Talk: Imperial II-class Star Destroyer

Back to page
Wiki-shrinkable

This is the talk page for the article "Imperial II-class Star Destroyer."

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

ImperiusUnitadaoberTotallex

"We do not require glory, only status articles for our Emperor."

Imperial II-class Star Destroyer is within the scope of WookieeProject Ambition, an attempt to build comprehensive and detailed articles relating to the Galactic Empire.
If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this notice, or visit the project page, where you can find out more about our mission, or even join yourself!

Article milestones
Date Process Result
February 4, 2018 Good article nomination Failure
February 10, 2018 Failed Good article nominee
February 10, 2018 Featured article nomination Failure
October 20, 2018 Failed Featured article nominee
Current status: Failed Featured article nominee

Imperial II-class

I may have missed something, but I don't recall this ever being identified as "Imperial II-class Star Destroyer." I'm aware it's referred to as an "Impstar-Deuce," but when is it called an "Imperial II-class?" Cevan (talk) 19:56, October 14, 2015 (UTC)

  • You're not suggesting that we call this article "Impstar-deuce," are you? It's not explicitely stated anywhere, but we know (1) that there's an Imperial I-class, which implies there is at least a mark II, (2) that the "deuce" nickname was attributed to the Imperial II-class in Legends, (3) that "deuce" means "two." Being cautious is one thing, but this kind of assumption seems to fall under the common sense policy... --LelalMekha (talk) 20:13, October 14, 2015 (UTC)
    • Unfortunately, per policy, we can't really call this page "Imperial II-class Star Destroyer" (I myself wish we could take "Impstar Deuce" as confirmation, but we've got to follow policy). Unless a canon source for the current name is provided, this page will have to be moved to "Impstar Deuce." Cevan (talk) 20:49, October 14, 2015 (UTC)
      • I agree with Lelal. Let's not be ridiculous here. Common sense should prevail. - Brandon Rhea(talk) 20:52, October 14, 2015 (UTC)
        • Are we really permitted to leave the page at it's current title? I have absolutely no objections to doing so, just wondering. Cevan (talk) 20:53, October 14, 2015 (UTC)
          • Would you find it acceptable if we added a conjecture tag until the name actually appears? And a BTS explanation, perhaps? --LelalMekha (talk) 20:56, October 14, 2015 (UTC)
            • If you're asking me specifically, I'm not really sure. To be honest I'm fine with keeping the page as is (I was just trying to adhere to policy earlier). It may be better to get an admin's answer to your question, or at least one or two other users. Cevan (talk) 20:59, October 14, 2015 (UTC)

Tyrant

Is it worth mentioning that the Tyrant, an Imperial I-class Star Destroyer, has the same bridge structure as an Imperial II-class Star Destroyer? Thanks! - Tommy-Macaroni (talk) 20:09, April 8, 2016 (UTC)

Sensor globes

The article mentions the "sensor globes" on the tower section. Aren't those the deflector shield generators? --Lucius Voltaic (talk) 19:24, January 30, 2017 (UTC)

  • In Star Wars Legends, it was a total mess, with many sources for both ideas. I should think that they are deflector generators in Canon, but I can't think of a source off the top of my head. If you have one then please do add that. -Tommy-Macaroni Imperial Emblem (Talk) 19:46, January 30, 2017 (UTC)

There's numerous newcanon sources stating that on the ISD-I they are shield generators (Rogue One Ultimate Visual Guide, Ships of the Galaxy, Rebels Visual Guide, etc) - so they should be, on the ISD-II as well. All newcanon sources that discuss the domes (mostly for the Executor) reference their "shield generator" or "deflection" role ("local area shield projectors" in the newcanon Complete Locations, "geodesic communication and deflection domes" on the Databank page for the Super Star Destroyer) - but no source calls them just "sensor globes" - hence, whatever description is settled on, it should reference shielding or deflection in some way. --81.138.20.198 09:07, March 17, 2017 (UTC)

Communications tower

According to Star Wars Card Trader, the thing between the domes, is a Communications Tower.

But according to the updated-to-newcanon version of Star Wars Complete Locations, the Executor's (which is externally identical to the Imperial-IIs) is a tractor beam targeting array - exactly as on the Imperial-I.

It also states that the Executor's tower is a "standard module" used on many KDY warship classes.

Can we presume that the domes, and not the "tower" on all Star Destroyers with identical towers, are "communication and deflection domes - that the term "communications tower" refers to the whole module, and not just the thing between the domes - and that, on both Executor-class and Imperial-II class, the thing between the domes is a tractor beam targeting array after all? --2A00:23C5:B7E3:5B00:4182:D581:2951:C509 10:52, March 25, 2018 (UTC)

  • I'd say not. "Many" does not equal all, and so the Imperial II could easily have different systems installed into a similar looking component. The Card Trader diagram labels the top tower as a "communications tower", so that's what we're going with.—Tommy-Macaroni Imperial Emblem (TAKE A SEAT) 10:58, March 25, 2018 (UTC)

Changes

Hey all. I though it would be a good idea to explain the changes I'm gonna be making to this page in regards to its failed nomination, just for people who aren't IRC regulars or in the Inq. So, originally when I nominated this page I took it that Imperial-class Star Destroyers with an Imp II style bridge shouldn't be assumed to be Imperial II-class Star Destroyers, because known Imperial I-class Star Destroyers such as the Devastator and Harbinger have been seen at different times with their Imp I style bridge replaced with the Imp II version. Therefore, not all ships with the Imp II style tower are necessarily Imp IIs themselves; they could be upgraded ISD Is. After discussing this with the Inquisitorius, however, the consensus was reached that although this logic stands, it is much easier to assume all ISDs with the Imp II style bridge are in fact Imp IIs, as the amount of upgraded ISDs is very small compared to those not. Due to the massive topic the article became after this decision was reached, I decided to remove the nomination because I don't have the time to update and rewrite it. However, I will be slowly working my way through the appearances of media to add back all removed information that is now deemed not speculation. Tommy Imperial Emblem Macaroni 16:39, November 25, 2018 (UTC)

  • Makes sense, thanks for explaining all this Tommy! --Lewisr (talk) 16:48, November 25, 2018 (UTC)
    • Also: Is there a reason to asume that an upgraded ISD I is different to a built Imperial II-class ship? Why not treating all Coms tower ISDs as Imperial II-class? That it might be an upgraded one doesn't change its class that's now there. 93.104.180.125 15:49, November 29, 2018 (UTC)
      • That's a possibility, but we don't know for sure. Tommy Imperial Emblem Macaroni 16:52, November 29, 2018 (UTC)

missile emplacements

In Star Wars squadrons I am seeing star destroyers with missile emplacements can we add that to the ornament list (Mrjosh1994 (talk) 16:18, October 6, 2020 (UTC))

  • Yes, although I'd suggest the armament section instead ;) Plume Tray (talk) 17:08, October 6, 2020 (UTC)