Talk: Mon Calamari Star Cruiser/Legends/Archive1

Back to page |
< Talk:Mon Calamari Star Cruiser/Legends

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.

OOU material

"In the literature" --I see the point you're trying to get across, but OUU material should be omitted where possible, or worked in to the end of the article. --SparqMan 05:43, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

Good point, but going OUU is almost unavoidable in cases where the EU just doesn't make much sense or contradicts itself. -Vermilion 23:58, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
I don´t think Home One should be regarded as anything other than a call-sign, so I´ve changed the line under the picture. VT-16 12:59, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
Home One could very well be the actual name of the ship, not just a call-sign. There's a Mon Cal Cruiser called Reef Home that's supposed to be named after a city on Mon Calamari. There could be another city (perhaps the largest city, or capital) called "Home One." Regardless, you were right to take out Home One-class. JimRaynor55 15:08, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

Split

What is the advantage of keeping the details of various types of Mon Cal cruisers here, as opposed to having this be about the general types of ships (the converted liners, the dedicated warships) and moving that content to the appropriate articles? --SparqMan 23:13, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • I agree, although this particular article should be kept, seeing as how inconsistent EU, movie, and game materials have been when using these ships. We should keep the bulk of the article to explain the multifaceted nature of Mon Calamari ships while moving the ships to their own article (and perhaps creating a simple list of Mon Cal ships in this article). -- Falmarin 04:31, 30 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Category placement

From what I've been given to understand, Mon Calamari Star Cruiser sounded like a production line much like Star Destroyer. -- SFH 00:14, 23 Nov 2005 (UTC)

  • I guess you could say that. Also, for this page, shouldn't it be more like the Star Destroyer page with links to the separate star cruisers? It would make it a lot easier. Cmdr. J. Nebulax 00:18, 23 Nov 2005 (UTC)
  • This page should be a general overview of MC cruisers, and maybe a catchall for the early, non-classified vessels. --SparqMan 00:55, 23 Nov 2005 (UTC)
    • Well, it should have a list of the cruisers and then a overview of the cruisers, like the Star Destroyer page. That way, it's a hell of a lot easier to find the cruiser you're looking for. Cmdr. J. Nebulax 00:57, 23 Nov 2005 (UTC)
      • Calamari Cruiser are not starship "production line". Each calamari cruiser is built to be unique. Only if two or more Calamari Cruiser are build to be identical(which is rare occasion) can they be called as production line. (for example: Mon Remonda class cruiser etc.) 88.112.82.148 17:55, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Actual ship?

I have a problem with this article. The comic in question was undoubtedly made using concept drawings. There is no reason to assume that these cruisers were actually built and used. That comic has numerous errors. Why include this as an actual vessel? We have no proof that it even was one? AdmiralNick22 20:56, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

  • The comic is canon; therefore, so is the ship class. Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) 20px 22:16, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Yes, the story is canon. Yet, we must take into account that those shots of Mon Cal cruisers are not canon. First off, one of them is intended to be Home One. That right there is a contradiction. Furthermore, the artist included later in the comic, during the actual battle, Liberty-esque looking cruisers. Why create an article on something that most likely does not exist? Is it not easier to just say that the comics artist was working with concepts that were not used? AdmiralNick22 22:20, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
      • They are canon because they're featured in a canon source. AdmiralNick, you may not like it, but this ship class is canon. Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) 20px 22:22, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
        • Jack, it is articles like these that degrade the Wookieepedia. An obscure reference in a old comic using concept article suddenly warrants a article? That is almost as bad as assuming each background smudge over Byss in DE is a new type of ship. Furthermore, to is there a source that says 100% that those are Mon Cal cruisers? Granted they are concepts of "Rebel cruisers", but who says they are Mon Cal built. The overall shape, especially of the rear, resembles the Gallofree medium transports in many ways. Who is to say that these ships are not some other form of Rebel cruiser? That is why articles like this have no place on the Wookiee. AdmiralNick22 22:41, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
          • You're completely wrong. You have no proof that this type of ship is non-canon. Come back when you have proof. Until then, this article is canon and is remaining here. Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) 20px 22:46, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
          • Jack, you did not answer my question. Where is the proof that says that these vessels are in fact Mon Cal designed? To my knowledge, these concepts were just labeled "Rebel cruisers" or "Rebel Star Cruisers". Now, this does not mean that they are Mon Cal. For example, several older sources, namely From Star Wars to Indiana Jones- Best of the Lucasfilm archives, lists the name "Rebel Medical Frigate Star Cruiser" for the Neb B's. The term "Rebel Star Cruiser" is used in the novelization of ROTJ to desribe numerous Rebel ships. Furthermore, I point out that the ship in question bares a remarkable resemblance to the Gallofree transports. If we are going to say that they are canon ships, we need to take into account that they could be one of the dozens of "off screen" types. All of these reasons/problems is why it is an article that is not needed. AdmiralNick22 22:54, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
          • I am suprised that you are so certain that everything is cut and dry like that? I assume that discussion about articles is quite common? I merely am pointing out that the vessel in question, if we for arguments sake say it is a actual vessel in the Rebel fleet, could in fact be from another designer. Furthermore, if we are to assume that those vessels are Mon Cal cruisers, why say they are a new type? My whole point is that if Home One is presented in one panel as appearing totally different from the way we see it in the movie, why not just say that the vessels are a case of artistic license? AdmiralNick22 23:08, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
          • How do we know these are Mon Cal cruisers even in the first place? Now maybe you understand my hesitation to include articles like this. I am not trying to be snarky, but merely point out why stuff like this doesn't really add anything to the Wookiee, other than confuse or rile people. AdmiralNick22 23:16, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
            • How in hell doesn't this "add anything to the Wookiee"? If it's obviously a separate class and based on Mon Calamari cruiser concept art, it's a canonical Mon Calamari cruiser design that deserves its own article, just like the MC80a, MC80B, MC90, etc. Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) 20px 23:19, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
          • Jack, with respect, you can be a difficult person to discuss topics with here on the Wookieepedia. I am within my rights as a member here to question an article. We all have those rights. Yet, you seem to just want to say "My way is right and that is final" instead of having a discussion. I am open to changing my opinion on this article, but it is totally fair and within the bounds of the Wookieepedia to debate the various merits of an article. I respect what you do here and all your hard work, but your attitude towards people with a different viewpoint that yours s not always the greatest. AdmiralNick22 23:25, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
            • You're saying that this is non-canon, and I'm responding by saying that it is, since it is in a canonical source. You're saying that we don't know who manufactured it, and I'm saying that since it was based off of Mon Calamari cruiser concept art, it has to be a Mon Calamari cruiser. You're saying that it doesn't deserve an article and that it confuses people, and I'm saying that it does deserve it's own article and that it doesn't confuse people if they read it. We're having a discussion, and I have every right to say what I have been saying, because it is a discussion and I'm allowed to state my opinion on the matter. Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) 20px 23:28, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
            • I guess alot of this boils down to how different people view what is portrayed in comics. For example, when I see a ISD in Dark Empire in the background that is missing a hangar, I tend to just chalk it up to artistic choice or a small error. Some people would disagree with me on that. I guess it is for that reason that I see a Mon Cal cruiser concept in the comic and I just assume it is not a new type but just a different representation of what we see in the movies. AdmiralNick22 23:34, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
              • True, POV is a major issue in this. However, we really have to take this as a separate class, because it does have major differences. I myself believe it is a separate class, but who knows. And sorry, AdmiralNick. I've just been a little tense all day. Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) 20px 23:39, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
                • No problem. :-) Perhaps a fair compromise would be to include a small blurb in the BtS section stating that some fans do not see them as a different class? That way the article can remain and then we can let people decide for themselves whether the vessel is a new class or not. AdmiralNick22 23:42, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
                • I'm inclined to agree that this probably warrants an article as a seperate ship. However, if it IS a seperate ship, then we cannon assume it's of Mon Calamari design just because the concept art was. Concept art was often reused for different EU concepts than originally intended. For instance, McQuarrie's original concept for Wookiees eventually became the Lasat species, and concept art that depicted Luke Skywalker eventually got used as Voren Na'al. jSarek 23:45, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
                  • Still, the concept art and this ship class look similar. Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) 20px 23:48, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
                    • Adding to this, I found the McQuarrie artwork in a non-behind the scenes source (GG#5), so the better picture now occupies the infobox. And it's definitely not the same as the MC80 series. Those ships are shaped like beached whales with pointed fronts and would be slightly bigger than a Nebulon-B frigate, judging by the comic art. VT-16 09:51, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
                      • Excellent. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) 20px 14:13, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
                      • VT-16, I've looked through the revised edition of GG5 and I can't seem to find that piece of art in it. I take it you have the first edition? If so, what exactly does the book say about them? If not, what page is it on in the revised edition? jSarek 23:31, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
                        • I only have the one from 1990. The picture is on page 36, in Admiral Ackbar's article. VT-16 08:36, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
                          • Yeah the art is completely different in the 1st and 2nd editions of the book; in the first edition, it uses a lot of drawn pictures and concept art, whereas the 2nd edition uses pictures from the films. Although it's on page 36 of the 1st edition, it's not in the 2nd edition at all...and I could really be pedantic and say that it's only actually in black and white in the 1st edition, but I prefer the colour picture. :) —Jaymach Ral'Tir (talk) 03:29, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
                            • And it's not named as a Mon Calamari ship either in GG5 or the RotJ comic. Scans, courtesy of Jaymach, here and here. --McEwok 11:57, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
                            • Since the art is in the chapter about Ackbar and his people's contribution to the fleet, that pretty much settles it. The only name used is "Mon Calamari Cruiser", so that's what I put for this article, even though that is a general term for Mon Cal vessels also. VT-16 13:03, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
                            • The art is a depiction of the Battle of Endor, Admiral Ackbar's greatest victory, below a description of the Battle of Endor in a biography of Admiral Ackbar. This indicates nothing about the origins of these ships. --McEwok 14:27, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
                              • I had already voiced my concerns about this article earlier on the talk page. Namely making a concept art seen only in a comic and one edition of a sourcebook into a actual class. The speculation way outweighs the actual facts. I would personally there be no article on this cruiser, but that is just my opinion. AdmiralNick22 14:38, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
                                • Adm.Nick22, if you'd bother to read the book, you would see that every concept art used is placed below an article where it is relevant. The ships seen are Mon Calamari, because the article is about Admiral Ackbar. I can't believe you're actually contesting this. If you'll excuse me, I'm reverting this, since the changes were made due to a lack of information. If McE hasn't read the book that is not my concern, and your personal opinion I can care less about. These ships show up in three seperate sources and are identified as Mon Calamari, that's it. VT-16 17:20, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
                                    • VT-16, why the rudeness? Does saying "your personal opinion I can care less about" do anything constructive? Have I insulted you? Attitudes like that do absolutely nothing in a discussion. Your attitude leaves very little chance for posters to discuss their differences of opinion and find a compromise. It is far more rewarding for all involved in any dispute to discuss their opinions and those of others with respect, not to attack it. AdmiralNick22 00:57, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
  • You're acting like another individual who has little regard for evidence he doesn't like. My tolerance for wasteful discussion only goes so far, no matter who it is. First of all, what is this:
First off, one of them is intended to be Home One.
Home One? Where does it say one of them is Home One? I've got the ROTJ comic and it isn't pointed out anywhere.
Furthermore, the artist included later in the comic, during the actual battle, Liberty-esque looking cruisers.
And therefore the fleet that "stretched further than the eye could see" (according to the ROTJ novelization) couldn't have different types of Mon cal vessels? The movie proves that wrong.
Is it not easier to just say that the comics artist was working with concepts that were not used?
If he or she works with them, they are used. Concept art gets recycled in most SW stories, this is no different. Or would you rather say the Victory-class Star Destroyer, the Recusant-class destroyer, the MC90 cruiser, the MC30c frigate, Juggernaut tanks, and Z-95 Headhunter do not "really" exist, since they were made from discarded concept art?
Your attitude leaves very little chance for posters to discuss their differences of opinion and find a compromise.
What compromise? Again, you show no evidence behind your statements, only variations of "I think this isn't really there". I've provided actual sources, you've got an opinion. How is that supposed to be equal in a debate? VT-16 10:04, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
  • To deal with the facts, and the facts only.
  • 1.) The RotJ comic doesn't identify these ships as Home One. I agree with VT-16 in this. But in fact, the comic doesn't identify them as anything at all, and an implied identification with Home One would be the only grounds for identifying them as Mon Calamari ships on the basis of the comic. (comic page)
  • 2.) Galaxy Guide 5 doesn't identify them as Mon Calamari ships, either. This is a depiction of the Battle of Endor, and it comes below the description of the Battle of Endor in Ackbar's bio. The statement, earlier in the bio, that Ackbar brough the "Mon Calamari Cruisers" to the Rebellion, says nothing about what sort of ships are shown here. (GG5 page)
  • 3.) The three seperate appearances of this type, including Marvel #98 are definately enough, according to Wookieepedia's canon-is-canon policy, to earn them an entry. In this I agree with VT-16 again. I do see the sense of AdmiralNick's point that we can't be completely sure that they're not a "misrepresentation" of something else, but this introduces uncertainty into the situation, rather than conclusively disproving this design's "existence" in Star Wars.
  • 4.) In short, there is no solid evidence to indicate that these are Mon Calamari ships, and the valid questions of source-accuracy don't outweight the need for an entry on them.
  • They may be Mon Cals (though the lack of smaller, asymmetrically-placed blisters is against this); they may be a "misrepresentation" of something else (but they certainly "exist" inasmuch as they're depicted in canon): but these are possibilities, not certainties. They're Rebel ships seen during and just after the Endor campaign, they look like they do, and they're scaled to ~300m from the escort frigates. And that's about all we can say about them for sure. --McEwok 12:32, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Since the chapter in question is about the Mon Calamari Admiral and his people's contribution to the battle, the pictures used in the first edition of the book only relate to the articles they follow, and the only ships seen in said picture, which accompanies said article, are A-wings interceptors, Imperial Star Destroyers, and these vessels, which are prominently featured, there is little room for anything else. Ackbar provides Mon Calamari Cruisers to the battle, we then see a picture of cruisers engaging Star Destroyers.
As for bulges, there are plenty of those, but none clearly shown to be asymmetrical, likewise on the MC30c frigate and the MC18 light freighter, other Mon Cal designs. There are plenty of tiny irregular "spots" seen on both pictures and on other Mon Cal vessels. Those who have not read this book, should please refrain from commenting on its contents as if they've read it. VT-16 13:16, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
  • There is no evidence for your assumption that the picture shows Mon Calamari vessels, rather than simply a great naval victory masterminded by a Mon Calamari.
  • Conceded on the MC30c frigate, however—though with the MC18 light freighter, we can't say what the other side of the ship looks like. But in any case, you have yet to provide evidence supporting your claim that these ships must be a Mon Cal type. You can argue the possibility that they might be, but I think no-one denies that. Personally, I think their aesthetic is too different from the canoncial designs, but subjective value-judgements aside, we can say with certainty that they might equally be something completely different. --McEwok 14:04, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Since I've done so twice already, I feel no compulsion to post the source evidence one more time. However, I will reiterate: Those who have not read this book, should please refrain from commenting on its contents as if they've read it. VT-16 15:31, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Actually, the text for that section (at the very least, it could be the text throughout the whole book; I've just not checked) is the same in the 1st edition as it is in the 2nd edition, and so anyone who has read one book has basically read the other book as well. I have to agree that the starships in question seem to only be a representation of the ships present at the Battle of Endor, however, as the specific section they're in is talking about Ackbar's exploits at said battle. Although there is mention of Mon Cal Cruisers being given to the Rebellion earlier, there's not really anything to reflect that these ships are said Mon Cal's...of course there's also not evidence against it...but when you assume, it only makes an ass out of u and me. :) (I've been waiting to say that for a long time). —Jaymach Ral'Tir (talk) 16:06, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
      • Alright, let's play this game, then:
In the segment on "Tatooine", there is a McQuarrie painting which may or may not be of Jabba's palace, in the segment on the Pit of Carkoon, there is a McQuarrie painting which may or may not be depicting the sail barge on fire and the skiff with the heroes, in the segment on Imperial profiles, there is a McQuarrie painting which may or may not be of Darth Vader walking with some Imperial advisors, in the segment on Palpatine, there is a McQuarrie painting which may or may not be of Palpatine frying Luke, in the segment on Endor profiles and the ewoks, there is a McQuarrie painting which may or may not be of the Ewok village, in the segment on Rebel commandoes and their adventures on Endor, there is a McQuarrie painting which may or may not be of a speeder bike, in the segment dealing with the heroes of the Alliance, including Han and Lando, there is a McQuarrie painting which may or may not be of the Millennium Falcon in the DS II's reactor chamber, piloted by Lando, in the segment on Luke Skywalker, there is a McQuarrie painting which may or may not be of Luke and Vader fighting in the throneroom and in the segment on Yoda, there is a McQuarrie painting which may or may not be a painting of Yoda.
Silly? Well, it is on par with saying the McQuarrie painting depicting a single type of Rebel cruisers fighting Imperial Star Destroyers which follows a profile talking of the Mon Calamari Admiral Ackbar and preceding the article on Mon Calamari crewmen and the cruisers they crew, may or may not be of Mon Calamari cruisers. :P

VT-16 16:32, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

  • Actually, going by all that, it just makes me think these are regular MC-80s seen through artistic interpretation. You can't have it both ways - either they're meant to depict the ships we saw in RotJ, in which case they're Mon Calamari Star Cruisers, or they're not, in which case we know nothing about them other than they fought at Endor under Ackbar's command and were later seen at the Fondor shipyards . . . suggesting, in fact, that they're a Fondorian design, if anything. jSarek 17:10, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Since the Rebel fleet was described as going further than visual range in the novelization, there's more than enough room for these ships as well as the ones seen in the movie. Even more so if they're almost as small as Nebulon-B frigates. VT-16 17:38, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
  • But that says nothing about whether they're Mon Calamari ships. Similarly, no-one's denying that the image is relevant to its context: it shows Ackbar's victory at the Battle of Endor. This doesn't mean the ships we see are anything to do with Mon Cals. --McEwok 17:50, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
  • But why interpret it differently from all the other pictures, when no other ships are mentioned in the preceding and succeeding sections? The only thing we hear about are the Mon Cals and their contributions. Similarly, the sections on the Pit of Carkoon talks about Jabba's sail barge and we do see a sail barge. Unlike this picture, the concept art of the barge has it as a slightly different design, which is non-canon, since the movie shows otherwise. But that's not the case here, since the Rebel fleet was large enough and covered enough space to have some of it go unseen from a given vantage point. VT-16 18:31, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
  • There's no difference. This is a biography of Ackbar, not a general piece on the Mon Cals. It mentions the "Rebel Fleet" and "the battle of Endor"—"the Alliance's shining moment, and Ackbar deserves a large portion of the credit" (see here). There's no reason why those ships must be Mon Cal ones. --McEwok 18:44, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Because they are part of two sections describing the Mon Calamari's contributions, primarily their cruisers and their crews. Crews which had to be Mon Calamari due to the interal setup of their ships. Both before and after the picture, the articles are about Mon Calamari contributions. And the picture is the only one used for the capital ships of the Rebel Alliance. EDIT: And here's a picture from Empire's End, showing a similar vessel in a hangar that's identified as a Mon Calamari design. VT-16 18:57, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
      • Bingo, that Dark Empire shot is some actual proof of Mon Cal origin. It also demonstrates this class is capable of landing, a useful tidbit of info. jSarek 22:15, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
        • I'm not very good at comparing, but that Mon Calamari Cruiser seems to be more of a small frigate design. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) 20px 00:49, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
          • Oh, it definitely is. I don't know the size of the MC30c frigate, but I wouldn't be surprised if this was in the same area. Unfortunately, even though it would make more sense to put that in the title, I think people would complain, so for now I'm not doing anything more. VT-16 12:15, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Maybe I'm missing something, but I don't really see how that Empire's End ship is neccessarily anything like the one that's the subject of this article. There's nothing on the Endor ship to compare to the two blisters that you see on the left in the image VT supplied, and we don't see enough in that image to confirm that this ship's blisters are symmetrical. Are there more pics of that ship, for a better comparison? --McEwok 13:13, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
      • No, there aren't more pictures, but this is supposed to be a general article for all the unnamed Mon Calamari cruisers. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) 20px 13:48, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
        • Jack, that may be the best idea of a compromise I have heard. Why give every ship a article? Especially if they have little or conflicting evidence to back it up. If we could somehow combine all of these unknown Mon Cal cruisers into a single article, it would solve the problem. In fact, I think that this sort of thing should be done at the Wookieepedia FAR more often. Just look at all those "supposed" articles about Republic ships from TOTJ. They could all be lumped together as well. Does anyone else think that this is a good idea? AdmiralNick22 14:26, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
          • Actually, that had already been done with this article - it had been merged and redirected to Catalogue of unnamed vehicles. jSarek 14:34, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
            • AdmiralNick: I think that merging the Republic vessels from TotJ would be a good idea. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) 20px 14:41, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
              • Is it redirected yet? When I click "Mon Cal cruiser" it shows this page, not the linked one to the catalouge? I think that all should link directly into the catalouge. Is that how this will work? Jack- yeah, I think that it would be better to have a "TOTJ Republic capital ships" article with pics, descriptions, and estimates as tho their role. AdmiralNick22 15:09, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
                • Wait, are you suggesting that "Mon Cal cruiser" should link to the list of unnamed vehicles? Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) 20px 20:02, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
                • Nick: Sorry, I was unclear. It had already been merged and redirected, and then the redirect pointed toward the more logical Mon Calamari Star Cruiser, before the merge and redirect was undone. jSarek 22:09, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
                  • Anyway, for the TotJ Republic ships, it should probably be Ancient Republic vessels, just so we can have a more in-universe name for them. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) 20px 23:40, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
                    • jSarek, Jack, VT- why don't we do both of these things? First off we can create a "unclassifed Mon Cal cruiser" category (I am sure someone can come up with a better name than that. :-p) and put all of the various unknowns into one spot? That way we can have it consolidated. The reason I support that for articles like the various unclassifed MC cruisers and the TOTJ Republic ships is because they have little to no info on them. Thoughts? AdmiralNick22 20:06, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
                      • The article should probably be Mon Calamari capital ships, since the Empire's End one is more of a frigate than cruiser. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) 20px 20:14, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
                        • Fair enough. Creating such a article will allow us to combine all unknown Mon Cal warships into one source, as opposed to giving each one their own individual article. If it works, we can do the Ancient Republic ones as well. AdmiralNick22 00:51, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
                      • Good idea! Better than putting them in an unidentified list along with "Tatooine carts" and stuff like that. :P How about "Mon Calamari ship designs" and "Old Sith War Republic ship designs"? VT-16 22:46, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
  • The idea of dividing up the anonymous vehicle catalogue's been in the works a long time. I'm all for it and will be glad to help.JustinGann 01:41, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Major Edit

This article was in poor form, containing alot of information that is not needed or not properly presented. I have been going through and trying to fix this. Note that in the "Behind the scences" section I detail the debate between WEGers and Saxton. I think that it is fair to mention both viewpoints. While I agree with some of Dr. Saxton's ideas, much of them in regards to Mon Cal cruisers are not canon and therfore had no place in this article. AdmiralNick22 00:54, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

What About the Ship from Star Wars: Battlefront II

None of these models match the Mon Calamari Star Cruiser from Battlefront II. This could be that it is a new class. It is defenitely larger than an Imperial Star Destroyer, not by much, but it is larger. It also has room for eight heavy cannons, even though it isn't used in the game. I think it is a class of its own.

do you have a picture or something? --BaldFett 10:13, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

  • It's probably meant to be a MC80. Battlefront and Battlefront II have been known to go against canon. Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) 20px 13:35, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Can you please stop saying that? I'm getting sick and tired of hearing it every time something from BF comes up. Since other Mon Cal designs from games are canonical, this might be worth looking into (of course, its capabilities and total armament would be game mechanics and not canon, but the appearance itself might be). VT-16 20:58, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
      • I'm not arguing that it's not canon, I'm just saying that the games go against canon for the sole purpose of game mechanics. Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) 20px 22:20, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
        • again: do you have an image or something? most MonCals from the rebellion time are supposed to be MC80s. --BaldFett 20:57, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
          • Yeah, but who knows. Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) 20px 23:55, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
            • I don't have a picture, but it looks like the Home One. It is larger than an Imperial I-class Star Destroyer. And Battlefront II only goes against Cannon because of the battles, not the craft. User:Super Destroyer 92
              • Battlefront II goes against canon in more places than just the battles. Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) 20px 21:23, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
                • I suppose so, but I still think something should be done. BFII is the reason I stumbled accross this website. Believe it or not, I was looking for stats on the ships used in the game. I guess I was a little too addicted to the game. I guess this conversation doesn't have too go on anymore. I think VT-16 is right. User:Super Destroyer 92
                  • If this is truly a separate class, then what would we call it? Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) (Data file) 20px 20:26, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
                    • I usually call it the MC100 Star Cruiser. Just because it follows the chain of how Mon Calamari Cruisers are ranked or classified, but it would probably be considered non-canon if we did put it in an article.User: Super Destroyer 92 (Super Destroyer 92 19:27, 20 August 2006 (UTC))
                      • Plus, the MC90 came after this Star Cruiser design. Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) 20px 20:35, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
                        • True, this cruiser was created shortly before the Battle of Yavin. It makes an appearance in the story mode when the 501st takes Yavin IV. It could as well be between MC80 and MC90. (Super Destroyer 92 21:51, 22 August 2006 (UTC))
                          • But we can't give it a "MC" designation unless a canon source does. Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) 20px 00:43, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
                            • Once again, this is true. However, isn't MC short for Mon Calamari? I don't think that there will be a canon source unless they make another reference book. I just hope that they do make another book, the New Essential Guide to Vehicles and Vessels doesn't include ROTS.(Super Destroyer 92 03:20, 23 August 2006 (UTC))
                              • While "MC" stands for "Mon Calamari", the number is the issue. Also, they should make a "New New Essential Guide to Vehicles and Vessels", as well as a "New New Essential Guide to Weapons and Technology" and "New New Essential Guide to Characters". Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) 20px 13:39, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
                                • I definitly agree. They should make a series of Very New Essential Guides that covers all of the weapons and technology, along with vehicles and other catagories from all games, movies, etc. [[Super Destroyer 92 16:49, 23 August 2006 (UTC)]]
                                  • Now we're not talking about Mon Calamari Star Cruisers, though. Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) 20px 19:03, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
                                    • The obvious solution....is to make a new page for this new cruiser, and call it the New-Calamari-Cruiser-Type-Seen-From-Battlefront-Two, and label it as a conjectural title. - lalala_la
  • It might actually have to deal with the Mon Calamari Cruiser. Notice that the company that makes the books is titled Lucasbooks, the company that makes the games is titles Lucas Arts (everybody knows that). I'm just saying, there may be a possibility that they will make another book. I don't think anybody else is paying attention to this conversation anyway. The cruiser in SWBF2 could also show that MC80 Cruiser was built with a length that reached up to 1,600 meters long. (Super Destroyer 92 22:26, 26 August 2006 (UTC))

Are they canonically a Mon Calamari design?

Are these ships ever canonically identified as a Mon Calamari design? Can someone confirm (or disprove) this from the RotJ comic, Marvel #98 and its reprints, and/or GG5? Thanks --McEwok 12:48, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

New Image

Can't we use something of better quality that those pics from Starship Battles? There is no reason to show so many types of Mon Calamari Cruiser for the main pic. It makes most sense to have the main pic be the most recognizable types of the class, like Home One or the Liberty. AdmiralNick22 17:34, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Problem is, we want to show as many types as possible. Having them individually would leave us with little room. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) 20px 19:01, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Well, why not include a single cruiser (like Home One or Liberty for the main shot and then include a composite shot of several types farther down the page? I just think that there are many pictures of higher quality that would serve this page better. AdmiralNick22 19:06, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
      • I disagree. An image with multiple types of Mon Calamari cruisers deserves to be at the top. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) 20px 19:08, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
        • But isn't there a way to incorporate a better photo? You guys are using a black and white rough series of sketches as opposed to the numerous colored photos and drawings of Mon Cal cruisers. Surely you or VT-16 could create a composite that shows numerous cruisers that uses a better source of pics than those from SB. AdmiralNick22 19:12, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
          • Those aren't "rough sketches". They are more of schematics, and official ones, might I add. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) 20px 20:28, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
            • I just thought adding those simple profile pictures to one picture would serve as a nice intro to the series. Show the diversity with only one artist's style. Each individual article has better, color pictures. VT-16 17:54, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Hyperspace image

This is not a request for the image itself, only a question of what it shows. Given that most people don't have Hyperspace and subsequently can't see it. :/ VT-16 20:27, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Recusant?

Does this really qualify as a Mon Calamari Star Cruiser? I was under the impression that it was a Quarren design. Just because they're from the same planet doesn't mean it's from the same line. Red XIV 08:00, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

  • From what I remember, it was a Mon Calamari design stolen by CIS-loyal Quarren to be used in the Confederate Navy. —Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) 20px 14:59, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Yeah, the Holonet News from one of the SW:Insider issues say the IGBC stole Mon Cal warship-plans in the middle of the CW, the Recusant-class only appeared after this event, and it's based on original Mon Cal ship designs that were discarded for ROTJ. Since Holonet news items always covered trivia for upcoming movies (AOTC, ROTS), that's most likely what it is. Both the Providence-class and Munificent-class were pre-CW. VT-16 13:53, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

What model star ship is this?

It says MC90 as its filename, but it looks nothing like the MC90's in the MC90 article.

http://www.webpersonal.net/carlesqf/imatges/mc90.gif 65.40.195.176 18:45, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

  • Now that is a pic I have nto seen in a long time. A long time. It dates back to the mid-90's, IIRC. It was a fan produced pic of a hypothetical Mon Cal cruiser. Back during the start of the Bantam-era books and Star Wars fandom on the web, I remember seeing numerous websites with fan created ships and images. Seeing this one takes me back. Alas, it is not official. Kinda like the ole' "Super Mon Cal Cruiser" was was all over the web a decade or more ago. AdmiralNick22 17:29, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Info from EaW

I removed the info from Empire at War, quite simply because it is contradicted by pretty much every other source on Calamari cruisers. Also Dark Empire Sourcebook explicity states that the MC90 was the first military, non converted Calamari Cruiser. The info from EaW seems to be a mistake and or game mechanics... ---- JV

Why does the article contradict itself then?

This -> In addition to these original retrofitted civilian ships, the Mon Calamari also designed military variants of the cruisers.

Contradicts this -> By the time of the New Republic, the Mon Calamari had begun to produce military-optimized designs that were no longer modified civilian designs. The individualization that marked the Rebellion-era designs all but disappeared in an effort to simplify the New Republic's logistics.

Info from EaW should be removed, or at least have a warning in regards to the dubious nature of the info.