Providence-class
- I don't understand the meaning of this article. Isn't this just a Providence-class Carrier/Destroyer? --Sompeetalay 16:54, March 27, 2010 (UTC)
- It is...longer, isn' it? -- 1358 (Talk) 17:00, March 27, 2010 (UTC)
- It is. Much like this ship, the Separatist dreadnaught appears to be a larger version of an existing Separatist warship class. Whether this means the Separatist dreadnaught is an entirely new class or merely a larger Providence destroyer, who knows. Grand Moff Tranner
(Comlink) 17:03, March 27, 2010 (UTC)
- I think it should be noted that there is a common reason why Grievous's Recusant-class light destroyer and this ship are scaled up, and that is that they both re-use the bridge of the Munificent-class star frigate which is far bigger than the bridges of these ships should be. As such, in order to keep the bridge from looking rediculously huge on them, the ships have to be scaled up to match the size of the bridge. Just something to think about. Arvis1804 03:32, June 4, 2010 (UTC)
- It is. Much like this ship, the Separatist dreadnaught appears to be a larger version of an existing Separatist warship class. Whether this means the Separatist dreadnaught is an entirely new class or merely a larger Providence destroyer, who knows. Grand Moff Tranner
- It is...longer, isn' it? -- 1358 (Talk) 17:00, March 27, 2010 (UTC)
Sith Dreadnaught
This data screen seen in the episode [1] says that Trench's ship is of the same type as Lord Kaan's Sith Dreadnaught cruisers. I suggest the articles be merged. Gry Sarth 15:13, March 29, 2010 (UTC)
- Well, how do we know if the text refers to Trench's ship and not to another ship in his fleet that was not seen on-screen. Gulomi Jomesh 15:18, March 29, 2010 (UTC)
- Because the text also reads "The dreadnaught is known to be under the command of commander Trench". It couldn't have been spelled out any clearer. Gry Sarth 15:24, March 29, 2010 (UTC)
- The whole fleet ist under Trench's command. Gulomi Jomesh 15:28, March 29, 2010 (UTC)
- That's clutching at straws. Why is it more plausible that the Sith cruiser is some mysterious off-screen ship, instead of Trench's command ship, which is what can be most readily understood from the text? By that logic we don't even know if the whole fleet was being commanded by Trench, and not by some off-screen grand-admiral. Gry Sarth 15:44, March 29, 2010 (UTC)
- Just as an FYI, what you read on the screen in Aurebesh cannot be taken as being canon. Admiral Trench is spelled Taranch on the screen when Yularen is researching him, but that is clearly inaccurate. - JMAS
Hey, it's me! 15:33, March 29, 2010 (UTC)
- A contradiction is a contradiction, and it can happen on an aurebesh screen just as much as in a line of dialogue. We should disregard "Taranch" because it contradicts everything else, not because it's written in aurebesh. If the Invincible being a Sith Dreadnaught-type ship doesn't contradict other sources, why should it be disregarded? It's clearly not a Munificent, so why can't it be the thing that an in-universe screen says it is?Gry Sarth 15:38, March 29, 2010 (UTC)
- Of course it's not a Munificent. It looks nothing like one. What it does look like is a Providence-class carrier/destroyer with a slightly modified bridge. Oh, and what I meant to say was, what is on screen in aurebesh cannot always be taken as canon. - JMAS Hey, it's me! 15:59, March 29, 2010 (UTC)
- Yeah, I meant Providence. Which it is also much larger than. We're already classifying the Invincible as this pretty-much-made-up "Separatist Dreadnaught-class". So why not use the class that the episode itself says it belongs to? Gry Sarth 16:08, March 29, 2010 (UTC)
- I agree with Gry. The aurebesh screen refers to a dreadnaught, the only known dreadnaught at the battle, you've separated the Invincible from the Providence series as it is... clearly not all aurebesh screens can be taken as canon, but your example refers to where it contradicts canon - this doesn't.--Sinre 18:31, March 29, 2010 (UTC)
- Yeah, I meant Providence. Which it is also much larger than. We're already classifying the Invincible as this pretty-much-made-up "Separatist Dreadnaught-class". So why not use the class that the episode itself says it belongs to? Gry Sarth 16:08, March 29, 2010 (UTC)
- Of course it's not a Munificent. It looks nothing like one. What it does look like is a Providence-class carrier/destroyer with a slightly modified bridge. Oh, and what I meant to say was, what is on screen in aurebesh cannot always be taken as canon. - JMAS
- A contradiction is a contradiction, and it can happen on an aurebesh screen just as much as in a line of dialogue. We should disregard "Taranch" because it contradicts everything else, not because it's written in aurebesh. If the Invincible being a Sith Dreadnaught-type ship doesn't contradict other sources, why should it be disregarded? It's clearly not a Munificent, so why can't it be the thing that an in-universe screen says it is?Gry Sarth 15:38, March 29, 2010 (UTC)
- The whole fleet ist under Trench's command. Gulomi Jomesh 15:28, March 29, 2010 (UTC)
- Because the text also reads "The dreadnaught is known to be under the command of commander Trench". It couldn't have been spelled out any clearer. Gry Sarth 15:24, March 29, 2010 (UTC)
So... shall we merge these or not? It seems we have two people for it and one against it. Gry Sarth 16:01, March 31, 2010 (UTC)
- I'm with JMAS on this. It's possible they just took information from the article in order to fill up the computer screen and what is the likelihood that an Old Republic ship would fall in to the Confederate Navy. It would be long outdated, outclassed, and outgunned. Hntr.peters 23:43, April 1, 2010 (UTC)
- I hold that the readout screen is inaccurate and merely filler text that only causes problems when detail-oriented fans such as Wookieepedians attempt to over-analyze. But, for over-analysis's sake, the Separatist dreadnaught is clearly a derivative of the Providence-class model, produced during the Clone Wars; however, to say the Providence-class in turn is based on or inspired by a Sith design nearly a thousand years prior is pure conjecture. This much should be fairly obvious. Why, if anything (direct lifting of text aside), at least it shows the SW:TCW team knows we exist despite causing many of these discussions we've been having lately!--R.Werner 20:03, April 3, 2010 (UTC)
- I just don't understand why information that was literally spelled out in the episode can be so easily ignored. This is not guesswork. The footage clearly states that Trench's ship is of the same model as the Sith Dreadnaughts used a thousand years before. Gry Sarth 14:32, April 5, 2010 (UTC)
- Usually, something that appears in a source is taken at face value; however, it is often difficult to establish the canonical value of certain things, such as out-of-universe references (such as the direct lift of Wookieepedia article text here) and Aurebesh writings (again here). There has been a precedent for inaccurate (such as misspelled names) or obviously joke (1337 speak) information in Aurebesh, even in The Clone Wars series. Remember that in the original Star Wars trilogy, Aurebesh was just nonsensical alien writing. It was not until later that messages or meanings of any kind were encoded in it. Aurebesh was (and still is) the alien writing, but production teams use as they like, whether it be for serious reasons or not. Only devout Star Wars fans know how to decrypt Aurebesh, so for most it remains nonsense, which is why production teams can slip the nonsense stuff in there. The fact that any useful info in Aurebesh occurs at all serves to enrich the universe, but we should really understand that inaccuracies and jokes will get inserted from time to time. Remember that all of Star Wars is fiction, and while we strive to get our details right, we must bear in mind that the are people who produce this stuff, and they will inevitably place gags, homages, nods, and other things into their work, so we mustn't get to caught up on these things when they show up. Therefore, given a well-known precedent in addition to in-universe logical claims, it seems rather clear that we should disregard this readout screen text as canon, although it is definitely worth mentioning in a "Behind the Scenes" note.--R.Werner 17:16, April 5, 2010 (UTC)
- In other words, we could just consider this as an Ester egg, and so it daos not have to be canon. Gulomi Jomesh 07:55, April 6, 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, we could. I just don't see why we should, considering the information makes sense in-universe and does not contradict other sources. Appart from the fact that it was taken directly from wookieepedia, the content itself doesn't constitute an in-joke or easter egg. Gry Sarth 15:45, April 6, 2010 (UTC)
- The fact that the text uses a dating system befor it was actually intruced (BBY) dose contradict other sources. Gulomi Jomesh 15:47, April 6, 2010 (UTC)
- A good point. An anachronism is a smoking gun for an inaccuracy. But, no, the info doesn't make much sense in-universe otherwise; why would a relic of a ship be a powerful battleship 1000 yearI'm not sure how much more evidence is required to dissuade remaining proponents for the article merger. This seems rather blatantly obvious by this point. I feel as if we are beating a dead horse now.--R.Werner 18:18, April 6, 2010 (UTC)
- Ok, then. I don't exactly agree, but I can see that there is enough weight to the other side of the argument to let it rest for the time being, until the time when we have some more info on this. Gry Sarth 18:56, April 6, 2010 (UTC)
- A good point. An anachronism is a smoking gun for an inaccuracy. But, no, the info doesn't make much sense in-universe otherwise; why would a relic of a ship be a powerful battleship 1000 yearI'm not sure how much more evidence is required to dissuade remaining proponents for the article merger. This seems rather blatantly obvious by this point. I feel as if we are beating a dead horse now.--R.Werner 18:18, April 6, 2010 (UTC)
- The fact that the text uses a dating system befor it was actually intruced (BBY) dose contradict other sources. Gulomi Jomesh 15:47, April 6, 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, we could. I just don't see why we should, considering the information makes sense in-universe and does not contradict other sources. Appart from the fact that it was taken directly from wookieepedia, the content itself doesn't constitute an in-joke or easter egg. Gry Sarth 15:45, April 6, 2010 (UTC)
- In other words, we could just consider this as an Ester egg, and so it daos not have to be canon. Gulomi Jomesh 07:55, April 6, 2010 (UTC)
- Usually, something that appears in a source is taken at face value; however, it is often difficult to establish the canonical value of certain things, such as out-of-universe references (such as the direct lift of Wookieepedia article text here) and Aurebesh writings (again here). There has been a precedent for inaccurate (such as misspelled names) or obviously joke (1337 speak) information in Aurebesh, even in The Clone Wars series. Remember that in the original Star Wars trilogy, Aurebesh was just nonsensical alien writing. It was not until later that messages or meanings of any kind were encoded in it. Aurebesh was (and still is) the alien writing, but production teams use as they like, whether it be for serious reasons or not. Only devout Star Wars fans know how to decrypt Aurebesh, so for most it remains nonsense, which is why production teams can slip the nonsense stuff in there. The fact that any useful info in Aurebesh occurs at all serves to enrich the universe, but we should really understand that inaccuracies and jokes will get inserted from time to time. Remember that all of Star Wars is fiction, and while we strive to get our details right, we must bear in mind that the are people who produce this stuff, and they will inevitably place gags, homages, nods, and other things into their work, so we mustn't get to caught up on these things when they show up. Therefore, given a well-known precedent in addition to in-universe logical claims, it seems rather clear that we should disregard this readout screen text as canon, although it is definitely worth mentioning in a "Behind the Scenes" note.--R.Werner 17:16, April 5, 2010 (UTC)
- I just don't understand why information that was literally spelled out in the episode can be so easily ignored. This is not guesswork. The footage clearly states that Trench's ship is of the same model as the Sith Dreadnaughts used a thousand years before. Gry Sarth 14:32, April 5, 2010 (UTC)
- I hold that the readout screen is inaccurate and merely filler text that only causes problems when detail-oriented fans such as Wookieepedians attempt to over-analyze. But, for over-analysis's sake, the Separatist dreadnaught is clearly a derivative of the Providence-class model, produced during the Clone Wars; however, to say the Providence-class in turn is based on or inspired by a Sith design nearly a thousand years prior is pure conjecture. This much should be fairly obvious. Why, if anything (direct lifting of text aside), at least it shows the SW:TCW team knows we exist despite causing many of these discussions we've been having lately!--R.Werner 20:03, April 3, 2010 (UTC)
Season 3?
In several Season 3 trailers, you can clearly see a ship that is either a Separatist dreadnaught or a Providence-class carrier/destroyer. However, I can't tell which one it is due to them looking so alike. Is anyone able to tell which ship it is? ClonewarsCIS 00:04, August 23, 2010 (UTC)
Providence-class - second round
I think this is simple the TCW version of Providence-class. The differences are the artistic licence of TCW's graphical design. Just like the TCW version of Phase I armor, every character and every other ship. This way, we could make tons of new articles based on badly drawn comics. Darth Morrt 15:25, September 18, 2010 (UTC)
- No matter how likely it may be the Providence, official and direct confirmation is required to verify such a claim, and so far none has been provided by LucasFilm. CC7567 (talk) 22:12, September 18, 2010 (UTC)