Talk:Star Destroyer

GA Review

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

I'm actually quite surprised that such a decent article was written on this kind of a topic. I do have some concerns, however, before I can pass this as a Good Article:

1. The lead must conform to WP:LEAD. Specifically, it must summarize all the major points/headings made the in the body of the article. As it stands, the lead is far too general and short for it to meet this criteria.
2. The caption for Eclipse.gif needs more context to explain the picture. From what movie/game/book was it taken from, for example? Just something to better contextualize the image.
3. All one-two sentence paragraphs must either be expanded or merged with surrounding paragraphs, as they cannot stand alone.
4. "Ironically, these former symbols of Imperial terror helped liberate the galaxy from the Empire's tyrannical grasp. Although the New Republic eventually upgrades its starfleet with newer ship types, the Imperial-class Star Destroyer remains in service well into the New Jedi Order era and fights during the Yuuzhan Vong war." (Depiction under ImperialcClass) Aside from requiring a citation, the first sentence does not sound very neutral or encyclopedic.
5. The third paragraph of "Depiction" under "Star Dreadnoughts" I believe requires more citations, as it seems that the citation at the end of the paragraph only covers the information from the Darksaber novel (although since I don't have the book, I may be wrong, so please let me know)
6. "Designed by Rendili StarDrive in the Star Wars universe, the Victory-class is 900 meters long and features fewer weapons and cargo than an Imperial Star Destroyer." (Other types) requires a citation. Same with "Star Destroyers used by the New Republic include the Republic-, Nebula-, and Defender-classes; Star Wars fiction describes these variations are part of the New Republic's New Class program." and "The Legacy comics introduce the Pellaeon-class Star Destroyers, named after Gilad Pellaeon." in the same section.
7. Reference #21 is not a reliable source for the material that it cites.

I will put the article on hold for a period of up to seven days, after which it may be failed without further notice. Cheers, CP 04:39, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I'll work on some of these suggestions. However, the paragraph about the Lusankya and other SSDs -- the result of merges from other articles -- I agree are uncited and not likely to be substantiated within seven days. Thanks, though, for the pointers for the rest of the article. --EEMIV (talk) 04:44, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, not enough has been addressed to merit Good Article status at the end of the hold, therefore I am failing the article at this time. If you feel that this review is in error, you may take it to good article reassessment. Thank you for your work thus far. Cheers, CP 06:04, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Super Star Destroyer VS Star Dreadnought

This maybe something I've just missed out on, but what is with this "Star Dreadnought" class? I've always heard the Executor refered to as a Super Star Destroyer. Assuming Wizards of the Coast thing is legit, shouldn't it still be refered that way, with the the Star Dreadnought bit simply mentioned in the article? Not looking to get on anyones case here, just looking for oppinions. --The Matrix Prime (talk) 01:45, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

The multiple reliable sources cited by the article substantiate the claim that "star dreadnought" is the correct label. --EEMIV (talk) 01:54, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

• Oh I don't doubt that, it just seems to me that this presents a conundrum. If the Super Star Destroyer is NOT in fact a Star Destroyer, then obliviously it would seem that it does not belong on the Star Destroyer page any more than a TIE Fighter would. If it IS, then calling it a Star Dreadnought seems contradictory. I don't see a problem listing both names, it’s just it's title of part of the article doesn't fit the rest of the page. Maybe something like "Dreadnought Class Star Destroyer" would work better, but I guess it's not called that. The issue isn't really is it reliable sources, its is it a Star Destroyer (and should be referred mainly as that) or isn't another kind of vessel (similar but different) and does not belong on the page. That's what I'm asking about really. Sorry if I wasn't more clear. --The Matrix Prime (talk) 04:01, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

• It's here in part because, despite what the sources say, "Super Star Destroyer" is the more likely search term, and the article addresses the name discrepancy. Additionally, much of the merchandising using the "Super Star Destroyer" label. Probably Star Dreadnought lacks sufficient material as a stand-alone article. I'd be amenable to name change -- Imperial starships or somesuch -- if the discrepancy is stuck in your craw. --EEMIV (talk) 18:59, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

• Or the Star Dreadnought could simply be moved to an article like List of Star Wars spacecraft with a short redirect listed here for those who look under "Super Star Destroyer". However I feel compelled to point at the real-life version of this: military tanks. Quote: "In an effort to keep secret the real purpose of the early models when they were being shipped to France, the English labeled them tanks—for use as water tanks by Russia. Thus originated the name of tank for the new weapon." :End Quote. Even though they were to be "land ships" Wikipedia lists their article under "Tank" - this seems to me to be the same situation with the Super Star Destroyers. Like I said, I see no problem with the article mentioning they were to be called Star Dreadnoughts, it just seems the cover name caught on more, just like the tank, and so that's how the article should refer to it in the majority of it. What do you think?--The Matrix Prime (talk) 02:18, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

• I think it's fine how it is. If you disagree, feel free to ask for input from WP:RFC --EEMIV (talk) 02:41, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

• I would think that keeping the articles combined is fine... But realistically I have never heard of them being called Dreadnoughts. I have only ever heard them called Super Star Destroyers in the films and games. I checked Starwars.com's database, they only mention Super Star Destroyer, no other descriptions are given. http://starwars.com/databank/starship/superstardestroyer/index.html. Lordmichael21 (talk) 17:45, 4 November 2008 (UTC)Michael

• Sigh, this is something that comes up every so often. Star Dreadnought is not the "correct" term any more than Super Star Destroyer is. The vessel is a fictional object and therefore only exists as defined in the fictional works in which it appears. For most of the Star Wars canon in the 1980s, 1990s, and early 2000s, it was called a Super Star Destroyer, including in the movies themselves ("concentrate all fire on that super star destroyer"). Later authors decided to rename it as a Star Dreadnought. Both naming conventions are correct in the sense that they appear in reliable sources, but as pointed out above, Super Star Destroyer is the far more common term amongst those not slavishly devoted to every last detail of Star Wars canon. The only way to list it therefore, is under the more common Super Star Destroyer term with an explanation on how a different term is used in some of the more recent media. Unfortunately, since this is a relatively obscure subject, it is in large part the more slavish devotees that hang around here, so any attempt to go with that method would only end in edit warring. This is why EEMIV, one of the most sensible editors of Star Wars pages on wikipedia, has enacted the current compromise where the Star Dreadnought name is used but we still keep the information on the Star Destroyer page. I think it is best to keep it that way. Indrian (talk) 06:46, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks for the support, Indrian. Lordmichael, please look more thoroughly at the link you provided (and cited in the article). Both the Expanded Universe and the (more significant) Behind the Scenes sections refer to the "Star Dreadnought". Most compelling to me is this line (keep in mind, published by franchise-holder Lucasfilm): "Though the name "Super Star Destroyer" is spoken in the films, it is now revealed that the correct nomenclature to describe the ship type is 'Star Dreadnought'" --EEMIV (talk) 13:30, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

• I didn't even go that far down on the starwars site. Clearly, I should have. If we were to keep dreadnaught naming, I would like to see a little more mentioned about the name change. I was just a little suprised... the last time I had looked up the article (probably over a year ago) it was its own separate article, and I understand the merger. But the name, that was the first that I had heard about that. But thanks for the responses to my comment!Lordmichael21 (talk) 14:41, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Star Dreadnought is a bullshit term conjured up by some hack who think he knows something about a FICTIONAL starship. The same dildo tries to compare fantasy with reality. People who are fans of his constantly come on here and fuck with the article like they own it when darth vader at the behest of lucas himself clearly called the executor a star destroyer in the movie. Apparently lucas' word isn't good enough for these dipshits, he put darth vader's star destroyer comment scene into empire strikes back special edition. (SnakeEyesNinja (talk) 06:44, 7 December 2008 (UTC))

• Yeah, that is exactly how the term first originated, but unfortunately that same person later contributed to some official Star Wars reference books so we are stuck with it now. Therefore, it has to be mentioned here in some form. Indrian (talk) 07:40, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Or someone realised that calling everything from common pirate-hunters to huge battleships a "destroyer" was a bad idea. In any event, the term "Star Dreadnaught" is the officially used term for ships of the Executor-class. Deal with it. Captain Seafort (talk) 15:41, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Hey, I just think it is odd for a random person to change a term established in canon for twenty years because he believes spaceships in a fictional universe should conform to the naming conventions of surface ships in the real world. As a practical matter, I do not care one whit what anything in a fictional universe is called at all. Unfortunately though, everything on wikipedia can only have one article title, so this kind of silliness has to be discussed even though its all just fanboy arguments over terminology. Indrian (talk) 17:04, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

The bloke responsible's a PhD - hardly a "random person", and modern surface ship conventions are as good a model as any. If the next novel introduced an even bigger ship, what would it have been called under the old system, a "super-duper-star destroyer"? ;)Captain Seafort (talk) 19:30, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, they could have called it a Star Dreadnaught if someone had not stolen the term prematurely. =P Indrian (talk) 19:38, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

And now they can call it a super dreadnaught, without getting into rediculous superlatives. Captain Seafort (talk) 20:57, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Until the one they introduce after that one, which will have to be a super duper star dreadnaught. Indrian (talk) 22:04, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

There are multiple classes within the Star Dreadnought generalization; of the Super star destroyers, i.e. larger than star destroyers, there were three groupings, Star Cruiser (not to be confused with the Mon Cal type), Star Battle Cruiser, and Star Dreadnought. There are further classes within these, the most notable being the Executor, Sovereign, and Eclipse-class of the Star Dreadnought series. If the info bar on the side is to include information on the star dreadnoughts, it should also contain info on all types of star dreadnoughts, not just the Executor. --Radstrike (talk) 20:38, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

The other types of vessels are covered, oddly enough, in the Other types section. --EEMIV (talk) 21:43, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Oddly enough, no they are not covered in the Other Types section. I recommend that you read that over again. The Star Dreadnought section is where these ships belong, and thus that is where you have them. They are mentioned at the bottom of the Depiction section; I quote: "The Eclipse II serves as Palpatine's flagship until it is destroyed in Empire's End. A scaled-down version of the Eclipse, the Sovereign-class, is featured in Expanded Universe material from the same time period." These are not "Other Types" of Star Destroyers, they are types of Star Dreadnought, and should be mentioned as such. There is not only one class of ship in the star dreadnought classification and you know this; you've mentioned it in this very thread here.--Radstrike (talk) 00:03, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Oh, yeah. Okie doke. Well, whatever. Adding the other two entries to an infobox that has other in-universe details to a specific class -- to say nothing other than the one pictures -- is silly. So, regardless, please stop adding the Sovereign and Eclipse to the infobox. I'll take a whack at the prose to make sure it's clear there are "varieties" of star dreadn. --EEMIV (talk) 01:16, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Can't we just use what they say in the movies? Oh wait that's not canon. Valcumine (talk) 19:10, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

We're going with the cited source. The Lucasfilm folks have even recognized the discrepancy and through licensed material addressed it. Really, it's time for folks to get over this. --EEMIV (talk) 19:30, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

The Empire strikes back clearly states that a Fleet of Star Destroyers are heading for the ninth planet in the hoth system at no time is the term star dreadnaught used in the films. many casual fans that have not viewed oibscure licenced non mainstream material. for many people starwars are just the films and do not acsept the cannon of outsourced licenced material that deviate from the orginal medium. this is for example this can relate to Bull Alien been a cannon of the Aliens franchise because a toy of the creature was created. the vast majority of fans know the term super star destroyer and not star deadnaught thus that is was the article should be called and refered to.--81.102.218.112 (talk) 20:16, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Please see the entirety of the above, and stop making a change against consensus. --EEMIV (talk) 20:22, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

actually i was only changing a subsection of the article to make the article in line with wikipedia common nameing policy i was not editing disruptively wikipedia nameing policy Common_names states "Articles are normally titled using the name which is most commonly used to refer to the subject of the article in English-language reliable sources. This includes usage in the sources used as references for the article." as more people are liklely to have seen the original star wars films or seen the pre licenced material Retcon then the post liscenced material retcon. then the term super star destroyer as used in the relible original source of the return of the jedi would be in this context the correct name for the subsection of the article so please stop reverting the article.--81.102.218.112 (talk) 20:43, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

The section refers to article names. The SSD term redirects to the relevant section; it's a moot point. --EEMIV (talk) 20:50, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

...

I'm having trouble finding the sources that indicate that the "proper" name is Star Dreadnought. They've been SSDs as long as I've been aware of them, so this is new to me. Powers ^T 19:30, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

The Wizards ref, which I see now is dead, was the most recent assertion from a licensed source that the EU was moving toward the "dreadnaught" term. A sidebar on pg. 97 of WotC's Starships of the Galaxy RPG book says the term "Star Dreadnaught" is the proper label for the Executor and larger ships (saying that the term "Star Destroyer" refers specifically to the Imperial class, but also "star destroyer" is catch-all generic term for all those triangle-looking ships, including the Executor and its kin). On 136, it essentially boils down to the terms being used interchangeably (although the wording is a little oddball, I think it actually says Super Star Destroyers are a subset of star dreadnaughts, kind of like squares are subsets of rectangles).

Anyhow, so, looking at this more recent source than the Wizards web site, maybe SSD makes more sense. If someone wants to change it and leave a reminder on my talk page to go back and add cites, I can. Not feeling like it right this moment, though. --EEMIV (talk) 20:58, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Why not insert the Vengeance as one of the SSD?

Someone with better english skills could add the famous Vengeance SSD, which is the capital ship of the Imperial Taskforce in X-wing vs Tie Fighter: Balance of Power computer game. It was, after all, the capital ship of the fleet which accounted the famed Avenger Squad.-PHWeberbauer —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.66.190.199 (talk) 00:29, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Venator-class Star Destroyer

Info about the Venator-class Star Destroyer from 'revenge of the sith' and the clone wars should be added to this as it isnt part of the EU like alot of types and it plays an important role in the rise of the galatic empire and there change of distroyer. 84.64.14.35 (talk) 10:05, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

The Venator class is mentioned in the "Other types" section. --EEMIV (talk) 12:47, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Appearances

Don't they appear at the end of Episode II? Strange that ep3 is mentioned, but not ep2. 81.182.236.48 (talk) 21:15, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

There are no SDs in AotC - those are Acclamator-class assault ships, which have a similar design. Captain Seafort (talk) 18:28, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Star_Destroyer#Other_types - second paragraph. --EEMIV (talk) 21:28, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Building look-alike

I dont know if its worth mentioning, but in my hometown (Aarhus, Denmark) our theatre looks pretty much like a Star Destroyer frome above, take a look http://maps.google.dk/?ie=UTF8&ll=56.155806,10.21095&spn=0.001141,0.002044&t=h&z=19 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.3.141.121 (talk) 07:23, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

• Probably a coincidence, but I think it's pretty cool Maelstromlusby (talk) 05:08, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Needs in-universe cleanup

I was cleaning up a few facts on the original Star Wars name for these ships (Imperial cruisers) and noticed this article is way to WP:INUNIVERSE. "Imperial class" who came up with that term? "Kuat Drive Yards" where did that piece of fiction first show up? For that mater the "Depiction" sections are very short on what fictional work each fiction claim/description comes from. Those sections need to be written from outside the universe. 70.211.109.194 (talk) 06:40, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Very very in-universe

Nearly 12 years after the above comment. I came to this article expecting to read more on the creative development, model-making, special photographic effects, etc, as well as information about how the original movie Star Destroyers informed designs for subsequent movies; and that information to be in a real-world sequence, not an in-universe timeline. Let me tell you something: No Star Destroyer was built at "Kuat Drive Yards", they were built in California. Darcyj (talk) 06:46, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

"Corellian Ships"

In Episode IV, 46 minutes 20 seconds, Han Solo refers to outrunning "Imperial Starships" that he calls "Corellian Ships;" my impression is that he is referring to Star Destroyers. Does anyone agree, and if so maybe it should be added as an alternate name? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.207.112.130 (talk) 03:48, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Han is a Corellian, so (in-universe) it might be a chauvinistic comment by him, the way Chekhov in Star Trek claims everything as a Russian accomplishment. In the real world, it is probably a left-over from earlier drafts (much like the famous hidden fortress comment). 2A01:CB0C:CD:D800:E1A6:5844:FF62:19AA (talk) 09:49, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Removal of SSD

User:EEMIV, you reverted a change needed to this article to allow it to be disambiguated from SSD (disambiguation). If you or the other editors are convinced that SSD is not a legitimate acronym for Super Star Destroyer, I have no problem. If someone disagrees with you, they are welcome to add this back in and also add the following back to the SSD DAB page.

* [[Super Star Destroyer]], a massive capital ship in the fictional Star Wars universe

Happy editing. § Music Sorter § (talk) 05:49, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

FYI

For those mindful of this and related articles, FYI: [1] and User_talk:Akshay_b_patil#Eclipse. This editor appears interested in the subject but might need some support for appropriate contributions. --EEMIV (talk) 15:10, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Eclipse class dreadnought

Added Eclipse class dreadnought as my article on Eclipse class dreadnought was rejected by administration.Akshay b patil (talk) 16:00, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Number of TIE fighters in picture

The current caption of this image is as follows:

Two Imperial Star Destroyers and a pair of TIE fighters pursue the Millennium Falcon

There are at least five TIE fighters chasing the Millennium Falcon in that image.

What do we think about changing "... a pair of..." to "several"? KConWiki (talk) 04:20, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Not having heard anything to the contrary, I am going to edit that caption. KConWiki (talk) 02:30, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Victory-class image

Not sure if anybody knows, but the image presented for the Victory class is a fan made image, it comes from a fan made game mod for the game X-wing alliance. So it does not represent what it officially looks like. There are probably plenty of official, high quality images of a Victory class lying around on the internet (the star wars wiki has some) that should be used instead. 91.179.151.28 (talk) 13:52, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Okay, it's been a week and since nobody objected, I'm going to remove it. 91.177.121.63 (talk) 18:26, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

~Decadely eviceration

Having previously decimated this article in summer 2007, chopping it down from ~39K, I figured worthwhile to swing at it again. I'm not quite done with edits and tweaks, but am going to remove the in-use template in invitation of further revision or feedback. The previous article structure was still tilted too far in-universe and I think this is an improvement. The article needs a bit of anchoring in terms of the ship's import, and divorcing its own notability from the iconic opening scene. Speaking of: some image support of those two opening cuts (or even an animation of NFCC-able of the tiny ship zipping by and the masssssive pursuing agent) would be handy, methinks). --EEMIV (talk) 19:53, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Star Destroyer. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081205002010/http://www.starwars.com/databank/starship/republicattackcruiser/index.html to http://www.starwars.com/databank/starship/republicattackcruiser/index.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080303143619/http://cargobay.starwars.com/webapps/cargobay/item-detail/9121 to http://cargobay.starwars.com/webapps/cargobay/item-detail/9121

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:51, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Infobox

The infobox is a bess. It looks like it's trying to be exhaustive, but that's nigh impossible given the variety of Star Destroyers. Really, most of the fields could read "Various." I'm going to take a swing at weeding it down to something digestable and usable. --EEMIV (talk) 22:37, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

A proposal

Hello, I'm Aledownload, one of the major contributors to this page, and I wanted to propose one thing: if we could write a section modeled after List of Star Trek Starfleet starships with the names (for example "Executor"), classes ("Executor"), models ("Star Dreadnought/Super Star Destroyer"), continuites ("Both canon and Legends" for the Executor) of every Destroyer mentioned. If someone would like to support this idea, please make me kmow.

--Aledownload (talk) 15:22, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Fellow major contributor here, and alas also at the list of Star Trek ships (at least many years ago). I wholeheartedly oppose this idea. The Star Trek list is crufty and trivial; an External link to e.g. Wookieepedia's category for Star Destroyers or List of... article would be more appropriate. --EEMIV (talk) 02:11, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Star Wars Celebration Orlando Star Destroyer.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 09:07, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Imperial I is white?

I'm pretty sure both Imperial I and II are all painted whitish grey. Imperial I doesn't seem white most of the time, still grey (even though lighting can make it look so). Cheers Loqiical (talk) 00:34, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Studio models are generally darker, bluer and grimier than the audience experiences them. And, yes, this is down to studio lighting as you say. In-universe the craft have a certain livery, for sure, but in the real-world we have (a) props that have a certain colour, and (b) the impression the fictional craft made on the audience. Both, or neither, are valid answers to the question what the colour "is". 2A01:CB0C:CD:D800:E1A6:5844:FF62:19AA (talk) 09:55, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Chris Foss controversy

The wedge design was copied from a book cover by Chris Foss - should this be added? 2A01:CB0C:CD:D800:E1A6:5844:FF62:19AA (talk) 09:46, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

There doesn't seem to be any real consensus that this really was the case. Also, whilst sharing a basic wedgie shape, there isn't that much similarity between the two designs. There is some discussion that Foss thought about it, but all sources that mention it are carefully worded to avoid any outright accusation. Chaheel Riens (talk) 10:10, 18 January 2022 (UTC)