StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Ok, I´m pretty sure there´s a thread out there for this, but I can´t see any, so here goes:

'Imperial' or 'Imperator'

Which is the correct name for the class?

I´m asking because someone said something about the 'canon' name being switched to 'Imperial'. Is this true?

"Imperator"-Class is the correct name.

Tribun wrote:"Imperator"-Class is the correct name.

Thank you. It was getting a bit annoying with almost every other significant class having a name ending with '-or' (except the Victory-class) and not this prominent one.

VT-16 wrote:Ok, I´m pretty sure there´s a thread out there for this, but I can´t see any, so here goes:

'Imperial' or 'Imperator'

Which is the correct name for the class?

I´m asking because someone said something about the 'canon' name being switched to 'Imperial'. Is this true?

The name of the ship has been Imperial Star Destroyer since ESB. Before that they were just Star Destroyers. In pre production they were 10 km behemoths called Imperator. Saxton exclusively uses Imperator, as do many fans that post here. Numerous others including the sw fans that I personally know (and actually care), call the ship Imperial.

If you want what's official then go by what the TM names are: what the toys and models are sold as. In the end, it's your own personal preference, they're only names of fictitious space vessels after all. Call them chess wedges or arrow heads for all anyone cares.

Umm, on this discussion site, we´re asking for clarity on issues pertaining to a fictional universe. Calling them "arrow-heads" doesn´quite cut it, when your trying to keep a serious discussion.

The proper name is Imperial class thanks to TMs directly tied to the movie.

Imperator is a possible subclass within.

Sunstreaker wrote:SNIPPED for complete and utter uselesness

Thanks for providing nothing whatsoever of value.
Th question was obviously what the correct in-universe class name for the ISD is. Out-of-universe info is meaningless, so is 'They've been Imperial Star Destroyers' since ESB' because it's no more a class name than calling the Yamato a 'Japanese Battleship'. Even if Imperial in this case does NOT relate to the political affiliation that does not mean it's a class name: does the term AEGIS cruiser ring a bell?
The point remains that wether or not Imperial ship class names aught to end in '-or' 'Imperial' is hard to rationalize as a ship name, and the first ship of a class is usually what a class is named after.
While I don't buy into the'has to end in -or' naming philosophy, the question remains wether 'Imperial' is the actual class name or merely a colloquial denominator (like the AEGIS cruiser mentioned above, or the British 'Revenge'-class battleships being called 'Royal'-class because two of the ship names started with 'Royal', or R-class because all the names started with that).

VT-16 wrote:Umm, on this discussion site, we´re asking for clarity on issues pertaining to a fictional universe. Calling them "arrow-heads" doesn´quite cut it, when your trying to keep a serious discussion.

for all I care, happy?

"serious discussion" I'm sorry you feel that way.

Batman wrote:

Sunstreaker wrote:SNIPPED for complete and utter uselesness

Snipped for being an ass and not answering the question

Holy blow horn Batman. You talk too much.

"Imperial Star Destroyer" was mentioned word for word in ESB. They are called Imperial Star Destroyers and Star Destroyers in movies and novels as well as the majority of source material, actually all the source material I've read. Out of universe is meaningless huh, well that's where “Imperitor” comes from (as not in the movies, novels, or any in story dialog). Did you want to add anything either way or were you making a useless post as well?

Lets not get into this discussion again, shall we?

There are two thoughts on this.

There is the Imperial-class designation. Not many use it, even though it is technically canonical and not refuted by anything higher. It sounds ridiculous (though not as much as Super-class does), and no real reason to ignore it.

Imperator-class is more common though among our segment of the fans, due to long association and the fact that people like Mike and Curtis use it. It seems to be based on the Mandel blueprints partly (whose status, admittedly, is somewhat questionable for varying reasons - and even if valid they still apply to a vessel far smaller than the mile-long ISD, which makes the classification problematical) but also on the idea that the Imperator was the first mile long ISD of its class (which has basis and gives the argument weight. However, I am not personally familiar with the basis or source from which this is derived from, which is a potential problem.) It should be further noted tht some fans have advanced the notion that there is a distinct naming pattern evolved for Imperial warships (at least KDY ones - Acclamator, Venator, Executor, etc.) that Imperator fits and Imperial does not.

For my own part, I consider Imperial to be the canonical designation simply becauase there is nothign to my knowledge that refutes it, and there has to be better j ustification than personal dislike for certain data. But since Imperator is more commonly used (and less likely to cause someone to yell at you for using an "improper" designation) around here, that works fine.

Could we rationalize the notion that the Kuat builders liked the "Imperator" designation, while the Imperial "name-bureaucrats" wanted "Imperial" to signify the might of the Empire? So the Kuatis just use "Imperator" as a nickname?

Sunstreaker wrote:

Batman wrote:

Sunstreaker wrote:SNIPPED for complete and utter uselesness

Snipped for being an ass and not answering the question

Holy blow horn Batman. You talk too much.
"Imperial Star Destroyer" was mentioned word for word in ESB. They are called Imperial Star Destroyers and Star Destroyers in movies and novels as well as the majority of source material, actually all the source material I've read.

Uh-huh. How does that make it the class name instead of a colloquial designation?

Out of universe is meaningless huh, well that's where “Imperitor” comes from (as not in the movies, novels, or any in story dialog).

I see the term 'Expanded Universe' is a stranger to you.
And it's ImperAtor.

Did you want to add anything either way or were you making a useless post as well?

There's a difference between posting something completely useless and not directly answering the question, genius.
If VT-16 wants to call my post useless, he may feel free to do so, as it does indeed not answer his question.
UNlike you, however, I did not dismiss it as useless or propose answers that aren't, actually, any, but tried to elaborate WHY the naming was an issue (which VT-16 might not have been aware of and YOU certainly weren't.)
Sorry, Connor.

VT-16 wrote:Could we rationalize the notion that the Kuat builders liked the "Imperator" designation, while the Imperial "name-bureaucrats" wanted "Imperial" to signify the might of the Empire? So the Kuatis just use "Imperator" as a nickname?

IMHO, that works with the 'Imperial=Official' stance taken by Aly and Connor (and, indeed, supported by Canon) while explaining the popping up of the 'Imperator' designation.
However, I can understand the people feeling uncomfortable with the 'Imperial' class name (as explained above).

VT-16 wrote:Could we rationalize the notion that the Kuat builders liked the "Imperator" designation, while the Imperial "name-bureaucrats" wanted "Imperial" to signify the might of the Empire? So the Kuatis just use "Imperator" as a nickname?

You might, however that conflicts with the blueprints in having the "Imperator-class" a smaller wedge-shaped vessel (whose armament is distinctly different from both the "official" ISD and the "canon" ISD). You might get around that by suggesting that you can have more than one type of "Imperator-class", but it would be needlessly complicated.

Its not really an issue - noone's going to pick on you much if you use Imperator instead of Imperial, because many people aroudn here already consider it the proper designation. Some might make an issue if you call it Imperial, though.

You might, however that conflicts with the blueprints in having the "Imperator-class" a smaller wedge-shaped vessel (whose armament is distinctly different from both the "official" ISD and the "canon" ISD). You might get around that by suggesting that you can have more than one type of "Imperator-class", but it would be needlessly complicated.

Could always say that the ship as described in the blueprints never went into production. The Empire is bound to have many concepts that never came to be...

Its not really an issue - noone's going to pick on you much if you use Imperator instead of Imperial, because many people aroudn here already consider it the proper designation. Some might make an issue if you call it Imperial, though.

Ok, I´ll keep that in mind. ^_^

I *vastly* prefer Imperator, but Imperial is so canonical it's not funny. So I just say ISD/ISD2 now. Or 'Devastator-type' and 'Avenger-type'.

Sunstreaker wrote:"Imperial Star Destroyer" was mentioned word for word in ESB. They are called Imperial Star Destroyers and Star Destroyers in movies and novels as well as the majority of source material, actually all the source material I've read. Out of universe is meaningless huh, well that's where “Imperitor” comes from (as not in the movies, novels, or any in story dialog). Did you want to add anything either way or were you making a useless post as well?

So, using Batman's example, since the Yamato was a Japanese Battleship, you think that means it's a Japanese-class Battleship?

I think the highest level definition of the class name is the OT ICS. It is Imperial class. But it can, and likely will change as Dr. Saxton makes his way.
There is no class definition in the movies, the scripts or the novelisations. In the scripts, which were also the basis for the novelisations, they were most commonly labelled as Imperial Star Destroyers, however 'Imperial' and 'Rebel' were allways written with an uppercase 'I' and 'R' (the earlier the script, the more common 'IMPERIAL' and 'REBEL' are). For example: 'The nervous Rebel troopers aim ...'

Sunstreaker wrote: "Imperial Star Destroyer" was mentioned word for word in ESB. They are called Imperial Star Destroyers and Star Destroyers in movies and novels as well as the majority of source material, actually all the source material I've read. Out of universe is meaningless huh, well that's where “Imperitor” comes from (as not in the movies, novels, or any in story dialog). Did you want to add anything either way or were you making a useless post as well?

"Imperial" implies ownership. Its like when they talk about a Russian Submarine or a Japanese Aircraft Carrier on TV, they dont mention specific classes or sub-classes. They just refer to the ship by country of origin and type, because that is all the information needed to get the point across. We know there are no Russian-Class Submarines, or Japanese-Class Aircraft Carriers.

Old thread I started on ISD naming that one might find useful.

Frankly, its clear Lucasfilm have Imperial as the ships designation. Its what they chose and what it is. A lot of the more 'techie' and purist Fans like Imperator and I don't mind if they want to use it in fanfiction or whatever, but it IS just a fan name and not relating to the ISD's at all.

Of course on this site you get a LOT of said fans who do dearly belive it should be Imperator, so they use it all the time and in debates like this get rather...upity But 'officaly', Imperial stands regardless.

Unless of course Lucas changes his mind in ROTS and decides 'Palpitine' class is just so much cooler and it should thus be named.....which frankly would not surprise me much.

I don't think Lucas ever named any vessel any 'class' beyond the most rudimentary "Imperial Star Destroyer" or "Republic Star Destroyer"- ROTS won't have any ISDs anyway. "X-Wing class" is in TESB though.

The official designation for ships like the Avenger and Devastator is 'Imperial Star Destroyer', and that's fine.

The official designation of the USS Ronald Reagan is 'Supercarrier'.

Neither makes any inference to the class name. (Imperator or Nimitz class, respectively)

I don't see the problem.

And Imperator will be the canon class name as soon as Dr Saxton gets a chance anyhow.

Darwin wrote:The official designation for ships like the Avenger and Devastator is 'Imperial Star Destroyer', and that's fine.

And Imperator will be the canon class name as soon as Dr Saxton gets a chance anyhow.

Hmm, so the "Imperator" isn´t stated in any official SW-publication? Well, that settles it for now, then. "Imperial" it is.

Heh, I wonder if Saxton will mention "Victory" and "Imperator"-classes in the spot for "Venator"-class destroyer? If he does the ROTS ICS, that is. (Pretty sure that´s a given. )

Darwin wrote:And Imperator will be the canon class name as soon as Dr Saxton gets a chance anyhow.

how do you figure? If the Imperial-class designation is already canon, at best that would mean that the waters are muddied. Its not going to invalidate "Imperial." automatically.

And before you say "Newer sources override older", think just what the implications of that moronic logic means. Somewhere down the line some idiot can overrule anything Curtis wrote simply by virtue of being a more recent source. (And it would also suggest that "Imperator" is overidden by "Imperial" given the fact the "Mandel" blueprints predate WEG materials. As I said, its stupid logic.)

Besides, unless he's absolutely, 100% explicitly specific (as in pointing to a ship that is recognizably an original, mile-long trilogy Star Destroyer from the Empire era) in applying the 'Imperator" class designation, it will be open to nitpicking and interpretation. People have tried that with the "revisions' in the OT ITW book (the Executor's size, ,Endor's fate, etc.) and that only occured because of some of the ambiguity present in the sources.