Talk:Imperial Navy

Changes to the "Education" section

I took a bit more out of the ISB and split the enlisted and officer training into two paragraphs. However, I do not have the other source (Cracken's Rebel Operatives) and thus do not have any data on the "Imperial Naval College" or the "Officer's School". Would Sparqman show up and explain a bit more about what was said on these subjects so a better data-fusion could be achieved, please do so. - Kazuaki Shimazaki 10:23, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

• The Imperial Naval College is mostly an aside mention as a sister school to the Imperial Academy as a secondary post-graduate school for work in naval combat and ship/fleet command. The Officer's School is actually from Planets of the Galaxy, a 1992 WEG book (should add to sources), and is a similar aside described as a school focused on preparing officer candidates. Kazuaki Shimazaki, you might be interested in applying your work to the Star Wars Wiki, where most of the Star Wars contributors from Wikipedia are migrating. --SparqMan 05:34, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

Link

I created a new link which I intend to use as a list of Imperial Navy personnel. I know it may not be complete, since we don't know everyone's name, but I did find some pages on Google that give names to some of the extras. I'm going to get it started and try to respond to this soon.- B-101 18:54, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Organization

I know that there isn't a lot of consistent information available on the topic, but I think it would be useful to have some information on how the Navy was organized, the unit levels (sector groups, fleets, battlegroups, etc.). I wrote this, but realized that I didn't have the time at the moment to finish the section: "Based on several Expanded Universe sources, it appears that the Imperial Navy used two methods of force deployment: sector and local defense, and roving patrols. It can also be assumed that a large segment of the Imperial Navy was devoted to defending and squelching rebellion in The Core" --SparqMan 06:51, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Prefix

I am removing "The ship prefix in the Imperial Navy is HIMS, His Imperial Majesty's Ship" from the article. I cannot find any canon or EU references to this prefix. The Imperial Navy generally used registry numbers, battle titles and ship names, but no prefix. Can anyone produce a source to support this claim? --SparqMan 20:43, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Umm....

If there is a real navy called the Imperial Navy, and a fictitious one, should the main article really be about the fictitious one? john k 07:20, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

If the fictional navy is more often referenced, then it can have priority. Most people would be looking for "Imperial German Navy" or "Imperial Japanese Navy" anyway. Then there is the fictional Star Wars Imperial Navy, that has no alternate designation. Of course it gets priority. Kazuaki Shimazaki 09:02, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)

This is ridiculous. This article ought to be at Imperial Navy (Star Wars), obviously. john k 03:30, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

I tend to agree with you, at least in principle. When I first found this page I thought exactly the same thing. But who should get to be the Imperial Navy? There have been a few. At least if the main position is taken up by a fictional one, it avoids the nationalistic debates that will run rampant if a real-life navy is given the spot. I also agree with Kazuaki Shimazaki (above) in that the fictional Imperial Navy is the one most people are looking for when they find this; most times, if you are looking for the Japanese Navy, you'll search for the Japanese Navy. If we change the title of this page, it would probably either become a redirect to the Star Wars page or a disambiguation page (and a mostly pointless disambiguation page at that, since most people will go straight from there to the Star Wars page anyway). Kafziel 04:31, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Imperial Navy should, I think, be a disambiguation page. And I don't think it would be a pointless one. Pointing to the German and Japanese navies, which are both certainly called the Imperial Navy, would be fully sensible, and there is no especial reason to think that this is any less common than people looking for Star Wars. A glance at the google results for "Imperial Navy", when one excludes wikipedia, shows that the first result is about the Japanese Navy, and that, among the first 10 hits, 4 are on the Japanese Navy, 2 on the German, 1 on a GURPS Imperial navy, and only three on the Star Wars Imperial Navy. The second page also shows several hits on the German and Japanese navies. There is no particular reason to think someone looking for the Japanese or German imperial navies is any less likely to look at the Imperial Navy page than Star Wars people. john k 20:55, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Additional point. Google for "Imperial Navy" + "Star Wars" gives about 28,000 hits. "Imperial Navy" + Japan gives 57,000, and "Imperial Navy" + Germany gives 46,000. I'd add that it seems really amateurish and fannish to have the main article about Star Wars. john k 20:59, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, I assure you, you won't get any argument from me if you want to change the location of the article. As I said, I agree that it seems odd titled as it is. I think the biggest opposition you'll find will argue that the pages you want to include on the redirect are already included at the top of this article. There's certainly a lot of precedent for doing that. But I've only been participating in this article for a few days, so don't take my word for it. Anyone else have an opinion on this? Kafziel 21:13, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm all for turning it into a disambiguation page. Besides, it's not as though the Star Wars articles link to the right places anyway. Mackensen (talk) 21:23, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Here is a quick disambig page in my user space, if anyone wants to copy it and change this article. I'm finishing up "work" for the day and I don't have time to do it myself. User:Kafziel/Imperial Navy Kafziel 21:29, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Never mind. I just did it. Let's see who freaks. Anybody want to design a bot to fix all the internal links from the zillions of Star Wars articles that are now linked to a disambiguation page?Kafziel 21:33, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I just went through and fixed all of the links in all of the related articles to avoid the disambiguation page. So this change shouldn't bother anyone. Dear god - I never realized there were so many friggin Star Wars articles on here. - an exhausted Kafziel 22:51, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Wow Kafziel, good work. Thanks for doing it. john k 23:01, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

I've gone and done the move properly, so that the edit history stays with the article. Mackensen (talk) 01:12, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Starfleet?

Why does the first sentence say that the Imperial Navy is "more properly" the Imperial Starfleet? When did they call it that? If it's more proper to call it the Imperial Starfleet, why doesn't the title of this article reflect that, and just have "Imperial Navy" redirect to that? Don't get me wrong, I don't think we should do that; I think the "starfleet" bit should be removed from that first sentence and leave the starfleet stuff to the trekkies. But one or the other should be done, that's for sure. Anyone else? Kafziel 16:04, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, it's been a few days and nobody has voiced an opinion either way, so I'm going to take it out. If someone has a canonical reference to the Imperial Navy as "Starfleet", please let me know and, of course, feel free to put it back in. Kafziel 03:18, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Investigating further, this seems to be one of those things the EU is inconsistent on- Imperial Starfleet is more formal, but does not seem to be more correct than Imperial Navy; I'm borrowing from Wookiepedia's articl here. --maru (talk) Contribs 05:06, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

The opening crawl of The Empire Strikes Back refers to it as the Imperial Starfleet, in the deleted scene from A New Hope Luke says that he'll never be recruited into the "Imperial Starfleet", in A New Hope Motti says to Tagge that the Alliance is "dangerous to your Starfleet, Commander, not to this battle station!". Is that canonical enough? --SparqMan 08:55, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. I still don't think starfleet is "more proper", though. Especially since a fleet is just a part of the whole Navy (for example, the US Navy itself has five fleets, and each sector group in Star Wars contains several fleets). I will put the "starfleet" reference back, but without the "more properly". Sound reasonable? Kafziel 14:08, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Go for it. Some EU sources have made it seem as thought the Starfleet includes the auxiliary, marine, starfighter, and support elements, while the Navy is just the starships themselves. Also, while our navies generally use the term "fleet" to describe a subunit of a navy, using the term "starfleet" to describe all of the warships under the unified Imperial command structure is not inaccurate. --SparqMan 03:41, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Location

Should this article really be at this location? Given that actual navies in the real world have been known as the "Imperial Navy," it seems completely bizarre to have the main article about a fictional space fleet which isn't even a navy. john k 03:27, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

[Just to note my stupidity here, I completely forgot that I had already said the exact same thing about six months ago above, and then not bothered to come back and look for replies. As such, this message is superfluous. john k 20:57, 4 January 2006 (UTC)]