Talk:Super Star Destroyer

message: How can it say "rv blanking"? There was no blanking that I see.. how odd. --Golbez 20:10, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Blanking?

message: The term "Star Dreadnought" dates to a source published in 2004; the colliquial "Super Star Destroyer" term is deprecated.
:Please link to your source--65.40.98.168 22:07, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Phongn 

message: Can someone please link me to something that says that Star-Dreadnought has been estabilished as Canon? I've never seen it referred to as such. Accordingly, all refrences should, IMO, be removed. Seeing as how I'd like to discuss this, I have not changed the entry. 
However, it is my opinion that these should be referred to as Executor-Class Star Destroyers rather than "Super" Star Destroyers. The Executor was the lead ship (although a strong argument could be made that these are in fact Lusankya-Class Star Destroyers. 
All in all, some interesting topics for friendly debate IMO.-Txredcoat 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
The Star Dreadnought crap was created by Curtis Saxton, he's actually pissed off alot of people with his constant stepping on official star wars information.  This guy seems to think he can change anything Star Wars at his leisure.  It's been Established on film three times that it is indeed a Star Destroyer. (DarthJames 21:47, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Star Dreadnought 

message: The Star Wars website lists the Executor as a Super Star Destroyer HERE.  It is referred to as Super Star Destroyer in the films.  That should settle the matter, I think.  Debate about the "correct" naval term is irrelevant because we are not talking about an Earth navy.  Further, the number of different writers contributing to the series, with different understandings of naval standards, make any such comparison next to impossible.  I think, in the Star Wars navy, "Star Destroyer" is its own classification, much like "Frigate" is in an Earth Navy.  A Star Destroyer is not a Cruiser (though it may resemble one), it is a Star Destroyer.  That said, perhaps a section on the terminology and length controversy is warranted?  Demosthenes X 23:08, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Super Star Destroyer

message: The same question I asked back in January: if we're set on Super Star Destroyer, why the Executor article still defines it as a Star Dreadnaught? --Dmitry 21:26, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Executor

message: As Star Destroyer was getting entirely too large, I have split the Super Star Destroyer section (which was 1/3rd of the main article) back into its own article. I realize that this currently duplicates the section at Star Destroyer, however I will shortly be making a major revision to that article (see the draft at User:BinaryTed/Super Star Destroyer).  --BinaryTed 18:13, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Returned from a redirect

message: Just curious, but how was the 2.2km length of the Allegiance originally calculated, and by who? If it was based on scaling it by comparing it to the length of the Eclipse, was the 16 or 17.5 km length?  User 81.129.147.143
Seeing as no-one else has answered, I'll give it a shot. I believe the 2.2km length was postulated by Dr Curtis Saxton via comparison to either the Eclipse or an Imperial class Star Destroyer escorting it. However, I'm not sure whether the 16km or 1.5 km figure was for the length of the Eclipse. Hope that helps. SMegatron 20:18, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Allegiance Length 

message: How big is Eclipse, assuming that it should be far bigger than the Executor, which is itself 19km? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.180.61.189 (talk) 09:54, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The Eclipse is 16 km long, although it masses more than an Executor-class ship since the hull is much deeper.  MartinMcCann 15:16, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sources I've seen cite the Eclipse as 17, 500 meters and the Eclipse II at 16 000 meters.  Do you have a source citing them both as 16 000?  Demosthenes X 00:44, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Eclipse math!