Talk:T-65 X-wing starfighter/Legends

Credits
See credits from the original Wikipedia article.

Why the move?
I just wanted to let everyone know that I moved the article based on the name listed in the Databank - http://www.starwars.com/databank/starship/xwing/index.html.
 * Practically speaking, though, isn't it easier to link to "X-wing"? -- Aidje 19:40, 5 Apr 2005 (EDT)
 * That's true, and there's a redirect there that points to here. I suppose that one could argue that it'd make sense to have the the main article where most of the links point.  However, it seems to me that the article's name should be whatever the official title is with redirects coming from common aliases.  WhiteBoy 12:07, 7 Apr 2005 (EDT)
 * That makes sense. It works so long as we don't get people who want to "fix" all of the links like X-wing . That would be kind of annoying to have people inserting piped links all over the place. I guess we just have to trust them. :-) Actually, as long as we're talking about using the full name for the article title, why not put "T-65" in there as well? Seems like that would be even more complete than the Databank's way of doing it. -- Aidje 13:18, 7 Apr 2005 (EDT)
 * Well, no one seems to be answering. I guess I'll move it to what I think makes more sense, and then if people disagree they'll speak up. Please don't take offense at my moving this without discussion, as I asked about it quite awhile ago. I'm certainly willing to discuss the matter if any one disagrees with the move. – Aidje talk 04:23, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * "X-Wing" was a the common nickname for the ship, based on its appearance. The name of the article should probably be T-65 starfighter, or T-65 fighter, and then say "The T-65 space superiority fighter, commonly known as X-Wing for its open s-foil position, ..." with all proper redirects in place. --SparqMan 12:35, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * So essentially, all "Wing" designations are actually just nicknames? If so, remove and replace, people will just have to learn to cope with it. VT-16 14:41, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * So now we come to confusion: why would it be 'T-65 starfighter' rather than 'T-65 space superiority fighter'? (I mention only these two because I think they're the best choices.) The latter is certainly a more proper name, just as 'heavy blaster pistol' is in some cases more proper than 'blaster'. – Aidje talk 14:49, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * I took the liberty of "cleaning up" all the "wing"-shipnames on the vehicle list, basically listing model and function (most of the OT fighters didn´t have class-names) and mentioning the various nicknames on the side. Some people may not like that, but then again this site was meant to be thorough and "proper". I would guess that "space superiority fighter" would be proper, while the more familiar name could be mentionind in the article itself. That should be enough, I think. certainly would be unique for a SW site. ;) VT-16 15:36, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * What would be unique? Our penchant for accuracy? – Aidje talk 18:05, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Yep, I don´t believe any site attempts to be as in-depth as this encyclopedia. Not even the OS or the TFN Encyclopedia. :) VT-16 20:36, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * I say we remove the "-wing" designations at our own peril. I'm fine with adding model numbers, but if we don't leave the reader ANYTHING familiar in the title, they might think there's a problem with the redirects.  That, and there should be some connection with what the reader is familiar with.  Also, several craft have more than one correct model number (The BTL-S3 and BTL-A4 Y-wings, for instance).  JSarek 18:12, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * I agree with JSarek. We should leave something familiar in the title for the readers.  In addition, I don't believe "-wing" is just a nickname for most of these ships.  The essential guides and all the other official sources always say "T-65 X-wing," "RZ-1 A-wing," etc.  Kinda like "F-14 Tomcat" and "F/A-18 Hornet."  And like JSarek said, the Y-wing has more than one designation.  I think the only "-wing" name that is purely a nickname is the "V-wing" name, used for the Alpha-3 Nimbus. JimRaynor55 19:28, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * That's completely possible too. "Space superiority fighter" is a description of what it does best, but "T-65 X-Wing" is probably the best compromise. The capitalization by most sources is "X-Wing" however, not "X-wing". --SparqMan 20:42, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * My vote now goes to 'T-65 X-wing space superiority fighter'. – Aidje talk 19:31, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * That sounds fine with me. VT-16 20:36, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I thought it was "stutter" fire.
I mean, I'm sure that was used. I'm not so sure that scatter fire wasn't the official name, but I'm pretty sure it was called stutter fire, not scatter fire.
 * If you provide a source, then we'll find out. Admiral J. Nebulax 01:02, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Quite a few of the New Jedi Order Books. I don't usually remember which exact words are used in a bookStar by Star is the one where XJ3s were introduced, and they had stutter fire installed in them because it worked with the other X-Wings. I guess I'll probably have to go through all of the books to be sure. Linkman95 12:42, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, then, I guess it can be changed. Admiral J. Nebulax 20:22, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Changed it. If someone sees a place where scatter fire is used, feel free to change it back Linkman95 00:51, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't think it's metioned anywhere else. Admiral J. Nebulax 00:52, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
 * So is stutter fire a new feature of the XJ series fighters or just something thar hasn't been used? Any idea? -Finlayson 04:09, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
 * New feature, they talked about how a new trigger was added to fire low powered bolts, i mean the fighters could of done this before but there would be no point in firing low powered bolts was there. Jedi Dude 18:26, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks. That should be mentioned, like in parathenses in the Stutter fire setting line. -Finlayson 21:31, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Shouldn't it be faster?
It seems that Incom actually stole the speed from it's previous fighters to make the X-Wing.
 * So...? Admiral J. Nebulax 20:34, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Episode II Appearance.
Source/image would be nice. Admiral J. Nebulax 01:34, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Okay, User:Rune Haako, you've proven to me that TIE Fighters are in Episode II. Now, prove it for this fighter. Admiral J. Nebulax 01:59, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Listen to the Episode II DVD Commentary during the scene with the TIE fighters.--Rune Haako 02:06, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't have time to listen to it now, but I'll take your word for it. Admiral J. Nebulax 02:07, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Are you talking about the easter egg on Coruscant? I've seen those. They made low-res models of the T-65 X-wing and had it be chased down a trench-like corridor by three TIEs (obviously meant to be a reference to Luke's trench run in ANH). Since the X-wing wasn't invented till after the CW, and since we only see the three from above, I just rationalized it in-universe as one Z-95 and three Republic T.I.E.s doing patrols. ;) VT-16 17:04, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, since the X-wings and TIE Fighters didn't exist yet, that's probably a good in-universe solution. Admiral J. Nebulax (talk) 20:06, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Or maybe you can just say that it's a freaking EASTER EGG - lalala_la
 * Calm down. We know it's an easter egg. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Implogo.jpg|20px]] 12:03, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Earlier Development?
Anyone hold any support for the theory that the X-Wings were actually developed (at least initially) during the Clone Wars, as it says in the Radio dramatisation of ANH? In that Han clearly states that the X-Wings were 20 years old, I know every other source says that the X-Wings were brand new at the time of the battle of Yavin, but there is actually a work around that would be valid by all sources as well as clear up the naming issue. Essentially, the T-65A was an early test bed (possibly the one seen in AotC) that never received much attention, nor did the T-65B, except for possible use by CorSec (explaining where they got their X-Wings from, and why Han thought the fighters in the Yavin hangar were old). The Empire gradually came round to the idea, but then Incom defected along with the T-65C A1 (or T-65AC1), the fighter used at Yavin. I know that technically this would probably be considered fanon, but its a perfectly plausible, valid explanation and I think it deserves some mention, even if only as speculation in Behind the Scenes to clarify. Opinions? 95 Headhunter
 * No, the X-wing wasn't developed until during the Galactic Civil War. The X-wing in AotC was just an Easter Egg. Admiral J. Nebulax (talk) [[Image:Implogo.jpg|20px]] 19:57, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Ok, may i ask what level of canonicity is afforded to the radio dramatisations, is it the same as the novelisations? Also, how else would you explain the X-Wing being the t-65C A (or AC) straight away, that certainly implies that there were prototypes at the very least, to me it speaks of prior design phases.
 * For the radio stuff, they appear to differ from the movies in places, so I'd say they're not that high on the "canon scale" in some places. As for the X-wing in AotC, it was added only as an Easter Egg, therefore saying that it's not a canonical appearance. The same goes for the TIE Fighters in there as well. Admiral J. Nebulax (talk) [[Image:Implogo.jpg|20px]] 22:07, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Alright then, that's fair enough I suppose. 95 Headhunter
 * Also, like the radio dramatizations, books are different from the movies in spots, just to let you know. Admiral J. Nebulax (talk) [[Image:Implogo.jpg|20px]] 23:39, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

History J series part

 * Currently, the 3rd and 5th paragraphs in the History section both cover the introduction of the J series. I think they should be combined and moved after the paragraph about the E-wing (4th one).  I'll do this edit later, unless somebody has objections.  -Finlayson 02:19, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I went ahead and combined those paragraphs. Take a look.  More helpful editting from others couldn't hurt.  -Finlayson 02:51, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
 * It certainly looks much better than before. Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Implogo.jpg|20px]] 13:36, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

S-Foils in Attack Position
A X-Wing can't attack with the s-foils closed, but why? Exactly what physically force prevents it from doing that? Double D 02:45, 29 August 2006 (UTC) sorry but where does it say s is for stability bcuz i think it would stand for spread bcuz i read somewhere that the cannons could be fired while the s foils were closed its just the attack spread would be significantly hampered and as such the attack position would the position where the cannon would be better able to hit a target (Boommer3 01:25, 3 September 2006 (UTC)) y cant it stand for spread(Boommer3 02:41, 3 September 2006 (UTC))
 * The "S" in "S-foils" stand for "stability", so it all comes down to that. Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Implogo.jpg|20px]] 11:21, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
 * The "S" can stand for "stability" or "strike", but not "spread". Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Implogo.jpg|20px]] 01:28, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
 * In one of the xwing novels, Iron Fist i believe, one of the pilots snaps off a shot with closed s foils, the problem with doing this however was that it was an extremely accurate shot. also, "s-foil" has been refered to as strike-, stabilizer, and spread foil, i think it just depends on the author but personally, i think it was intended to be stabilizer foil.  hope this helps, Ugluk 04:00, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
 * But has it ever been called "spread-foils"? Because I doubt it. Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Implogo.jpg|20px]] 13:39, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
 * In most star wars novels featuring the xwing s-foils are called stabilizer foils, in aaron allston books they are strike foils. in one of the rogue squadron video games, i think the N64 one, they are refered to as spread foils.  Ugluk 14:21, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
 * We'll need to have that confirmed. Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Implogo.jpg|20px]] 14:49, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
 * If i get a chance ill run through the game, it was either that they were called spread foils or somebody said "spread s-foils to attack position". either way, s-foil was intended to be stabilizer foil so i dont see what the big deal is. Ugluk 15:35, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, we need proof that they are/aren't called spread-foils. Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Implogo.jpg|20px]] 20:49, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
 * If somebody else has the game, i dont have time for that, many projects to do (between wookieepedia sessions of course ;)) please check. Ugluk 22:26, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Why Redirect from X-wing to T-65 X-wing starfighter?
Hey guys, I'm wondering why X-wing redirects to the T-65 X-wing starfighter page. I propose that the X-wing page be a disambiguation page that links to all of the X-wing subclasses.

Cheers,RelentlessRecusant 17:54, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
 * yeah i agree with that also. Ugluk: Destroyer of Redlinks 18:07, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
 * That would definitely help. Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Implogo.jpg|20px]] 20:01, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I created a template that has all of the X-wing derivatives and placed it on all of the X-wing derivative pages, so that might clear things up, but I want to get approval before making the disambiguation page. Cheers,  Relentless Recusant [[Image:Jedi_Order.jpg|20px]] 21:09, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm surprised it wasn't a disambig already. Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Implogo.jpg|20px]] 23:52, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Content Disputed
Was the original T-65 used in the Yuuzhan Vong invasion and also in the Legacy series? As in the T-65 original, not the XJ series? That's why I placed the tag on the article.

Cheers,

 Relentless Recusant  20:21, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Really, this page is talking about all of the X-wing variants, which is rather odd. Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Implogo.jpg|20px]] 20:26, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Sure by somebody. But XJs are versions of the T-65.  -Finlayson 21:19, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Exactly. Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Implogo.jpg|20px]] 00:30, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Any possibility of getting an update simply on the markings for the X-Wings? Red leader has one stripe, Wedge has two, etc. Perhaps an indication regarding which pilots had what, and any other significance for the markings.
 * That would be better for the actual articles of the individual X-wings, not this article. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Implogo.jpg|20px]] 20:36, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Are there articles for individual X-Wings? Does Wedge's X-Wing have its own entry, detailing the wing markings? I wasn't able to find a link to it from here or the Wedge article. Not even a mention in this main article of "some rebel pilots customized markings to signify..." etc etc.
 * No, but the articles like Red Five should be added to with information on the fighter used. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Implogo.jpg|20px]] 19:54, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Variants

 * The article fails to mention any of the letter variants such as the T-65B, which is on the Databank. I can't back this up with any sources off the top of my head, but I think the T-65B is the T-65AC1, which is also the T-65C-A1.  If I'm not mistaken, the AC variants are just another name for some of the letter variants. – Brynn Alastayr 00:53, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
 * The conflicting ID systems paragraph (last one) in the History section addresses that to some extent. -Fnlayson 00:58, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that's true, I just saw that. Still, it doesn't say specifically which variants are identical to each other.  I was trying to compile a complete list of variants for a project I'm working on and I was flipping through some WEG sources.  Took me a while to Google some kind of confirmation that B=AC1, C=AC2, F=AC3, and I=AC4; I wish I had the (I'm guessing) WEG sourcebook to back that up though.  I would guess that some of the other variants such as the Trainer fill in the D or E spots, but who knows.  Interesting thing is that J starts right where it should for the XJ series, so either the AC letters are true or it was just good fanon. – Brynn Alastayr 01:27, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Perhaps that is exactly what the article is saying... it's confusing because it lists the XJs as a separate series and generally does not use the T-65 designation when referring to them. If that's the case, I think the letter variant system is more accurate than the AC system, as it expresses (presumably) every variant, where AC clearly skips some (short of going to fractions).  At any rate, a lot of sources use these interchangeably and it's hard to tell just which variant it's referring to unless it's explicitly listed somewhere. – Brynn Alastayr 01:42, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Wait, you said "which variants are identical to each other". What are you talking about? Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Implogo.jpg|20px]] 11:26, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
 * "I think the T-65B is the T-65AC1, which is also the T-65C-A1." "Took me a while to Google some kind of confirmation that B=AC1, C=AC2, F=AC3, and I=AC4." – Brynn Alastayr 16:26, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
 * First, that's just what you think. Second, what is this "confirmation"? Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Implogo.jpg|20px]] 20:28, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

The X
If the common written language is Aurebesh, then how did they come along with getting x or y or a or b or v or k? i mean they get that from galtice basic, but if they did, then how d they know what it looks like??? Darth EJ 04:50, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
 * That's where IU meets OOU. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Implogo.jpg|20px]] 12:30, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Speed Discrepancies
Wikipedia states that the speed of the X-Wing is 100MGLT. In the article concerning MGLT, it states that "Within the games (X-Wing computer games), 1 MGLT is approximately equal to 1 meter per second." However it later states that "They (certain fans) believe through their computations that it is equivalent to an acceleration of approximately 400 SI meters per second squared". I suggest you got to the links provided to see this more in detail. This means that the speed for space travel is either 100m/s2, 4000m/s2 or 3700g (about 36260m/s2), as stated in this article.
 * Wikipedia is not a source. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Implogo.jpg|20px]] 14:38, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Countermeasures

 * Chaf/flare countermeasures are not mentioned in the NEGVV. Are these countermeasures a new feature on later XJs or an unmentioned feature all along?   I think the former should be noted in the Infobox to clarify.  Thanks. -Fnlayson 16:58, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Are you sure it isn't in TNEGtVaV? Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Implogo.jpg|20px]] 20:21, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I checked before I wrote that. It doesn't have extensive detail.  There's only 2 pages on each ship and over a page is illustrations. -Fnlayson 20:26, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Oh. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Implogo.jpg|20px]] 20:28, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
 * They were on every ship in X-wing Alliance but weren't mentioned in any other EU source until Bloodlines. The fact that they exist at all has been written off as a game mechanic, but now we know they actually are crammed into some ships. -- Darth Culator  (Talk)(TINC) 21:56, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
 * At least it's sourced. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Implogo.jpg|20px]] 23:06, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

X-wings in the real world.
I once read in a SW article in a science magazine that the US air force had a fighter that could open and close its wings just like an X-wing. Unfortunately, I have since lost said magazine, and I cannot remember the name of the fighter. And I think that this information could be used in the article. Can someone help? Unit 8311 18:24, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I think I know what you're talking about... I can't remember the name of the fighter, though. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Implogo.jpg|20px]] 22:18, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I think it might be the SR-71 Blackbird or something similar, but I'm not sure. Unit 8311 15:52, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
 * The wings are FIXED on the SR-71, no split. There's no USAF fighter past or present with split wings like the X-wing.  There have been some with swing wings like the F-14, but that IS different.  There may have been an experimental plane with some kind of split wings but that's it.  -Fnlayson 17:19, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Are you sure? Then maybe it was an RAF fighter or something. Unit 8311 17:39, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes. See what you can find out.  Get back with us if you find an example. -Fnlayson 17:45, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
 * You know what, I was random-paging through Wikipedia before and I saw what may be a real-life X-wing, but I couldn't get the name of it because I accidentily exited the window. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Implogo.jpg|20px]] 23:17, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
 * -LtNOWIS 23:24, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I was just going to post that. There's also this thing that says it's related to the S-72. Commander Jorrel Fraajic [[Image:Wiki-shrinkable.png|20px]] Communications Relay  23:26, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
 * LtNOWIS: That was the article I saw. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Implogo.jpg|20px]] 23:31, 9 January 2007 (UTC)