Talk:Eclipse Star Destroyer

Dreadnought?

First: this is not a drednaught, this is a super star destroyer. Twice: it's not used by the Empire, it' used by the Imperial Remnants

1. There is no such thing as a "Super Star Destroyer", that's a colloquial term. It's more accurately a battlecruiser or command ship.
2. Correct, but they call themselves the Empire. I'll see what I can do. --Golbez 01:24, Nov 4, 2004 (UTC)

Agreed on the first point. Best to call it a dreadnought. As for the second point, the Eclipse-class was used only, I think, by the reborn Emperor, and his faction was never associated with the Imperial Remnants, which didn't coalesce until much later under Pellaeon. Mackensen (talk) 02:20, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The Essential Guide to Vehicles and Vessels lists this as an Eclipse-Class Super Star Destroyer. Please submit evidence to refute this or change the designation.--Txredcoat 22:47, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The Essential Guide says a lot of things, like that the Executor was only 9km long or so. It is not canon. --Golbez 00:06, Dec 18, 2004 (UTC)

That might be the case (I did read that when I checked it last night regarding the Executor). However, if we're going on the basis of canon/non-canon, since it was not in a movie, the existence of the vehicle itself comes into question. All I'm asking for is some evidence to support the claim. You show me the evidence, I drop all my arguments. --Txredcoat 15:36, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

It is not canon in re to the movies; it is, however, canon in re to its own comic. The EGVV is not canon in either of these respects. Why insert possibly incorrect information just because you have no other source? --Golbez 20:14, Dec 18, 2004 (UTC)

Can you find a published (non-web) source that says "Star Destroyers are Star Dreadnoughts"? I believe that is what most of the Anti-Dreadnought people want to know. The first time I heard the term Dreadnought with reference to Star Wars was the Katana Fleet. --Txredcoat 19:55, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Same here; I thought dreadnaught was an accepted naval term, but , looking at Dreadnaught, it seems to be simply the largest class of battleship, and not an official term, at least not anymore. I can accept that it's not a dreadnaught; I would still maintain that it's not a destroyer, either. However, I can still accept that, if I can find my copy Dark Empire and see what it's called in there. Do you have one handy? --Golbez 20:11, Dec 23, 2004 (UTC)

The Eclipse should be called a Super Star Destroyer. Even if that isn't technically a class of starship, it's listed in Wikipedia as such, and it's what people commonly call the such ships. Furthermore, the phrase "star dreadnought" is misleading becuase it could be confused with the Katana Dreadnoughts and their ilk. I did a Google search: Star Dreadnought got 246 responses, compared to super star destroyer's 23,100. I've never heard of anybody, ever, refer to a star dreadnought, except on Wikipedia. -01:17, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Then read [1] and up that to two. Chris Saxton is the author of at least one book on Star Wars vehicles, and his research surpasses anything Lucas, WEG or the authors of Dark Empire has performed. Also, since "super star destroyer" is a colloquial term, why would you want to call it that? However, I will agree on one aspect - The article is called an Eclipse Star Destroyer, since that is what it is most well known, so at best, "star dreadnaught" should get second billing. --Golbez 02:35, Dec 19, 2004 (UTC)

Two Articles?

For some reason two arcticles exist referencing the Eclipse and the Eclipse-Class Super Star Destroyer. If this is the case, one needs to be renamed to Eclipse talking about the ship, and another referring to the Eclipse-Class of SSD.--Txredcoat 22:47, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Where's the other article? Link them please. --Golbez 02:40, Dec 19, 2004 (UTC)

Of course, apologies.

• Eclipse-class_Star_Destroyer
• Eclipse_Star_Destroyer

I would say let's clean up the one, since only two existed there's really no need in having a page for the "class" and a page for the "ship". Clutter, IMO. --Txredcoat 05:05, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)