Talk: Super Star Destroyer (Byss)

This is the talk page for the article "Super Star Destroyer (Byss)." 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.

Armaments?

Where did these Armaments come from are they canon? -- Awar 04:29, 29 March 2007 (UTC).

• They're fanon. -- I need a name (Complain here) 09:35, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

KDY?

• Is there actually a source for this being a KDY design? I know that most of the dagger-shaped ships are usually considered to be KDY or Rothana designs, but this one looks a lot less angular than most, which might indicate that this is one of the big battleships mentioned as being built by some of the other big shipbuilders. Doluk 19:35, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
  • No evidence this is KDY. Could as well be another company's design sharing vague similarities. Removing it. —Silly Dan _(talk) 19:11, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
  • The bridge tower module is similar to KDY design, but I guess it could be used for another company or companies. VT-16 19:24, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Designation

Equally, what basis do we have for calling this ship a "Super Star Destroyer", or assuming it's a front-line warship? And is that scaling based on the SD-like ship it's in company with, or on its own possible bridge tower? See also my comments here --McEwok 18:57, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

• The title is conjectural -- hunchbacked SSD is as good a guess as any. I assume the scaling is based on both tower and companion vessel, and the "front-line warship" designation is based on being a vaguely ISD/SSD-like design. —Silly Dan _(talk) 19:11, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Since the command tower of even the largest SSD was only 285 meters across, and we already have one SSD class with a command tower proportionally large relative to the rest of the ship, a vessel this size is within that size bracket. Though I'd be happy to rename it a Star Cruiser or a Star Battlecruiser instead. VT-16 19:49, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
    • "Super Star Destroyer" is best for now, since that term includes Star Cruisers, Star Battlecruisers, and Star Dreadnoughts. —Grand Admiral J. Nebulax ^{(Imperial Holovision)} 23:22, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Infobox conflict

Since the Kuat Capital Ships infobox designates it as a Star Cruiser, perhaps the main infobox likewise should? Also, and this is pure speculation and wishful thinking on my part, perhaps it could be the same class as Gauntlet Star Cruiser?Gorthuar 21:41, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

• 1) I don't understand what you mean. Could you explain, please? I see what you mean. The table at the bottom isn't calling it a Star Cruiser, but simply a cruiser. 2) No, it's definitely a separate type of Star Destroyer. —Grand Admiral J. Nebulax ^{(Imperial Holovision)} 00:09, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Right, I don't know how I managed to get the "star" prefix there. Call me talented. Also, I finally noticed that the Kuat Capital Ships infobox divides the ships by role, not by class, so consider my original idea irrelevant. Now I'm thinking that we should add "Role: Cruiser" to the main infobox. Too bad about my second idea, but, oh well, one can't have everything. Gorthuar 01:15, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Well, it's hard to say. We don't know much about this Star Destroyer class, so adding a role might not be a good idea as of now. —Grand Admiral J. Nebulax ^{(Imperial Holovision)} 13:56, 29 June 2007 (UTC)