to argue that the 19km length is a post facto misinterpretation based on a flawed interpretation of Artoo's editorial decisions, but either POV is valid, I think. I'm happy. --McEwok 10:58, 30 Dec 2005 (UTC)
          • Indeed, I did know that, which is why I get so pissy about people blaming Arhul Hextrophon for sloppy research, when the figures they're criticizing aren't his, but those of a money-hungry Imperial Navy that was apparently cooking their books for the Advisors (hence, they also claim that they don't have any hyperspace-capable ships smaller than a Skipray, even though they've clearly got Alpha-class Xg-1 Star Wings and TIE Avengers by this point). Anyway, I digress; I think claiming that the Super-class designation was a political maneuver on the part of Imperial Navy bureaucrats, and that it was picked up upon and disseminated by a Rebel Alliance with little else to go on in those days when intelligence was much more hit-or-miss, is a good solution to the dilemma. jSarek 11:56, 30 Dec 2005 (UTC)
            • Nonetheless, there is no "Super-class Star Destroyer", and the term is "Super Star Destroyer". Now, however, with the size differences—is there any chance the sizes could be a mistake? Looking at the Guardian picture Jaymach provided us with, the Super Star Destroyer seemes to be the size of an Executor-class Star Dreadnought, due to the size of the Imperial-class Star Destroyers. So, from what I've seen, I believe that the sizes are mistakes, and that they are all Executor-class Star Dreadnoughts. Admiral J. Nebulax 12:35, 30 Dec 2005 (UTC)
              • Unfortunately, however, it is impossible to tell 1) What kind of ships those really are in the background...although they do indeed appear to be Imperial I-class Star Destroyers, they may not be, or 2) How far away those ships are from the Guardian itself, they could very well be thousands of meters away, which would mean vast discrepancies with any sizes you took by comparing the two ships. Because of these 2 facts, all we can really go on is that stats themselves, which clearly state 8km. -Jaymach Ral'Tir 12:40, 30 Dec 2005 (UTC)
                • Good point. However, since the book was made over ten years ago, perhaps they got the facts wrong. Admiral J. Nebulax 12:43, 30 Dec 2005 (UTC)
                • The 8 km length was the official length for Executor-class ships. Any author who would write stories with them in it, would find this as part of its official statistics at the time. Therefore, unless I see evidence to the contrary, all 8 km ships would be Executor-class vessels, following its stats at the time. VT-16 13:32, 30 Dec 2005 (UTC)
                  • Exactly. Even though the official statistics say "19 km", the vessels that were stated as 8 km (which was the old official statistics) Executor-class Star Dreadnoughts would therefore stay Executors, despite the change in size. Admiral J. Nebulax 15:13, 30 Dec 2005 (UTC)
                    • I just thought I'd post to say that I'll come back to this later, but I'm not in the mood to do so just now because of matters in my personal life. -Jaymach Ral'Tir 19:39, 30 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Getting this thread back on track (and providing a helpful new edit-break header)

  • I think claiming that the Super-class designation was a political maneuver... is a good solution to the dilemma.
So do I. But do you mean you think that the 5-mile Super-class ship only ever existed on paper, as misinformation? Or do you think that the 19km Ex was passed off to the advisors as a 5-mile Super-class, and that the other SSDs were indeed 5-mile ships as claimed (which seems to me a more minimal, and thus—IMHO!!—better, revision)? Or are you happy to accept both POVs as possible readings (and perhaps others that I've not thought of!)? --McEwok 16:53, 1 Jan 2006 (UTC)
    • Well, I tend to support the possibility that is most likely to predict what will be seen as "true" in later publications. I find it to be most likely that Lucasfilm will not be supporting the existence of two seperate classes
  • there is no "Super-class Star Destroyer", and the term is "Super Star Destroyer"
Um, no. There are plenty of canon references to "Super-class Star Destroyers". --McEwok 16:53, 1 Jan 2006 (UTC)
  • Therefore, unless I see evidence to the contrary, all 8 km ships would be Executor-class vessels
There is absolutely no evidence that all 8km ships were "really" 19km. OOU, it's true that the 8km ships were supposed to be sister-ships of the Ex, but it's only a hypothetical extrapolation on your part that changing the length of the Ex also changes the length of all the others, and the quote Jaymach cited suggests that in fact it does not, and they remain 8km Super-class ships. At present, the canon evidence identifies a large number of 8km Super-class SDs; Executor is claimed at both 8km and 19km, and one recent source says that only Ex and perhaps Executor II/Lusankya were 19km ships: this suggests that the others were 8km ships, and the inference seems to be that Ex was a 19km ship passed off publicly as an 8km one, and that the nature of the publicly-known evidence is still ambiguous, so that the in-universe public aren't quite sure how long Lady Lucy was.
You are, of course, entirely entitled to believe that all 8km SSDs were actually 19km... but there is no canon evidence for this (just as there is no real secure evidence to call the 19km ships "Star Dreadnoughts"). These are simply your personal fan interpretations, and should not be passed off as the only possible solution, still less as hard-and-fast canon: I am equally entitled to my own interpretation that the retconn is in error, and the Ex was "really" always just 8km, 19km representing a post facto misinterpretation of evidence. --McEwok 16:53, 1 Jan 2006 (UTC)
  • McEwok, there is no "Super-class Star Destroyer". The term is "Super Star Destroyer". And no more of your annoying thoughts. We've had enough of them already. Admiral J. Nebulax 17:26, 1 Jan 2006 (UTC)
    • Actually, Super-class Star Destroyer is a name used in official sources, but it's just a longer version of the term 'Super Star Destroyer', at least that's what the official site seems to imply. Either way, both are just general terms for ships bigger than Star Destroyers, and doesn't cover one specific class. The only significant thing about this debacle, is that some sources have shown images of a ship, with slightly different dimensions and fewer engines than the Executor-class ships. The only further retcon I see available, would be to classify this as a distinct type of ship, with 'Super'-class as its name. I also see that McEwok has gone full-scale "denialist", now, with denying evidence from both film crew, movie measurements AND the official site. Impressive. VT-16 18:30, 1 Jan 2006 (UTC)
    • VT-16, please don't use people's real names. It's rude, especially when you get them wrong. I've taken the liberty of editing my screen-name into your post. A little clue, though. McEwok used to be the Luther Blisset of fandom. Consider it a postmodernist joke? ;)
As to the actual argument, what you think the databank "seems to imply" certainly isn't the only possibility for what it might mean. It's just your interpretation. And while, according to ItW, "Super Star Destroyer" is used to describe a lot of big ships in "Rebel slang", it is again, only your opinion that "Super-class Star Destroyer" is similarly a "general terms for ships bigger than Star Destroyers". I'm not saying that my opinion is right and yours is wrong, though—just that they're both just valid opinions.
    • The only significant thing about this debacle, is that some sources have shown images of a ship, with slightly different dimensions and fewer engines than the Executor-class ships.
It's a debate, not a debacle. And, I think you'll also find that there are widespread references to an 8km ship with an armament that would be rather small for a 19km one. What we're proposing is that these were Super-class Star Destroyers, and that this term, while specifically referring to these ships, was also applied to a smaller number of other very large Star Destroyers of different designs, in the way that the County-class designation was applied to York and Exeter, and Town-class was applied to Edinburgh and Belfast. I can understand that you might have a different opinion, but I fail to see why you think your opinion must be right, and the alternatives wrong—especially in the light of a recent reference indicating that only Ex and maybe Lucy were 19km. --McEwok 19:20, 1 Jan 2006 (UTC)
      • "Actually, Super-class Star Destroyer is a name used in official sources, but it's just a longer version of the term 'Super Star Destroyer'..." That's basically what I just said. And, for the shorter Super Star Destroyers, we have unknown classes seen orbiting Byss, so this "smaller Executor-class" could be a class with an unknown class name, but not "Super-class". Admiral J. Nebulax 18:42, 1 Jan 2006 (UTC)
      • this "smaller Executor-class" could be a class with an unknown class name, but not "Super-class".
It could also be "Super-class", though.... --McEwok 19:20, 1 Jan 2006 (UTC)
  • There is no "Super-class", McEwok. The term is "Super Star Destroyer". How many times do I have to repeat myself? And stop putting posts right in the middle of a conversation. Admiral J. Nebulax 19:23, 1 Jan 2006 (UTC)
    • McEwok used to be the Luther Blisset of fandom. Consider it a postmodernist joke? ;)
I frankly don't consider you anything other than an internet buffoon.
As to the actual argument, what you think the databank "seems to imply" certainly isn't the only possibility for what it might mean. It's just your interpretation. And while, according to ItW, "Super Star Destroyer" is used to describe a lot of big ships in "Rebel slang", it is again, only your opinion that "Super-class Star Destroyer" is similarly a "general terms for ships bigger than Star Destroyers".
Funny how the Databank doesn't agree with you:
The Executor was the first of a new generation of immense warships, a Super-class Star Destroyer.
The Super Star Destroyer is one of the largest, most powerful Imperial vessels ever created. It follows the same basic dagger-shaped design of the Imperial-class Star Destroyers, but magnified to much larger scale.
Notice how it simply talks about the Executor? Similarly to how Imperial class often shortens to Imperial Star Destroyer, Super-class shortens to Super Star Destroyer, as used on the official site. If one would change to the definition used in ITW:OT, so would the other.
I'm not saying that my opinion is right and yours is wrong, though—just that they're both just valid opinions.
If the arguments are opposed, then one would be right and the other wrong. Consider this my little "rationalist" joke. ;)
It's a debate, not a debacle.
Actually, people like you have made it into a debacle.
And, I think you'll also find that there are widespread references to an 8km ship with an armament that would be rather small for a 19km one. What we're proposing is that these were Super-class Star Destroyers, and that this term, while specifically referring to these ships, was also applied to a smaller number of other very large Star Destroyers of different designs
Hmm, a term for multiple different classes, isn't that what I've argued above? Why yes, it is. "Flip-flopping", are we? ;P VT-16 19:47, 1 Jan 2006 (UTC)
I can understand that you might have a different opinion, but I fail to see why you think your opinion must be right, and the alternatives wrong—especially in the light of a recent reference indicating that only Ex and maybe Lucy were 19km.
Hmm, a magazine about figurines, with clip-on factsheets? Not what I would consider the most reliable of sources... VT-16 19:47, 1 Jan 2006 (UTC)
  • McEwok, just knock it off already. This entire thing is pointless, and you had to start it. So leave it alone already. Admiral J. Nebulax 21:46, 1 Jan 2006 (UTC)
    • Actually, I agree with McEwok; my personal reading is that there's plenty of info to support both an Ex-class and a Super-class; even in Swarm War they mention Super-class. Thanos6 21:53, 1 Jan 2006 (UTC)
      • But there isn't a "Super-class". Admiral J. Nebulax 21:55, 1 Jan 2006 (UTC)
        • For something that doesn't exist, characters and narrators sure seem to talk about it a lot. :) Thanos6 21:58, 1 Jan 2006 (UTC)
          • He's referring to it being ret-conned away. There isn't any Super-class anymore like the Executor. Another, smaller class might exist by that name, but until any new publications speak of them as being different in appearance than the Executor-class, it doesn't exist anymore. VT-16 22:01, 1 Jan 2006 (UTC)
            • Yes. The term is "Super Star Destroyer", and the "Super-class" doesn't exist. Admiral J. Nebulax 22:51, 1 Jan 2006 (UTC)

McEwok wrote: :So do I. But do you mean you think that the 5-mile Super-class ship only ever existed on paper, as misinformation? Or do you think that the 19km Ex was passed off to the advisors as a 5-mile Super-class, and that the other SSDs were indeed 5-mile ships as claimed (which seems to me a more minimal, and thus—IMHO!!—better, revision)? Or are you happy to accept both POVs as possible readings (and perhaps others that I've not thought of!)? Well, I tend to support the possibility that is most likely to predict what will be seen as "true" in later publications. To me, it's most likely that Lucasfilm will not be supporting the existence of two seperate classes; thus, the "only on paper" possibility seems most likely to me, though either option is possible and unproven until we are provided with more conclusive evidence. jSarek 12:22, 2 Jan 2006 (UTC)

  • Exactly. The "Super-class" never existed, Thanos6, except on paper as a mistake. Had all these books been updated and corrected, it would say "Executor-class". Admiral J. Nebulax 12:26, 2 Jan 2006 (UTC)
    • The problem as I see it is certain people's quasi-religious faith in the infallibility of WEG. Some of us are capable of recognizing a mistake and welcoming attempts to correct it, and some aren't. And nothing is ever going to change that. We can all argue until we're blue in the face, and the "Super-class" people still won't see reason. This whole thing is stupefyingly repetitive and increasingly irritating. —Darth Culator (talk) 15:34, 2 Jan 2006 (UTC)
      • "This whole thing is stupefyingly repetitive and increasingly irritating". Exactly. Admiral J. Nebulax 16:02, 2 Jan 2006 (UTC)
    • They talked about Super-class in Swarm War, Nebulax. That's not something that needs "updating." I've never read nor bought anything by WEG, I'm just going by the books. Thanos6 17:59, 2 Jan 2006 (UTC)
      • Books screw things up all the time. The point is, there is no "Super-class Star Destroyer". Admiral J. Nebulax 18:02, 2 Jan 2006 (UTC)
      • You're right, since the explanation that covered this issue has been available since last year (2004). Any future reference to Super Star Destroyers (otherwise known as Super-class Star Destroyers) would simply entail that they are bigger than the Empire's destroyers/small cruisers, with further information needed to find out which type of ship each vessel belongs to. These 8km vessels (if they are mentioned as such in Swarm War) could represent a distinct class, or the author could simply not have done enough homework and gone with the 19km Executor-class=8km Super-class (I suspect the latter is more likely). VT-16 19:18, 2 Jan 2006 (UTC)

Another break to tangle out the complex reply-pattern

  • VT-16: If one would change to the definition used in ITW:OT, so would the other.
Not necessarily. Why should it? There's more than one possible POV here (howbeit that yours is based on rhetorically and subjectively dismissing evidence that's inconvenient for your theory)...
  • If the arguments are opposed, then one would be right and the other wrong. Consider this my little "rationalist" joke. ;)
I sincerely hope that is a joke. Because, you know, situations exist where the evidence is not sufficient to reach a clear conclusion. And, more than that, we're dealing with fiction, where the putative "truth" can change as new information modifies evidence that prevously meant something else (as shown by the 19km figure itself)...
  • Hmm, a term for multiple different classes, isn't that what I've argued above? Why yes, it is. "Flip-flopping", are we? ;P
No—I'm arguing that it's a class-designation that's specific to the five-mile design, but which can also extend to the larger über-Star Destroyers. I assume you realised that... so why are yo arguing?
  • Hmm, a magazine about figurines, with clip-on factsheets? Not what I would consider the most reliable of sources...
It's a canon source. It says interesting things. Of course, "it might not be reliable, and it's certainly not The Essential Guide to Star Wars Terminology" is a reasonable caveat which I think everyone's agreeing should gloss any use of this particular piece of canon material. Nevertheless, that caveat isn't the same thing as "it's wrong because it disagrees with my personal fanboy opinion", which seems to be your position. At best, you can claim that as your opinion—nothing more.
  • Nebulax, Culator: okay, we know what your opinion is. Other people have different opinions. What then? Why should your opinion prevail, rather than being treated as one of the possibilities in this situation...?
  • Thanos6: you agree with me. Should you be woried?=p
  • jSarek: To me, it's most likely that Lucasfilm will not be supporting the existence of two seperate classes; thus, the "only on paper" possibility seems most likely to me, though either option is possible and unproven until we are provided with more conclusive evidence.
Okay. Can we agree to disagree? And, speaking as someone who takes the opposite POV, would you object to, hypothetically speaking, a careful outlining of the alternative POVs on the Super-class Star Destroyer page? --McEwok 20:16, 4 Jan 2006 (UTC)
    • I, unlike some people here, am not at all bothered by agreeing to disagree when evidence can be interpreted in more than one way, and would have no problem with an analysis of both points of view on that page. However, I'm not the one you need to worry about giving you trouble over the matter . . . jSarek 01:49, 5 Jan 2006 (UTC)
  • Here we go again... Admiral J. Nebulax 20:22, 4 Jan 2006 (UTC)

Sources that go against "maybe only two Executor-ships"

Lusankya - Mistaken for the Executor by its builders, with the difference being discovered some time after the rebel conquest of Coruscant. Drawings in Crimson Empire have hull dimensions and gross cortex features identical to Executor. Therefore Lusankya is 19km long, and belongs to the Executor-class.

Guardian - The published illustration (also used in its Wiki-article) is visually indistinguishable from the Executor. By comparing it with the three Imperial-class ships around it, its size is more consistent with that of the Executor than with any 8km vessel.

Intimidator - Described as 8km long but also described as "Executor-class" in Black Fleet Crisis. Its publizised size would therefore change along with the Executor´s.

Brawl (later known as Imperial Warlord Zsinj's flagship Iron Fist) - Must be an Executor-class vessel, because it was directly indicated to be part of the Lusankya/Executor´s original generation of ships.

Razor's Kiss - Must similarly be the same class as it was a sister to Iron Fist.

Vengeance - Although the vessel in the game Balance of Power has the 8km length relative to ISDs beside it, the box art for the game shows the vessel in the same size-range as the Executor.

Night Hammer/Knight Hammer - Built after Endor, was stated by Pellaeon to be as large as the Executor.

From a fellow debater:

Various WEG sources (ISB, GG3) as well as the EGV&V and the NEGV&V all flat out state that there were at least 3 additional SSD's as large as the Executor in service before Hoth. The NEGV&V adds to this that "several more" were under construction in that timeframe. It goes on to say that while the "total number' of such vessels built by Endor was never specifically known, it said that a "handful" materialized in the hands of Imperial warlords post Endor. VT-16 16:05, 3 Jan 2006 (UTC)

The deformed SSD from WEG's Imperial Sourcebook. Another image from the Dark Empire Sourcebook shows it as an 8km long vessel, compared with the Eclipse. Might be a candidate for a specific 8km long Super-class (or imho, Superior-class changed to Super ;)). Notice how the rear engine-bank appears to be missing, the superstructure behind the tower is shortened, the tower itself is much bigger compared to the rest of the vessel. VT-16 16:16, 3 Jan 2006 (UTC)

  • Okay, now we know that there are more Executor-class Star Dreadnoughts. Admiral J. Nebulax 21:25, 3 Jan 2006 (UTC)
  • Lusankya - Mistaken for the Executor by its builders, with the difference being discovered some time after the rebel conquest of Coruscant. Drawings in Crimson Empire have hull dimensions and gross cortex features identical to Executor. Therefore Lusankya is 19km long, and belongs to the Executor-class.
Figurine mag. allows that Lusankya may have been a sister-ship of Ex. However, they're ambiguous about this, and alternatively, if Executor II was the "Executor" for the 8km class, then the reason she's mistaken for Ex would be that she's passed off to the public as Ex. If the real Ex is a 19km and most other Ex-class ships are 8km, the truth about the 19km is kept highly classified by both Imperial and Alliance leaderships.
  • Guardian - The published illustration (also used in its Wiki-article) is visually indistinguishable from the Executor. By comparing it with the three Imperial-class ships around it, its size is more consistent with that of the Executor than with any 8km vessel.
Are those clearly Imperial-class ships? Are they at the same altitude? And is the illustration reliable, anyway?
  • Intimidator - Described as 8km long but also described as "Executor-class" in Black Fleet Crisis. Its publizised size would therefore change along with the Executor´s.
It could be that "Executor-class Star Destroyer" is an alternative name for the Super-class.
  • Brawl (later known as Imperial Warlord Zsinj's flagship Iron Fist) - Must be an Executor-class vessel, because it was directly indicated to be part of the Lusankya/Executor´s original generation of ships.
Like most of the evidence under discussion, this can be argued more than one way. The batch of ships in question are explicitly identified as 8km ships in all the sources to reference them. If the references to Ex as one of this batch of 8km Super-class vessels are misleading (as I presume you'd say they are), the other 8km ships could still be 8km ships.
  • Razor's Kiss - Must similarly be the same class as it was a sister to Iron Fist.
Opinion built on opinion: see above.
  • Vengeance - Although the vessel in the game Balance of Power has the 8km length relative to ISDs beside it, the box art for the game shows the vessel in the same size-range as the Executor.
So do we know that's Vengeance on the cover? Here, again, we have the problem of conflicting information. The in-game materal is more directly specific to Vengeance, but the usual "if we edit it" fuzzy-logic argument can be made in favour of something the size of the Ex (though IMHO, in this instance, it's a very weak argument in itself, and functions effectively only as part of a "make 'em all 19km" rationalization argument).
  • Night Hammer/Knight Hammer - Built after Endor, was stated by Pellaeon to be as large as the Executor.
"Only Executor was this big—and that one ship practically bankrupted the Empire"; but she's also stated to be 8km in the same scene by Cronus. You could argue that Pellaeon is being hyperbolic, stunned by the moment. He could make a snap judgement, and mistakenly identify her by eye as 19km before Cronus quietly corrects him. That preserves the putative literal 'accuracy' of the source. Alternatively, if you "edit" the text, it could be that Knight Hammer is indeed 19km, and the only true sister-ship of Vader's Executor. Alternatively, Darksaber could be a NR holonovel, and the 19km SSD seen in operations around that time could be the top-secret Lusankya, which is elsewhere identified as the only possible 19km sister for Vader's flagship. --McEwok 22:33, 4 Jan 2006 (UTC)
  • Various WEG sources (ISB, GG3) as well as the EGV&V and the NEGV&V all flat out state that there were at least 3 additional SSD's as large as the Executor in service before Hoth. The NEGV&V adds to this that "several more" were under construction in that timeframe. It goes on to say that while the "total number' of such vessels built by Endor was never specifically known, it said that a "handful" materialized in the hands of Imperial warlords post Endor.
Most or all of these sources also state that the Ex and these sister-ships are 8km. Especially considering that most or all are also in-universe, there are alternatives to rounding them all up to 19km.
  • Another image from the Dark Empire Sourcebook shows it as an 8km long vessel, compared with the Eclipse. Might be a candidate for a specific 8km long Super-class (or imho, Superior-class changed to Super ;)). Notice how the rear engine-bank appears to be missing, the superstructure behind the tower is shortened, the tower itself is much bigger compared to the rest of the vessel
Um, so now you are accepting an 8km Super-class? The only problem is that the WEG illustrations, while sufficiently detailed to enable ship-recognition, are not accurate to the movies in all matters of detail and dimension. The ommission of the turret guns on the ISD is well-known, as is the difference in the CR90's proportions from Tantive IV as seen in ANH; needless to say, there are other issues here as well, for instance, the ISD FX models as depicted on screen don't travel with the point of the hull aimed directly forward and the brim-trench horizontal, as shown in WEG and most EU material, but rather with the dorsal ridge held horizontally, and the brim trench angling up and in towards the bows — the 'deck-lines' of the superstructure and command tower are aligned on the angle of the dorsal ridge, rather than that of the brim-trench. Thus, while you are entitled to suggest that the WEG images are an accurate rendition of the 8km ships, they could resemble far more closely a scaled-down Ex... --McEwok 22:19, 4 Jan 2006 (UTC)
  • As hardly anyone takes you seriously anymore and the fact that your stance lies with an error that's been propogating for more than 20 years (and always directly contradicted the intentions and actions of the film crew of ESB and ROTJ), I see no reason to continue this discussion further. Any ship which follows the Executor´s design would by default be 19 km long and of the Executor-class, regardless of what sources based around a flawed premise might suggest. If there are ships that fit a unique 8 km length, the only link we have with these vessels are the deformed drawings made in the DE and Imperial Sourcebooks. Any other use of Super Star Destroyer and Super-class Star Destroyer would only refer to the wide range of Imperial ships that have been depicted as bigger than Imperial-class Star Destroyers, and called so in these stories. Frankly, this tiresome self-posturing and conscious manipulation of facts you always indulge in is a bit disturbing. <snip by WhiteBoy> VT-16 23:54, 4 Jan 2006 (UTC)
  • Well said, VT-16. Admiral J. Nebulax 00:17, 5 Jan 2006 (UTC)
    • Are you even allowed to remove what someone else has written? Admiral J. Nebulax 00:50, 5 Jan 2006 (UTC)
      • That's simply laughable, Jack, and doesn't even deserve this much of a response. WhiteBoy 01:17, 5 Jan 2006 (UTC)
  • I take McEwok seriously. He has brought up boundless sources to back up his theories. Also, anyone whose user name is based on a species so unjustly hated deserves a pal. And he's not the one who has made this personal. That being said, I do believe that Jack's question is valid. There are no stupid questions, just stubborn people. I should know: I'm one. -- SFH 02:00, 5 Jan 2006 (UTC)
    • He has brought up boundless sources to back up his theories.
In regards to the Executor, most of these sources have revolved around premises which contradicted the viewpoint and work of the film-makers themselves.
And he's not the one who has made this personal.
I'm not the one who's been advocating a personal view-point that relies on a flawed source of information being considered definite, at the expense of sources published before and after, as well as the the people who worked on the actual films that spawned this fictional universe. And then do this year after year, disappearing and reappearing to launch the same tired arguments over and over and over... VT-16 15:31, 5 Jan 2006 (UTC)
      • VT-16: If there are ships that fit a unique 8 km length, the only link we have with these vessels are the deformed drawings made in the DE and Imperial Sourcebooks
I'm confused. Why are you excluding the textual references to 8km Super-class ships? Just because some of these references indicate that the Ex was a ship of this class? Personally, I still think the simplest solution is to reject the reliability of movie-based scaing, and to abandon the handful of references to 19km ships as a real-world misunderstanding... but maybe that's just me. Even if Ex remains 19km, however, any case where a ship is indicated to be 8km and a sister-ship of Ex requires editing in some way, and there are alternative explanations to turning them all into 19km ships. I strongly suspect that saying a lot of people "thought" she was one will do less violence to official canon. Why are you so opposed to this?
      • SFH: Also, anyone whose user name is based on a species so unjustly hated deserves a pal.
Yub yub!! And, thank you!
      • VT-16: In regards to the Executor, most of these sources have revolved around premises which contradicted the viewpoint and work of the film-makers themselves.
So, it's not as though the movies, um, contradict themselves on things like the size and proportions of things like Tantive IV and the Death Star, then...? ILM's FX work serves as a medium for telling George Lucas' STAR WARS story; it is not the fundamental fabric of the saga. It's not all-powerful.
      • VT-16: I'm not the one who's been advocating a personal view-point that relies on a flawed source of information being considered definite, at the expense of sources published before and after
Yes you are. You insist on the "scientific" validity of scaling calcs from the movies when the movies lack the consistency that would allow them to serve as the basis for confident quantitative conclusions. While highly professional and impressively consistent, the FX sequences of the OT are marked by errors and inconsistencies, and clash seriously and repeatedly with physical sets and matte paintings, which are equally valid parts of STAR WARS—to say nothing of more recent CGI representations of OT ships in the Prequels. And all that is even before we ask whether the movies should be imagined as in-universe documents, and what that might imply... --McEwok19:03, 5 Jan 2006 (UTC)
  • "There are no stupid questions, just stubborn people". I hope you didn't mean that I was one. ;) And McEwok, enough with your theories already. I don't even have enough time to read them. Admiral J. Nebulax 20:46, 5 Jan 2006 (UTC)
  • I was refering to myself in particular, and people in general. Believe me, there are plenty of stubborn people out there, not named individually. And I would like to point out that there is now a canon source for Super-class Star Destroyer, when they said the hive ships in The Swarm War were Super-class Star Destroyers. And they italicized the proper section, just like us. Sounds to me like Troy Denning did his homework. And to be honest, I never heard Star Dreadnought outside something from Curtis Saxton, someone who is a little too selective on canon for my tastes (Endor Holocaust). And if you like to point out the Inside the Worlds books as canon, which I acknowledge that they are, do you really want to say that many novels are just plain wrong? All the novels I've read use Super Star Destroyer, including Imperials. Gilad Pellaeon himself described Knight Hammer as a Super Star Destroyer to Admiral Daala in Darksaber. And the Databank article says Super Star Destroyer in regards to the Executor, and it has been updated for length. --
    • Actually, I'm not against SSD being more than rebel slang, but as far as identification goes, it's almost as loose a term as 'Star Destroyer', and completely meaningless if people treat it as if it refers to destroyers only. I haven't found any true contradiction between the terms, rather that one complements the other and helps point out what kind of ship certain Star Destroyers are. Some are frigates, some are destroyers, some are cruisers and some are battleships. Certain people seem to have a problem with this and I don't understand why. My previous militant stand on issues like "the Star classification-system trumps all" is gone, so why the hostility when I point out that pre-war cruisers became downgraded? I'm only going by official sources in everything I've done and said, and RL military definitions when there's ambiguity. However, there exists no ambiguity as far as these 'cruisers' are concerned, as many old and new sources describe them as being downgraded and doing frigate-work. Why then go with a view that doesn't include all relevant sources? It's nonsense. VT-16 11:42, 8 Jan 2006 (UTC)
      • About the novels, just because an author writes something doesn't mean it's right. Authors can get things wrong just about any time. And the Databank, well, it might be the official Databank, but it's gotten things wrong before. Admiral J. Nebulax 13:08, 8 Jan 2006 (UTC)
        • Yes, authors can make mistakes, and when that happens they should be recognized as such. But I don't believe that's the issue in the case of Swarm War. Denning is very aware of the fan community and I find it highly unlikely that he never have heard of the SSD-length debate. Also, his usage of Super-class is a two-step process. First in Unseen Queen he establishes the Nest Ships as 8km, then in Swarm War he compares one to a "Super-class Star Destroyer". Since he would be sitting with the Holocron open while writing/researching, where would he get that size-reference from if it wasn't 1) a deliberate retcon and a wink to the fleet-junkies 2) The 8km Super-class already exists in the Holocron. Either way, this was not a mistake. 8km Super-class is canon. Charlii 15:00, 10 Jan 2006 (UTC)
          • Sounds reasonable enough. The more classes of big ships, the better. VT-16 15:11, 10 Jan 2006 (UTC)
            • The 8-km "Super-class" Star Destroyer was used originally as a term for the Executor-class, along with the length. It is very likely that Denning used this old outdated version by accident. Admiral J. Nebulax 21:59, 10 Jan 2006 (UTC)

Why the move?

I thought it had been agreed upon that this would remain as Executor-class Star Dreadnought? Danik Kreldin 08:05, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Unfortunately some people just can't agree on the naming of these ships. This battle will never end. --Azizlight 08:13, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Reverted. A major change (like a move) should be discussed and a consensus reached. The next person who unilaterally does so will be modsmacked. QuentinGeorge 08:28, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
      • The Mandator-class has "Star Dreadnought" as part of its name (Attack Of The Clones Incredible Cross-Sections), the Super Star Destroyer Executor is described as a "Star Dreadnought" later on (Inside The Worlds of the Original Trilogy).
Imperial ships that need larger, more sophisticated construction sites than the standard Imperial-class are called "largest battleships" (The Illustrated SW Universe). "Dreadnought" being a term for "Battleship with heaviest guns and armor" fits in with this without creating internal conflicts.
It's part of the article-name because it's part of canon sources relevant to the Executor-class. People who have a problem with this, don't have to troll on such articles. It's as simple as that. VT-16 13:19, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Hmm. I don't think it is that simple. The term "Star Dreadnought" is relevant to the Ex-class, yes - undeniably; but how relevant? I still think it's debateable whether the line "ultimate Star Dreadnoughts like the Executor" reflects a formal "Executor-class Star Dreadnought" designation, rather than an expression of her size and firepower; and even if it did reflect a "real" (fictional!) designation (a hypothesis for which we have no proof), there's no indication that it was the prevalent one.
  • Yes, it's entirely true that "dreadnought" is a real-world term for big, heavily-armed and armoured battleships (albeit one confined historically to the period 1906-20); yes, it's true that the Ex can be called a "dreadnought" or "dreadnaught" or "Star Dreadnought", or simply "battleship"; but equally, she can also be seen as a Star Destroyer scaled up to a truly monstrous scale - she's a planetary assault platform and starfighter carrier in a way that no real-world dreadnought ever was, and in a way that we don't know any in-universe Star Dreadnought was either. She's called a Star Destroyer of some sort in the vast preponderance of sources - the obscene violence her size does to the parameters of the "Star Destroyer" designation is, IMHO, part of her charm...
  • Those considering this issue might want to look at a couple of things I've done recently:
1.) A breakdown of the G-canon script references to Ex, the vast bulk of which describe her as some sort of Star Destroyer; this is on Talk:Sovereign-class_Star_Destroyer, in the update dated 03:27, 20 January 2006 GMT (or here for a direct link).
2.) A partial analysis of the misrepresentation/misdirection in just one passage of one page at SWTC, apparently intended to downplay the same G-canon evidence that the Ex, in spite of her size, is a Star Destroyer; this is in my TF.N forum post dated 1/17 11:15am here....
  • In short, I think that there's still a big question-mark over "Executor-class Star Destroyer". I propose that formal designations, such as "N-class Warship Type", be avoided unless explicitly used in canon materal. I would of course be happy to note, within the in-universe text of the article, that the Ex is called an "ultimate Star Dreadnought" and that she's obscenely big for a Star Destroyer, and to neutrally observe that on present evidence this may (or may not) indicate an alternative "Executor-class Star Dreadnought" designation. That is nothing more or less than an accurate reporting of the evidence.
  • As more evidence appears, the article can be updated as required. --McEwok 17:26, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Who made armament?!

"he surface of the Executor was dotted with all sorts of weaponry. Its front arc was covered by 200 heavy and light turbolaser batteries, 50 concussion missile launchers, 100 ion cannons, and 20 tractor beam projectors. Its side arcs each boasted coverage by 75 light turbolaser batteries and 50 heavy turbolaser batteries, as well as 75 missile tubes, 50 ion cannons and 10 tractor beam projectors. The rear arc, traditionally the least defended area of a vessel, had an impressive weapons array of 50 heavy turbolaser batteries, 50 missile tubes, and 50 ion cannons." Source calculate it and you will have:

  • 500 heavy and light turbolaser batteries
  • 100 concussion missile launchers
  • 250 ion cannons
  • 40 tractor beam projectors

Why in old infobox was written that Executor-class Star Dreadnought have got "5,000 turbolasers and ion cannons"?! (ofq I left it, but is this good???) I've found SSD continuity issues, and it says that "Newer source material produced since the upward revision of the Executor's length indicates that she carries over 5000 weapons emplacements, and multiple wings of starfighters, but OK, if so, why moust trustworthy source - Databank - says something else? I think that note with 5000 turbolasers should be putted into Behind the scenes part.

  • No. The OS databank is not always reliable and sometimes has to be updated, like all other databases. The ITW:OT has the number 5000, and the above would then be part of this total. VT-16 17:00, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Starfighter complement

Does anyone else think the 144 starfighter number is a bit of a mistake? I'm assuming the 144 number came from the incorrect size of 8,000 meters, but even so, the Venator-class Star Destroyer has 420 starfighters, and is far, far smaller than the Executor. The hangar bays on the Executor are mammouth, and the Eclipse, which is actually smaller in length and does not have huge, dedicated hangars like the Executor, has 600 starfighters. So I set up a proportion. A Imperial Star Destroyer is 1,600 meters and has one wing of starfighters. An Executor is 19,000 meters and its starfighter complement is X. 1,600 over 1, 19,000 over X. Blah blah blah, basically it works out to 12 wings of starfighters on an Executor, if you compare it to the Imperial Star Destroyer. Naturally if you were to compare it to a Venator that number would be much, much higher. What do you guys think? -Danik Kreldin 21:56, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

  • If there isn't any sources for the number of fighters aboard a 19km Executor-class, then it should be stated as unknown. Charlii 22:05, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
    • True. It stands to reason that there would be a lot, and twelve wings is a fair assumpton, though I know it's not "official." At least not yet! Let's put pressure on Leland Chee or whoever to get a correct size <_< -Danik Kreldin 22:09, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
      • The Venator-class Star Destroyer was a carrier. Executor was a warship, not a carrier. The number of starfighters it carried is probably correct. Admiral J. Nebulax 23:35, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
        • Imperial Star Destroyers are multi-role vessels; they double as warships and carriers. Now, it's an established fact that the Executor has massive hangars. Now I doubt those hangars are empty with nothing. Given that an Executor is over 17,000 meters longer and far larger than a Venator, I think it stands to reason the number is a lot more than 144 starfighters (especially given this number was contributed to the previous 8,000 meter length). Executor is also much more than just a simple warship. It has entire divisions of stormtroopers and Imperial Army personnel, serves as a command ship, and yes, can even pass as a carrier. Those hangars have to be filled with something. I doubt the Empire leaves them empty. -Danik Kreldin 23:41, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
          • Also note what it says under "Characteristics." It could have held thousands. 12 wings is 864 fighters, so it's not even close to the maximum capacity of an Executor. -Danik Kreldin 23:43, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
            • Then that is a mistake. But as for the hangars: perhaps assault craft, landing ships, or something like that? If it has big hangars, why fill them with just TIEs? Admiral J. Nebulax 23:45, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
              • Regular Star Destroyers have a number of assault craft, shuttles and other craft in addition to the wing, as well. So does the Executor. But certainly not enough to fill those hangars. When the size went up from 8km to 19km, so did the number of weapons. Originally the SSD only had 250 turbolasers, 250 heavy turbolasers, and 250 ion cannons, not the 5,000 number they are at now. So why is it impossible for you to think the number of craft carried would naturally increase as well? -Danik Kreldin 23:52, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
                • While it did probably increase, it doesn't mean its hangars were filled with these TIEs. Perhaps it was around the number that a Venator carried. But no matter what, you're assuming here. Admiral J. Nebulax 23:56, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
                  • Exactly, it is just an assumption. I said that in my second post or so :P As it stands, it is 144 fighters, but I figured that was a mistake given the SSD changed so many times, and was just presenting that here - however, it's not like i just pulled the 12 wing number from my ass, it's a logical assumption based on previous Imperial designs and what-not. -Danik Kreldin 00:02, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
                    • If this is just an assumption than complement of "144+ TIE series starfighters" should be changed into "unkown number of starfighters". Besides that - Executor-class role was also Carrier (chceck infobox) - so what carrier it is with 144 fighters??? it has to be some joke... SkywalkerPL 16:35, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
                      • Just put down ">>144 fighters", until there's any specification. VT-16 17:03, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Where does this come from?

"With the Executor under my command, I will be the ultimate power in the universe!" — Admiral Kendal Ozzel, only moments before being killed by Darth Vader

It certainly wasn't in the movie,where did this particular event occur?

Thanks!

Yeah I'd like to know too... 65.5.231.93 04:48, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Super- class

Here's something to add to the confusion if you haven't already adressed it - SOTE explicitly refers to the Executor as a Super - class Star Destroyer, not just a Super Star Destroyer. .... 23:41, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Well, if that's not on the Super-class Star Destroyer page already, a reference should be made there. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) 20px 23:48, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
  • The Super-class debacle has been resolved, thanks to Wizards of the Coast's article on the early history of the Executor-class. Both the Empire and the Rebels liked to use the name for many different vessels, mostly abbreviated as "Super Star Destroyer". VT-16 14:43, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

What do you think? Who will win the battle between Executor-class Star Dreadnought and Eclipse class Star Dreadnought?

Picture

Can we get one of these for this article, if there is one? 300px|right|Eclipse-class

File:Executor-ISD-sizecomp.png
How's this? It's from an Executor sized to 1900px and an ISD sized to 160px, then resized to a more reasonable display size. -- Darth Culator (Talk)(TINC) 00:08, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

1.4 then

17.6 kilometers was Curtis Saxton's original estimate. When the ship finally got scaled properly in a canon source, they went with the upper end of his estimated size range, 19km. So that image shows 11 ISDs when now it should show 12. -- Darth Culator (Talk)(Kills) 00:59, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

300px|right

300px|right It's hard to tell--Herbsewell 15:58, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

File:ExecSovISDSizeComp.png There. That's all three in scale. Now that I think about it, I should modify this to use 12 ISDs as a yardstick, so I'll do that after work. -- Darth Culator (Talk)(Kills) 15:57, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

  • How did you put this together?--Herbsewell 16:02, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Some simple cut-and-paste operations in Paint Shop Pro. I took the Executor pic from here and resized it to 1900 pixels wide (and adjusted the contrast so it looked like it came from WEG or the EGVV), I took a scan of the Eclipse from the Essential Guide to Vehicles and Vessels and resized it to 1750 pixels wide, and a scan of the Imperial-class from the Imperial Sourcebook and resized it to 160 pixels wide to achieve a consistent scale of 10 meters per pixel. I pasted them all into a blank image that was 1950 pixels wide, then downsized it to 900px so it wouldn't be insanely large. It should now work out to about 21.66 meters per pixel. (It's all actually easier than it sounds.) -- Darth Culator (Talk)(Kills) 16:53, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Executer class list

So... Should there be a subsection in this article that lists all the built Executor-class Star Dreadnoughts? Or at least, all of those thought to be of the class?

Shape

There seems to be two different shapes to this class, one being the one from the films, essentially like this [2]

The second seems to be more Christmas-treey, from TNEGVV and Starship Battles, like so: [3] (hard to tell from that image, I know, but top-down the angle between those last bits of hull is near 180 degrees).

Just a minor observation. YIIMM 17:07, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Eras

What is the source that says these ships were still around in the Legacy era. At the end of the Yuuzhan Vong War, only the Guardian is the known ship left. And TUF is the last time we see it, what is the source that says otherwise? Roron Corobb Talk 20px 13:16, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Crew

Where did that minimum crew figure come from? That's smaller than the original figure. I suggest we change it.--The All-knowing Sith'ari 19:29, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Main image vote.

Seeing as the majority of the times when JMAS changes the main image without prior discussion results in a vote, we'll have another one on this article. Below are the options.

File:Executor 04.jpg|Option 1 File:Executor-CHRON.jpg|Option 2 

File:Executor NEGVV.jpg|Option 3

Option 1

  1. This has a higher quality. Plus, it's straight from the film—another plus. —Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) 20px 21:42, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
  2. High resolution doesn't matter when it's only 250px. -- I need a name (Complain here) 00:05, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
  3. As per I need a name. Coffee. Yeah, I've got the right heading. Yeah, I'm voting with Jack. .... 00:45, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
  4. I generally prefer profile images, and this one is of higher resolution. -- SFH 01:39, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Option 2

  1. Higher resolution and not already in use on another article. -- Darth Culator (Talk)(Kills) 21:44, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
  2. Cull Tremayne 22:52, 10 February 2007 (UTC) -- This one seems to be the highest quality in resolution and detail.
  3. High res=good. And since this a shot of the actual model, it's pretty much the same as the movie. Atarumaster88 20px (Audience Chamber) 23:04, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
  4. Hmm...a higher resolution where it's just floating there, or a lower resolution where it's exploding? Gonna go with the better image here. —Jaymach Ral'Tir (talk) 00:04, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
  5. Prefer higher resolution. G.He(Talk!) 01:32, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
  6. This followed by Option 3. —Xwing328(Talk) 01:47, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
  7. Lord Hydronium 01:50, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
  8. Better view of the actual model than no.1. VT-16 15:26, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
  9. StarNeptuneTalk to me! 01:01, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
  10. Green Tentacle (Talk) 19:59, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Option 3

  1. Both images 1 and 2 are edge on, meaning that when shrunk to infobox size you can't make anything out. Usually I prefer screenshots, but we don't seem to have one that will actually show information when sized down (and I'm not uploading one, voting here has exhausted my ability to care about images for the day.) —Silly Dan (talk) 01:11, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
    • By Waru's Maw! Not another NEGVV main image! NEVER! -- Darth Culator (Talk)(Kills) 01:13, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
  2. Havac 01:13, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
  3. Sikon 17:57, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Comments

And JMAS, from now on, discuss changing the main image first before actually doing so. —Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) 20px 21:42, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

  • And what does "not in use on any other article" have to do with this? —Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) 20px 21:45, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
  • To be honest, I don't really like any of them. Surely there is a top down image that does it justice? --Eyrezer 01:17, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
    • I'd like to think so, too. jSarek 01:41, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
      • Option 3 shows the ship at a very bad angle. It's a horrible choice for a main image. —Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) 20px 01:48, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
        • Well I checked the Star Wars Chronicles and Sculpting a Galaxy, but neither of those has a better image and I thought they'd be the most likely sources. —Jaymach Ral'Tir (talk) 01:50, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
          • Jaymach, if you think option 1 has a bad quality, I don't even know why you're voting, because option 2 has a worse quality. —Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) 20px 01:51, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
            • What kind of strange monitor world do you live in, Jack? You see those resolution numbers? That's how high a resolution the image has. It's scanned in at what looks like 300dpi, which is a high quality scan, from a book which is created to display high quality images. The image that you're voting for is A) Exploding, B) Of lower resolution quality, C) From a low quality film capture, and D) Dark. In fact, let's just see both of the images together. Please see here for the comparison. Both images are at full size in that comparison. —Jaymach Ral'Tir (talk) 02:10, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
              • I was looking at them from the 250px-standard-infobox-image-size view, in which option 1 looks better. Seeing as the pictures are awefully small at 250px in the infobox, something should be done to change that for this article. —Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) 20px 14:34, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
                • In addition, options 2 and 3 show Executor in a different color than what is seen in the films. —Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) 20px 15:29, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
                  • right|250px250px|right250px|rightThey show it as a different colour to that seen in image 1 because, as I said previously, image 1 is dark. Image 2 and 3 show the Executor at its proper hues, whereas image 1 shows it incorrectly. Additionally, the images above are presented at 180px rather than 250px. I've included them at 250px on the right of this post and, although we won't be changing the 250px size for the infobox image, I've included another version of the Chronicles image with added blackness at the top and bottom to show that it can be easily modified to look "bigger" in the infobox. —Jaymach Ral'Tir (talk) 17:34, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
                    • So you're calling the blue-colored Executor from the movies non-canon, and the gray-colored Executor that wasn't in the movies higher canon? Your views on the matter, as well as the canon scale, are apparently tainted. —Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) 20px 22:15, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
                      • No, I'm saying that the image we're using is incorrectly hued and is darker than it is in the movie. My Special Editions of the movies show the Executor as the whitish version, rather than the blue which is supported by the model used in the films itself as well as all other references. The image we have is a low quality screen capture from the films, as I stated before. —Jaymach Ral'Tir (talk) 22:22, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
                        • Well, Jaymach, since you claim your Special Editions have a whitish Executor, why don't you provide a screenshot? Because my Special Editions have a blue Executor—the same color from option 1. —Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) 20px 22:25, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
                          • And the first screen shot I get shows that the light side of the Executor (the one that's towards a light source) is white. The blue only comes when the Executor is in the dark. Hence my comments that the image is dark. 22:54, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Class 2 Hyperdrive?

Why would a flagship that was designed with state of the art technology have a class 2 instead of a class 1 hyperdrive? I mean, Imperial classes have class 1 hyperdrives.

  • The Executor-class is a huge Star Dreadnought, and huge Star Dreadnoughts aren't fast. —Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) 20px 22:15, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
  • A Class 2 hyperdrive is not that big a deal. Inertia in space, remember? Once moving always moving. The Class 1 versus Class 2 probably just relates to thrust over mass. Or something like that. Think how much more mass than an "Imperial" the Executor has! Karohalva 20:56, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Known Ships

Just wondering if it would be a good ides to put a list of known ships for the Executor-class? I know I can't keep track of them all. The ones I know of are the Executor, Lusankya, Iron Fist, Razor's Kiss, Guardian, Reaper, Annihilator and Intimidator - and there's probably more. CommanderJB 10:34, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Blue is blue

Maybe you're all colorblind or don't have the blue channels of your monitors connected, but your "gray" Executor shot is still blue. In my little diagram thing below, the top part of the image is desaturated (all the color removed) so you can compare it to the original image (which is clearly blue by comparison). http://img65.that-shack-with-images.us/img65/276/blueisblueqo7.png . Some Guy 02:43, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

  • The Executor in that image is not blue. It's the shadow that makes it look like that. —Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) 20px 11:08, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
    • I've never seen you provide any reasoning for any argument, and this is another example. You're not right just because you say you are. Some Guy 18:03, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
  • I like how you didn't bother to sample the illuminated side of the ship. Better luck next time. Also, ever notice how things take on a bluish hue in poor lighting conditions? Doesn't mean everything is automatically blue in daylight. VT-16 12:52, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
    • I did sample the illuminated portion, I just didn't include it in the picture. I thought maybe you could compare it to the desaturated version. The illuminated is also blue, but it contains less blue because it's brighter.

http://img408.that-shack-with-images.us/img408/7715/stillbluegy8.png

    • So even though the Executor is ALWAYS blue, we're going to assume it isn't blue in this shot because it's slightly less blue? Additionally, blue is not a natural result of dim lighting, it is a side effect of white balancing your camera incorrectly. If you're going to say this is "gray" instead of blue, you might as well say that of all the shots of it. Some Guy 18:03, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
      • Listen, "Some Guy", the Executor in that shot is not blue. It is gray. You can be an ass about it if you want to, but my reasoning is simple: The image has clearly been changed from blue to gray. By your faulty logic, the Lambda-class shuttle in that image is also blue when it's clearly gray. —Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) 20px 19:49, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
        • What are you talking about? The original image is the blue one. Saying it's not blue doesn't make it not blue! Once again, you're not providing any argument at all, you're just saying things. Some Guy 21:24, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
      • Why do you keep showing a scale that has it on the grey side and then claim it's blue? VT-16 23:29, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
        • It's grayish blue. It's in the blue spectrum and it's not all the way to the left where there wouldn't be any actual color. Some Guy 02:16, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
        • You don't have any clue about what I'm saying, do you Some Guy? The Executor in that shot, in a prievous release of Episode V, was blue. In the new release, the Executor in that shot is gray. Stop disputing this already. You continually claim that I'm not providing any argument when, in fact, I am providing an argument that reflects what is clearly visible in that image—a gray Executor. —Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) 20px 01:56, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
          • Either you're colorblind or your monitor is configured incorrectly, because it is BLUE in that shot. If you'll look at the first image I posted in here, you can see it compared to ACTUAL gray. There's a significant difference. AGAIN, look at the color picker screen - you can see the color in that area is blue. Even if you ARE color blind, look at the color percentages. The first shot color I have selected is 84% cyan. The second color is 48% cyan. In both colors, the blue value is the highest. Do you know what that means? It means it's BLUE.' Some Guy 02:16, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Cool it, Some Guy. Be aware that the administrators, and by that I mean me, are watching this talk page and what comments get thrown around. Cool your attitude; if you choose to continue in a condescending and arrogant tone, you can probably assume what might happen, considering I haven't been impressed with your general overall attitude over the last 48 hours. Oh, and if you think I'm simply singling you out, I've warned others involved in this conversation as well, so don't try to argue that. There is a really easy way to continue this topic: Diplomatically. Greyman(Paratus) 02:23, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
    • He's not using any kind of recognizable logic, he's essentially just saying it's gray and expecting me to believe him. I'm actually providing detailed evidence to the contrary. Some Guy 02:28, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
      • Regardless of what anyone is or isn't saying on this page, one thing remains clear: ALL those involved will do so diplomatically, and anyone who refuses to do so will find themselves at the end of a cool-down ban. So please, everyone continue the debate, but in a civil manner. Greyman(Paratus) 02:38, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
        • Yeah, sure, I'm not using any kind of recognizable logic when the image is clearly more gray than blue. Your "detailed evidence to the contrary" even shows that it's gray with a bit of blue. —Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) 20px 16:18, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

It's grayish blue.

Now this I agree on. It is a darker grey than the Imperial-class and with a slight hue, but that's still some ways from it being blue-blue. :) VT-16 09:22, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

  • Yep, per VT-16. Unit 8311 13:11, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
    • Bluish grey, maybe. Not the other way around. -- Darth Culator (Talk) 15:40, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
      • Either way, the image shows a different-colored Executor than in the original releases. Bluish gray is perfectly fine, as it shows that it is mainly gray with a bit of blue mixed in. —Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) 20px 16:18, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
        • Looks the exact same color as the Imperial shuttle, which is white. Blue lighting !=blue ship. - Lord Hydronium 02:28, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
        • Hm, never mind me; 4dot has called to my attention that that shot is an exception. Something like this, it's clearly darker and bluer than the SDs around it. - Lord Hydronium 02:35, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
        • OK, I've apparently missed the entire point of this discussion, which isn't over what color it is normally, but what it is in that shot. Which, going back to the original post, is white, since it's identical to the shuttle. And I should stop posting now. - Lord Hydronium 02:37, 18 September 2007 (UTC)