Talk:A/SF-01 B-wing starfighter/Legends

Page History

 * 16:15, Mar 8, 2005 24.99.179.102
 * 18:12, Feb 19, 2005 Riffsyphon1024 (link to Slayn & Korpil)
 * 07:14, Jan 29, 2005 Sam Hocevar m (spelling)
 * 02:59, Jan 5, 2005 Sietse Snel m (sp.)
 * 13:16, Dec 30, 2004 Meelar (wiki)
 * 13:15, Dec 30, 2004 208.47.211.5 (S-foils in picture are NOT in attack position)
 * 13:16, Dec 25, 2004 Sam Hocevar m (spelling)
 * 13:16, Dec 22, 2004 139.76.128.71 (typo correction)
 * 10:17, Dec 19, 2004 Shadowtrooper (pic added)
 * 06:05, Nov 22, 2004 209.247.222.92
 * 17:21, Nov 14, 2004 64.231.170.73
 * 10:02, Aug 30, 2004 ContiE m (typo)
 * 08:12, Jul 3, 2004 Jrquinlisk
 * 08:11, Jul 3, 2004 Jrquinlisk m
 * 14:40, Jun 10, 2004 Oberiko
 * 13:13, Jun 2, 2004 Phongn m
 * 13:13, Jun 2, 2004 Phongn m (Reorganization.)
 * 17:12, Mar 8, 2004 65.77.72.7
 * 13:22, Nov 22, 2003 66.44.109.158
 * 18:42, Feb 21, 2003 Kchishol1970
 * 08:56, Sep 4, 2002 Brion VIBBER m (link starfighter)
 * 15:59, Apr 28, 2002 Maveric149 m (from / page)

Armament
Either back up your claims about this ships weapons, or stop posting them. JimRaynor55 22:42, 14 Jan 2006 (UTC)
 * Its an assault fighter, not a superiority fighter. An all-energy weapon version would render it useless. I'd like to see what source claims there is such a thing, so I can slap the author silly. &mdash;Darth Culator   (talk)  23:07, 14 Jan 2006 (UTC)
 * I really get sick of these kind of things. Admiral J. Nebulax 23:48, 14 Jan 2006 (UTC)
 * What sort of thing? The endless fanonization of articles by people who have not a clue what they're actually talking about? It'll drive you crazy if you let it. Fortunately, some of us are already at least a bit crazy to begin with. &mdash;Darth Culator   (talk)  01:16, 15 Jan 2006 (UTC)
 * Yep. Especially SuperShadow-inspired nonsense. Admiral J. Nebulax 02:35, 15 Jan 2006 (UTC)
 * Apparently this idiot has been banned. Therefore, the page can be unlocked. Admiral J. Nebulax 00:35, 17 Jan 2006 (UTC)

Gap
The third picture's placement in the text is causing a rather unsightly gap. I've tried to move it down, but someone keeps putting it back in. The location in the text doesn't affect it's placement on the page, and gaps just look ugly. Would anyone mind if I put it at the bottom? -- SFH 00:43, 17 Jan 2006 (UTC)
 * I was the one who moved it back. What happens is, I cannot see the little edit button on the lower sections when you place it there. Admiral J. Nebulax 20:25, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

B-wing Editor
This is the guy who had been previously banned. I apologize for my fanon. I got the fake C-wing from a non-canon website. Although I wont be editing this B-wing, I really know that the weapons are how I put them. Go to the Databank at starwars.com for B-wing and then click on Expanded Universe. It shows what I put. I also made the original proton bomb and hex missile pages although they are edited by other people now. I hate fanon as much as you do. -Bwingfreak 18:09, 17 Janurary 2006
 * Why didn't you just stop and tell us where you got the information from when you were first asked, instead of constantly re-adding it? Admiral J. Nebulax 00:45, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I just checked it out, and the official site does NOT support your incorrect "original" armament, nor does it make any mention of your all-lasers variant. Don't post any more BS, and answer us next time we ask you to support your claims. JimRaynor55 01:16, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

I apologize again. I didn't know about this disscussion page. I'm very new: I joined wiki yesterday. The all lasers variant I got from a fanon website that I didn't know was fanon at the time. Could the heavy ion cannon, three laser cannons, etc... possibly be another variant. Sorry and dont get mad. please. Could I make the page on auto-blasters? One more question: is http://hangarbay.tripod.com/td-aw.html fanon? -Bwingfreak 19:55, 17 Jan 2006

I didn't find it said the original weaponry wasn't supported. go here: http://www.starwars.com/databank/starship/bwingstarfighter/?id=eu its the third paragraph. - Bwingfreak 20:30, 17 Jan 2006
 * As for your question, we don't use fan-made sites at all. Admiral J. Nebulax 20:43, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Animation

 * Is there some reason why my gif was removed? Or was it just a contemporary loss in the edit war? Just wanted to know MoffRebus 22:18, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
 * There was no room for it. Plus, I think that all of those should be removed. Animations don't work well. Admiral J. Nebulax 00:59, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Gee thanks, that's so nice to know! :S MoffRebus 10:12, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
 * However, it is a good picture. Perhaps a gallery of these starfighter animations? Admiral J. Nebulax 20:28, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Good idea. A gallery to make, we have. possibly here>> Animated starfighter gallery? -Bwingfreak 1:22, 1 Feb 2006
 * That should work. Admiral J. Nebulax 20:28, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I dont know where to get those pictures so its kinda up to y'all.Bwingfreak 7:18, 2 Feb 2006
 * Well, MoffRebus would get them. Admiral J. Nebulax 21:12, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Length
It's listed as 16.9 meters long, but from looking at it that's about as absurd as the Executor being 8000 meters. The B-wing might be 16.9 meters tall, but in length it appears to be shorter than just about any manned starfighter, except maybe the basic TIE fighter, the Eta-2 Actis, and the New Republic Defender. 68.47.234.131 04:12, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, that's the official length as of now. Admiral J. Nebulax (talk) 12:55, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Bladewing
Is there a specific source that calls it a Bladewing? Not that I'm arguing, I think it's a cool idea, it makes a lot more sense than saying it looks like a letter B. --Commander Mike 02:27, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, I believe so. I don't have it with me, however. Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Implogo.png|20px]] 11:03, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

History
As an avid fleet junkie and fan of the B-wing, I have noticed that the history section is ATROCIOUSLY lacking. If I knew how to nominate the durn thing for improvement, I would. I could make the case here, address objections, present evidence, and even make closing arguments, but suffice to say: Should the history section be expanded to include a LOT more from the New Rep era? I mean, come on- it's one of the 4 major New Rep fighters! I added a similar history section on the TIE Defender and the consensus was to keep it. Atarumaster88 17:10, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
 * See Improvement Drive if you want to nominate it. Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Implogo.png|20px]] 19:39, 14 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Thank you Fleet Admiral. The page is now nominated. Vote please! Atarumaster88 14:38, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Implogo.png|20px]] 18:08, 21 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I have updated the history section, but it probably needs more expansion, especially in the details as I do not have most of the books in front of me. On a separate question, in games such as Rogue Squadron III, where the B-wing is a craft the player CAN choose to use, are those battles considered canon appearances of the B-wing if it is not stipulated the craft MUST be flown? What about cooperative missions? Atarumaster88 15:52, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
 * It's gameplay. Therefore, no. Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Implogo.png|20px]] 18:06, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Ejection Pod
I just add a paragraph about the ejection pod in the design section, from the people that don't know about it, its been seen in the game Rebel Assault 2 : The Hidden Empire Rookie_One 05:05, 31 July 2006 (UTC) I Just wanted to know if i was right about it... Rookie_One 17:00, 31 July 2006 (UTC) Well the only source i had about it was the last scene of chapter 1 in Rebel Assault 2, where Rookie One eject from his B-Wing just before crashing after being shooted by a TIE Phantom. Rookie_One 23:52, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
 * You know, you don't have to "report" your edit on the talk page. All you have to do is type something short in the "Summary" space. Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Implogo.png|20px]] 13:39, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
 * If you provide a source that someone could check on, you don't need to worry. ;) Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Implogo.png|20px]] 17:02, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Then that was all you needed to put in the Summary space, that is, if it all fit. Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Implogo.png|20px]] 00:17, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

KOTOR?
Ive been playing KOTOR for a long time, can someone help me out, theres a Republic Fighter that looks exactly like a B-wing in the final 5 cutscenes, can someone else take a look and tell me that it isnt?
 * I can tell you without looking at it that it's not a B-wing. At least not this B-wing. Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Implogo.png|20px]] 21:06, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Republic assault fighter - lalala_la
 * That looks more like a Firespray. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Implogo.png|20px]] 11:14, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Name
So. . . What gives the B-Wing its name? Double D 04:53, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
 * The fact that, when looking at it from a certain angle, it looks like a lowercase "b". Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Implogo.png|20px]] 14:10, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

I see the "B" from the side, when it up-side-down. so why do they call it the P-Wing. Double D


 * As far as I know, it's not called the P-Wing on any official source. Atarumaster88 17:22, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Oops, I meant to say, why "don't" they call it the P-Wing?. Double D
 * It was called "B fighter" during the planning of RotJ (with the A-wing as "A fighter"), so they made it "B-wing". Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Implogo.png|20px]] 19:32, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I think they call it that from "Blade-wing", because it looks like a blade. Don't remember the source. VT-16 10:43, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Yer i heard that somehwere to, but like Jack said as in the cases of X,Y,A,V wing its somewhat due to the shape of the craft Jedi Dude 11:23, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I believe I read something to that effect in the Official Return of the Jedi Movie Book or something of that nature, a "behind the scenes" look at a lot of the stuff that went into the making of that movie. They chose B because it looks a lot like a blade, with the cockpit as the pommel. It's been over 20 years since I read it, so I could be wrong about the actual name of it. (I was in middle school at the time.) - Rebel Dragon 04:27, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Images
One reason I changed the image was, the other one. . . in was not in flight mode, but it also was not in attack mode, it was in the middle. Double D 17:54, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Uh, first, does the main image look good to everyone else. On my monitor, it looks blurry and I can see where it was cropped. Two, the second image is not in flight mode as the S-foils are deployed. In flight mode, they fold against the main ventral wing. Atarumaster88 21:46, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, the main image before this one looked blurry to me, and now this one doesn't. However, I suppose a better one could be found. Also, I fixed the second image's caption. Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Implogo.png|20px]] 23:00, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Okay, I saw the better text image. I altered it to "attack." My main complaint with the current image is that I can see a clear color difference where it looks like the B-wing was cropped out and placed on a background. Atarumaster88 01:14, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
 * We're not talking about why the image was changed, we're talking about getting a better version of the current main image. Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Implogo.png|20px]] 19:32, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

S-Foils in Attack Position
A B-Wing can't attack with the s-foils closed, but why? Exactly what physically force prevents it from doing that? Double D 02:44, 29 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Uh, I'm not sure, but other forums might help you better. I seem to recall Kell Tainer scoring a couple of kills with S-foils closed in Wraith Squadron, but that was in X-wings and might have been with torps. Atarumaster88 03:17, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Maybe the blasters are too close to the body of the ship. It at least should be shooting without targeting. Or maybe it's a stability thing. ???  -Finlayson 04:13, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Doesn't the "S" in "S-foils" stand for "stability"? Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Implogo.png|20px]] 11:17, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I thought they stood for "strike-foils" considering how every craft that has them has weapons mounted on the ends of them. Atarumaster88 14:34, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I readed in the S-foil articles thats S-Foils were created to disperse the excess of heat create by the fighter but was also used (as its look the case with the B-Wing) the increase spread coverage of the weapon mounted on the tips of the wings (look at the S-Foils articles for more information) Rookie_One 17:57, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that works too. Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Implogo.png|20px]] 19:55, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
 * That was my understanding of it. Humm..  Well S-foils are for both stability and strike purposes on X-wings and B-wings. -Finlayson 20:09, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
 * So the "S" can stand for two things. Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Implogo.png|20px]] 20:11, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

i agree s foils can stand for multiple things 1. spread the attack coverage of the weapons 2. stabilize the ship in tight manuevering with manuevering thrusters at the ned 3. and could be used as radiators to disperse heat if the design is already part of the ship and it can cut down on the fore and aft views of the ship meaning the the ship is a slimmer target overall meaning harder to hit and thus harder to destroy (Boommer3 01:37, 3 September 2006 (UTC))
 * Boommer3, the "S" in "S-foils" does not stand for "spread". It's just "stability" and "strike". Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Implogo.png|20px]] 13:26, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
 * i second that statement. Rookie_One 22:57, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
 * No offense, but it really didn't need to be seconded. Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Implogo.png|20px]] 00:08, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Image
May I know why we changed the image?--Herbsewell 12:00, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Because the other one was from TNEGtVaV, and we don't want those images in infoboxes. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Implogo.png|20px]] 12:02, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Agreed. We prefer movie pics whenever possible. Atarumaster88  [[Image:Jedi_Order.jpg|20px]] ( Audience Chamber ) 15:51, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Besides, the TNEGtVaV images aren't that good. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Implogo.png|20px]] 21:13, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Move to "B-wing assault starfighter?
Seeing as how the specific roles of other starfighters are included in their article titles ("light interceptor," "assault starfighter"), shouldn't the word "assault" be in this article's title? JimRaynor55 06:52, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
 * It is listed as the Slayn & Korpil B-Wing Starfighter in The New Essential Guide to Vehicles & Vessals. -Fnlayson 17:23, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Besides, we don't have "BTL Y-wing assault starfighter" as the Y-wing's article's title. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Implogo.png|20px]] 21:48, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Which serves a similar role as the B-wing. -Fnlayson 21:57, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Exactly. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Implogo.png|20px]] 22:00, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
 * The same thing goes for the Y-wing, which could have "assault" added to its title. There needs to be a uniform naming system in place.  We shouldn't be very specific for some ships and just settle for "starfighter" for some others. JimRaynor55 01:11, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
 * We go with it's actual designation, not what we think it should be. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Implogo.png|20px]] 01:13, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
 * The Star Wars Sourcebook specifically calls this "B-wing assault starfighter." Regardless, we need to have a consistent method for naming our articles.  We can't have one article named "Eta-2 Actis-class light interceptor" (Eta-2 and Actis are well known, I believe "-class" is assumed so as to be consistent with the fact that the predecessor Delta-7 was referred to as "Aethersprite-class" in one source, and the "light interceptor" part is not actually in the ship's name, but taken from its stated role in the Databank profile), being as specific and informative as possible, while sticking as rigidly as possible to the "actual designation" for other articles (such as the Y-wing and B-wing).  Putting in the ship's role isn't fanon or making things up, it's based on real canon information.  The point is that we have to be consistent.  Either go with just what the canon sources call these fighters, or be informative.  One way or another. JimRaynor55 04:04, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Jim, regardless of what the Star Wars Sourcebook says, the correct name is "B-wing starfighter", regardless if its role is as an assault starfighter. And for the record, the Eta-2 is called the "Eta-2 Actis-class light interceptor" in at least one source. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Implogo.png|20px]] 12:17, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree. In the databank, it is referred to as the "B-wing starfighter." I think we should use that at least wherever possible. Atarumaster88  [[Image:Jedi_Order.jpg|20px]] ( Audience Chamber ) 15:05, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
 * While it would be nice to have a uniform naming policy, we have to go with canon designations, and they just aren't uniform. This should stay as it is - \\Captain Kwenn// &mdash; Ahoy! 15:09, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
 * But wouldn't that put the B-wing in the same boat as the Eta-2? The Star Wars Sourcebook is one source, and it called it "B-wing assault starfighter." I don't see how the Databank means much at all, it's known for using simplified names.  It's not like "B-wing starfighter" means that "B-wing assault starfighter" is somehow wrong anyway. JimRaynor55 20:15, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
 * It's not wrong; it's just not the actual designation. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Implogo.png|20px]] 20:28, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Since Ackbar (who helped design the thing) never referred to it by that title, it should stay B-wing. I mean, we could slap designations on all sorts of craft based on their roles, but we generally don't. Atarumaster88  [[Image:Jedi_Order.jpg|20px]] ( Audience Chamber ) 22:22, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I hope you mean "B-wing starfighter". Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Implogo.png|20px]] 22:24, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't know why you guys are dismissing "B-wing assault starfighter" as not this ship's designation. The Star Wars Sourcebook is a canon source, and calls it exactly that.  This is like taking the "interceptor" out of the A-wing title because the starwars.com databank just calls it a simple "A-wing starfighter." JimRaynor55 16:40, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Of the sources I own, here are the designations: EGVV: B-wing fighter (designation: Slayn & Korpil B-wing); NEGVV: B-wing (designation: Slayn & Korpil B-wing starfighter); Databank: B-wing starfighter; The Rebel Alliance: Ships of the Fleet: B-wing starfighter - \\Captain Kwenn// &mdash; Ahoy! 16:45, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
 * As I told Jaymach over on the TIE bomber page, counting sources isn't the way we should be handling this. It's not like "B-wing starfighter" means that "B-wing assault starfighter" is wrong. JimRaynor55 22:29, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
 * It's not wrong; it's just not the proper designation. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Implogo.png|20px]] 00:12, 7 January 2007 (UTC)