Talk: Imperial Navy/Legends

Article milestones Date Process Result September 25, 2005 Featured article Picked as first FA without undergoing FAN process. March 4, 2007 Featured article review Removed March 17, 2007 Former Featured article
Current status: Former Featured article

Sector Group

• "A sector group could be expected to contain at least 2,400 ships, 24 of which were Star Destroyers, and another 1,600 combat starships." vs. "A sector group could be expected to contain at least 2,400 ships, 24 of which were Star Destroyers (Imperial-class Star Destroyers were the norm, but some groups contained older model Star Destroyers), and another 1,600 combat starships." -- One of the defining characteristics of a Sector Group was its two dozen Imperial-class Star Destroyers. I'm sure that a few lacked the full complement, but lacking a specific example, the article should probably speak to the Order of Battle deployments. --SparqMan 06:50, 5 May 2005 (UTC)
  • I'd agree. As I understand it, the gap in legal status between an ISD and a lower warship (even a VSD) is massive. The ISD is a line and is escorted around in a battle squadron. The VSD is merely a ship of a heavy squadron (presumably in the attack line). The OOB of the standard, 4 superiority fleet Sector Group would therefore include 24 ISDs. One sector that is badly understrength is Elrood, which has only two ISDs Kazuaki Shimazaki 16:43, 20 Aug 2005 (UTC)
  • I must confess to being confused by this description. "A sector group could be expected to contain at least 2,400 ships, 24 of which were Star Destroyers (Imperial-class Star Destroyers were the norm, but some groups contained older model Star Destroyers), and another 1,600 combat starships." What is the distinction between "ships" and "combat starships" that necessitates two seperate numbers?63.24.57.22 21:34, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
    • Military transports, troopships, fleet tenders, spacestations and mobile repair yards are probably included in the first number. VT-16 22:55, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Starfleet vs. Navy

I'm finding more proper references to Imperial Navy than I am to Imperial Starfleet. My instinct says that when the latter term was used, it was not a proper noun. "We fought the ships of the Imperial starfleet." Thoughts --SparqMan 14:13, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• It's a proper noun in the G-canon crawl of The Empire Strikes Back. In fact, I think its use in the crawl is why this article is listed under Imperial Starfleet rather than under Imperial Navy, which has only been mentioned in EU sources. jSarek 20:02, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• I am not certain, but I believe there are several references to the Imperial Navy in the movie. --SparqMan 20:32, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • I vote we change it to Imperial Navy. --User:SFH
• "Starfleet" is used in AHN by Admiral Motti: "Dangerous to your Starfleet, not to this battlestation". As already mentioned, "Imperial Starfleet" is in the ESB title crawl. "Imperial Fleet" is used in ROTJ by Mon Mothma: "With the Imperial Fleet spread throughout the Galaxy in a vain effort to engage us". The word Navy is never used in any of the movies. --Vermilion 04:08, 5 Aug 2005 (UTC)
• I would take fleet to mean only ships, whereas navy could also include personnel, bases, etc. So really the proper name depends on what you're talking about—either term is correct, given that it is used in its proper context. – Aidje _talk 04:35, 5 Aug 2005 (UTC)
• That is a very good point. So what do you all think this article is more about? User:SFH
• Perhaps we should have separate pages for the Navy and the Starfleet. The latter comes under the former, which, as mentioned above, includes more than just ships. In the same way, the Republic Navy is partly comprised of the Open Circle Fleet, which is a close approximation to the Imperial Starfleet - Kwenn
• First of all the Imperial Navy encompasses MORE than just ships, there are battlestations, there are research facilities, marines, etc just like navies in the real world. So both are applicable when referring to ships. When people are referring a group of units of a navy, you call that a fleet, when you are refering to the entire organization itself, you call it the navy. Within the Imperial Navy, there is the Imperial Starfleet which is the Navy's main component.
  • Very true. Admiral J. Nebulax ^(talk) 16:13, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
    • I dunno, I think you can still call planetary installations part of a Starfleet. That, and I think "Starfleet" is much cooler and sounds more appropriate ^^ - lalala_la
      • Well, it's already been decided. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax ^{(Imperial Holovision)} 12:24, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Technical Commentaries

Why is it factually incorrect? --24.247.124.158

• Basically, it contains losts of speculation. Some people think it gives the most reasonable answers and explanations, while others think it reads too much into things. — Silly Dan 23:26, 2 Sep 2005 (UTC)

Picture

Where'd it go? Kuralyov 21:02, 22 Sep 2005 (UTC)

Move

I vote we move this over to Imperial Navy. Navy obviously refers to the entire Naval Military force, while Starfleet could refer to any simple fleet. -- SFH 19:25, 16 Oct 2005 (UTC)

• Agreed. – Aidje _talk 02:28, 17 Oct 2005 (UTC)
• Would this article then be molded to focus more on the greater military organization, and have a subsection detailing the Starfleet? Or would the Starfleet still deserve its own article? --SparqMan 02:40, 17 Oct 2005 (UTC)
• I suppose the Starfleet could get it's own article. -- SFH 14:54, 17 Oct 2005 (UTC)
  • Why hasn't this been moved to Imperial Navy? Admiral J. Nebulax 12:54, 8 Jan 2006 (UTC)
    • "Imperial Starfleet" is used throughout movie canon. "Imperial Navy" only appears in WEG and WEG-based EU. Canon (the divine Word) trumps EU (apocryphal tradition). Luther Tyndale 15:22, 8 Jan 2006 (UTC)
      • So? "Imperial Navy" is a more appropiate term for this article. Admiral J. Nebulax 15:24, 8 Jan 2006 (UTC)
        • How so? If the terms are synonymous then "Imperial Starfleet" is the most authentic and authoritative in-universe term. OTOH, if the terms have any distinction at all then it's only that "Imperial Navy" subtly refers more to the personnel than the ships. This article seems to say more about fleets then men. If enough people consider this distinction important, then I suggest inventing a new short article entitled "Imperial Navy", which simply says "The servicemen of the Imperial Starfleet." Luther Tyndale 15:39, 8 Jan 2006 (UTC)
          • The term you're thinking of is "navymen", not "Imperial Navy". Nonetheless, "Navy" is better than "Starfleet", as it is the navy of the Empire. The Republic's navy wasn't called the "Republic Starfleet", it was called the "Republic Navy". Admiral J. Nebulax 15:42, 8 Jan 2006 (UTC)
            • "Navy" is semantically no better than "Starfleet". In RL, on Earth, one talks of "The Fleet" just as much as "The Navy". I'd agree to the EU's "Republic Navy" as there's no canon mention of "Republic Starfleet", however "Imperial Starfleet" has canonical priority in its era. Better we stick closer to the true source of SW, and not wander into spin-offs except where canon falls silent. Luther Tyndale 15:50, 8 Jan 2006 (UTC)
              • What, now are you saying that the movies are the only source of canon? Admiral J. Nebulax 15:53, 8 Jan 2006 (UTC)
                • No, "canon" = movies + movie adapatations (novel, comic, DK books, radio drama). EU is lower priority material viewed through a "foggy window" (e.g. Cerasi elucidation). The EU is invalid on points where it contradicts canon. Unfortunately this still happens, maybe because many EU authors refer to EU guides and a fallible corporate priesthood for reference more often than our true, original Source. :/ Luther Tyndale 16:26, 8 Jan 2006 (UTC)
                  • Regardless of the fact that this particular understanding of canon is out-of-date, there is a place for both Navy and Starfleet articles. On Earth, a fleet consists of ships, but a Navy consists of ships, bases, bureaucracies, and personnel; so, though they're related, the two are most likely not synonymous in the Star Wars Galaxy, either. jSarek 21:41, 8 Jan 2006 (UTC)
                    • "...the two are most likely not synonymous in the Star Wars Galaxy, either". Actually, I think they are. But Navy, as defined by jSarek, is the better term for this article. Admiral J. Nebulax 22:22, 8 Jan 2006 (UTC)
                    • On topic: yeah, if you exclude bases and logistics from "starfleet" then a separate "navy" page maybe justified. Bless whoever splits the page cleanly. .... On the Canon: The real relation between canon and EU is unchanging. A few lemming-like EU-supremecists cloistered in fan-forums twist their own personal interpretations, making a confused rumour of change. At the other extreme, crazed EU-rejectionists like "DarkStar" construe theories justifying total dismissal of uncomfortable sources. Both positions are heretical posturing, warped by bboard groupthink. The only upheaval has been the completion of the canon in 2005: everything newer will be EU. Luther Tyndale 22:35, 8 Jan 2006 (UTC)
                      • This isn't a discussion about canon. So, keep it off of here. Admiral J. Nebulax 22:37, 8 Jan 2006 (UTC)
• Well, then, if there are no other objections, I will move it. The reason I hadn't back in October was because I didn't know how to move pages back then, but I do now. -- SFH 21:36, 9 Jan 2006 (UTC)
  • Thank you. Admiral J. Nebulax 21:39, 9 Jan 2006 (UTC)

No proof

For many vehicles like the Actis and Acclamator, there is no proof that the Empire used them to my knowledge. If there is proof (and I doubt there is) then we will keep them. Perhaps we could split it into two sections, one for right after the Clone Wars and one for later on in the rebellion era. Sorry if I sound rude.--172.136.180.230 02:27, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

• Vader continued to use an Actis as of Dark Lord: The Rise of Darth Vader, but it mentioned that he had a new fighter in development. The Empire was still using Acclamators in Empire at War. —Darth Culator (talk) 02:53, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
• Also, Acclamators were in Star Wars: Empire. -LtNOWIS 03:39, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
  • There you go. Proof. Admiral J. Nebulax ^(talk) 20:42, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
    • And there you go being boastful. =p CooperTFN 20:45, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
      • I suppose so. ;) Admiral J. Nebulax ^(talk) 20:48, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
      • Well, he does have reason to. ;) VT-16 18:59, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
        • Me? Admiral J. Nebulax ^(talk) 20:22, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
          • Yes, I was just trying to be funny. Either way, issue's resolved. :) VT-16 22:45, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
            • Just checking. Admiral J. Nebulax ^(talk) 23:00, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Known ships

The "Known ships" section of the article takes up a lot of space and is easily duplicated (if not more thoroughly noted) via Category:Imperial starships. Can we pull that section, or am I missing another value? --SparqMan 06:02, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

• I think we should remove it. Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax ^{(Imperial Holovision)} 13:00, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• I second that motion. VT-16 07:09, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
  • If no one objects, I'll remove it later. Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax ^{(Imperial Holovision)} 12:15, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Main Image

• Okay, this picture absolutely has to be on this page, preferably as the main image. Not only does it clearly show no less than seven Imperial starship classes, but it also has that feeling of grandeur, to effectively demonstrate the breadth of the Imperial Navy's power. It's a little big right now, though, perhaps the bottom and part of the top could be cropped out. Discuss?--Thetoastman 02:26, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
  • My only problem with it is that it doesn't show the main Imperial warship class—the Imperial-class. The closest thing we have in there is an Acclamator, which was invented before the Imperial Navy came to be. Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax ^{(Imperial Holovision)} 12:54, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Preferably we should have several different fleet images, this one, the one above Byss and the one with the Executor and the ISDs. VT-16 14:30, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
      • That works. Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax ^{(Imperial Holovision)} 14:33, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
• Nevermind, seems they were already there. ^^;;; VT-16 14:38, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Oh well. ;) Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax ^{(Imperial Holovision)} 14:40, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
  • If anyone's wondering, I felt like the ship-section should show some diversity, even in regards to EU ships, that's why I picked lesser known ships, besides the ISD, Dreadnaught and DS II. VT-16 10:00, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Fine for me. Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax ^{(Imperial Holovision)} 13:22, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Regarding Uniform color edits

Imperial Army personnel wore grey uniforms, to differentiate themselves from their Navy counterparts (who wore black) and Imperial Security Bureau (white).

I believe this text should be removed from the Army,Navy,and ISB because not all Army personnel wore grey and not all Navy personnel wore black. In fact sometimes the opposite is true. Quite simply put you can't tell members from the various branches of the Imperial armed forces apart by uniform color. It is very diverse and not just grey,black,and white. Sulgran 05:12, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

• Yeah, that text is definitely wrong, unless it's referring to lower-ranking officers only. Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax ^{(Imperial Holovision)} 13:41, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

• Yeah cause if you watch the movies the captains and admirals are all wearing grey uniforms. ``Prince-Admiral``

Order of battle symbols

• I have added the order of battle symbols from the Imperial Sourcebook. I hope that this is ok? -- Volemlock 13:59, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Definitely okay for me. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax ^{(Imperial Holovision)} 14:11, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Imperial March

Shouldn't the Imperial March be on this page as the theme for the Imperial Navy or is that not canon

• The Imperial March is OOU. —Grand Admiral J. Nebulax ^{(Imperial Holovision)} 20:10, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Not necessarily. Both The Paradise Snare and Boba Fett: Agent of Doom have implied it exists in-universe as well. -- Ozzel 20:19, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Quotes? —Grand Admiral J. Nebulax ^{(Imperial Holovision)} 20:20, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

...and here. -- Ozzel 20:33, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

• Neither say, however, that the Imperial March exists in-universe. —Grand Admiral J. Nebulax ^{(Imperial Holovision)} 11:10, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

well I still believe that they were refering to the Imperial March

• You have no proof. —Grand Admiral J. Nebulax ^{(Imperial Holovision)} 16:51, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Actually, it's quite clear that in the linked comic image he's humming the Imperial March. SWVRoma 09:09, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

More History

This is an extremely detailed article and I like it, however I believe the History Section is tiny compared to what it should be.Ciphe 21:52, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Clone Troopers

The wording of the intro paragraphs was altered to make some factual corrections. The Clone Troopers were part of the Grand Army of the Republic, separate from the Republic Navy. The Navy gave support to the Clone troopers. Therefore the clone officers were not replaced by other personnel, as they were not part of the Navy in the first place. Read Jedi Trial for an example of this. Rexas 04:13, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Overhauling this article

So, I've rewritten the lead after a few tries. Now it's time to move on to the body. I'd like to move the Organization section into a separate Orders of battle of the Imperial Navy article and the Ship sections into a separate Ships of the Galactic Navy. Thoughts? --Hemlock Martinis 21:44, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Prefixes

Apparently The Force Unleashed has decided to use the prefix of ISS for an Imperial starship, the Empirical (designated the ISS Empirical). Emperor Roma I 09:39, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Space stations

Good job on the thorough update, but should Achtnak be included? It is atmospheric; if it SHOULD be included, Separatist battlespheres (ie, Skytop Station) should be in the CIS Navy pageJustinGann 19:16, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Watercraft

In the game Star Wars: Galactic Battlegrounds Darth Vader refers to the watercraft as the Imperial Navy too. What should we do? I suggest following options:

1. Create a subsection about the aquatic venicles here
2. Create another article (something like Imperial Navy (Aquatic)) and throw a disambig here.

Thoughts? QuiGonJinn^(Talk) 19:44, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

• Yeah, there needs to be something on the distinct nautical forces as well. VT-16 19:48, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Imperial Navy Order of Battle (SW1ki)

In the site of WikiaGamming is presented an order of battle

---

my question is what is the canocity of that site?. If they are a site with canon sources. For check that article click here[1].—Unsigned comment by Manquerator (talk • contribs)

• Seems to mostly be taken from the Imperial Sourcebook (Second Edition), pages 102-111. In some places, it's word-for-word identical. —Silly Dan _(talk) 02:02, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

• Tanks Silly Dan. In the same site is mentioned the Fleet Composition [2] is that article remotely canon.

--Manquerator 02:18, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

• • That's mostly guesswork, or information valid only for that game, as far as I can tell. —Silly Dan _(talk) 02:33, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Fleet Additions

I have been trying to hunt down any ship classes that may be missing from the list and I got at least one destroyer class. I also see the three potential classes "super-class" SSD's are not listed. The 8km at least sounds legitimate, so I'll list them under Battleships for now. --Darthscott3457 19:15, December 25, 2009 (UTC)

Should the [Tagge Battlecruiser] be added to the list of Battlecruisers? Znieh 15:41, March 7, 2012 (UTC) Znieh

• Well I decided to add the Tagge battlecruiser to the list of battlecruisers, hopefully I was right in doing that, just started :D Znieh 20:25, March 7, 2012 (UTC) Znieh

Fleet layout

What would be better for navy articles, having a history-based division like the Republic Navy article, or a ship-type one like this article? Was planning on dividing into eras like the Republic one, now that there's the Empire, Remnant and Second Empire. Wanted to hear what people think first. BillNye 11:58, July 2, 2010 (UTC)

• I think dividing it into eras would work seeing as the empire changes like it does. ~~Prince-Admiral~~ 1:33, July 19, 2010 (UTC)

Imperial Customs

The Star Wars: The Roleplaying Game, First Edition (p. 56) suggests that the Imperial Customs is a branch or detachment of the Navy. The role section of this article also hints something like that. Is it true? Shouldn't it be added to the article somewhere? Darth Morrt 18:05, August 3, 2010 (UTC)

• I haven't seen anything that says Imperial Customs is part of the Navy. Everything I've read that had customs agents in it they didn't wear any kind of uniform. In X-WING: Wraith Squadron they deal with a customs agent on Storinal that wore a red outfit that was cut to navel uniform style but wasn't a uniform. So you would think that if Customs was a part of the Navy they would wear Navel uniforms. Or uniforms of their own. -Prince-Admiral- 9:40, August 3, 2010
  • I searched Wraith Squadron. The officer wear "emerald-green longcoat and shining gold buttons". Janson wear the red coat in naval style. Darth Morrt 09:20, August 4, 2010 (UTC)
    • Sorry about that. I was half asleep when I wrote that and I guess I didn't check myself before i posted. -Prince-Admiral- 9:47, August 6, 2010 (UTC)

Imperial vessels that need identification.

Hi.

I wanted to know the identities of some vessels, namely the small vessels flying with the Helmsman here:

Weedle McHairybug 16:02, April 27, 2012 (UTC)

Questions about the data in the current article

1: What source says that the Republic-class cruiser was developed by the Imperial Remnant?

2: What source says that the Crusader-class corvette was developed during the Imperial Remnant era? Because the page for the Crusader-class says it was developed much earlier. To me it looks like someone is just listing any ship classes that the Maw Irregular fleet used that were either not developed by the Empire, or not routinely used by the Imperial Navy as being developed by the Imperial Remnant but I want to be sure before altering the article.

3: Where is it stated that pirates obtained Interceptor-class frigates by hijacking them from the navy? Everything I've read on the subject says that the Interceptor frigates were manufactured by criminal organizations and the navy used ones it could obtain not that the frigates were manufactured for naval use.

--Roguestar (talk) 08:09, November 12, 2013 (UTC)