Talk:TIE/In interceptor/Archive1

Title
I was under the impression that 'interceptor' was a part of the proper name of this ship and should therefore be capitalized, like so: "TIE Interceptor". I'm making the appropriate edits to reflect this. – Aidje talk 15:36, 19 Aug 2005 (UTC)
 * Actually, it can be used either way (capitalized or not). That goes for most of the other TIE products, like the TIE Fighter (TIE fighter), TIE Bomber (TIE bomber), etc., although they are mainly capitalized. Cmdr. J. Nebulax 19:29, 19 Aug 2005 (UTC)
 * Most of the time in print, they are not capitalized, including the entry at the Star Wars Databank. The title of this page probably should be TIE interceptor. – 134.82.97.27 15:56, 28 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Actually, it should be TIE/I starfighter - Kwenn 16:00, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, it should be TIE/I fighter, to keep with other fighters. Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Imperial_Emblem.svg|20px]] 17:21, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Hm, I had a thought. Should this be at TIE/I interceptor? We have a few other starfighters listed as interceptors (Jedi fighters), so what's the actual designation for this? - Kwenn 19:35, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't think so, because the "I" stands for "Interceptor", right? I don't think it's the "Twin Ion Engine Interceptor interceptor". Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Imperial_Emblem.svg|20px]] 19:37, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Aha, yep, hadn't thought of that. My bad - Kwenn 19:50, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, how many more articles need to be moved as of now? Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Imperial_Emblem.svg|20px]] 20:15, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I think that's all listed on the TIE series page - dunno if there are others not on that list - Kwenn 15:50, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I think you're right. Admiral J. Nebulax(Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Imperial_Emblem.svg|20px]] 20:28, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Due to the fonts used on wookieepedia pages, the title "TIE/In starfighter" looks too similiar (in fact, almost same) to the title "TIE/ln starfighter" (using lower case of LN), which refers to the basic model of TIE starfighters. This is really confusing. ---greeneese, Oct 12, 2007, 05:38 GMT

Problem solved and page moved. TIE/In interceptor is appropriate, as it is similar to the nomenclature set by the TIE/sa bomber. I've also added a disclaimer on both TIE/ln starfighter and TIE/In starfighter (renamed to interceptor) to point out the difference between "LN" and "IN". GreenDragon 03:32, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Armaments
The New Essential Guide to Vehicles and Vessels states that there are 4 fire-linked laser cannons, as does this article. However the diagram for the Essential Guide clearly points out that the weapons on the tips of the wings are blaster cannons, and points out 2 laser cannons under the cockpit window. Visuals from Return of the Jedi also show fire coming from behind the wing and focused under the cockpit.Cthulhuvong 16:16, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, there are two cannons under the cockpit and four wing-tip cannons. Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Imperial_Emblem.svg|20px]] 17:24, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Earlier appearances
"It is not obvious how this can be reconciled with the majority of sources that states the Interceptor was made after Yavin." How's about this: those two sources are games, and they thought it would be fun to include them. Or, they were early prototypes. There were only a few years between Yavin and Endor. If the fleet was already at 20% replacement by Endor, the fighter must have at least been in testing by Yavin. This is conjecture, but negates the need for a "irresolvable inconsistency" disclaimer. --SparqMan 15:07, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
 * True... Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Imperial_Emblem.svg|20px]] 17:44, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
 * A TIE/I also appears at the Imperial junkyard in 0 ABY... - Kwenn 18:39, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't see why they would have discarded prototypes of the fighter that seem to be in good shape in that junkyard, though... Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Imperial_Emblem.svg|20px]] 19:45, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I have to say taht the junkyard itself seems like a really wasteful proposition. I find it hard to believe that anyone would willingly discard usable (or even salvageable) spacecraft in these quantities.  Even if they are no longer top of the line, surely they could be upgraded, garrisoned on distant worlds, or recycled.  But then, the Empire built 3 space stations capable of demolishing planets, I doubt that the environment was high on the list of priorities.
 * We're not really talking about the junkyard in that way, though... This is about the TIE Interceptors in the junkyard. Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Imperial_Emblem.svg|20px]] 14:45, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Non-canonical appearance? DAWUSS 17:55, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't go that far. Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Imperial_Emblem.svg|20px]] 18:59, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Origin of TIE/I designation
Can somebody provide the source for "TIE/I"? I've never seen it. NobodyExpectsTheSpanishInquisition
 * The New Essential Guide to Vehicles and Vessels for one. There are others - Kwenn 20:41, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Or not. Wow, I was pretty sure it was actually in there, but I just checked. Curiously, the CUSWE states that The Stele Chronicles designates the Interceptor as "TIE/In" - Kwenn 20:44, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I got The Stele Chronicles from replacementdocs.com, and it calls a Interceptor "TIE/In" several times in the short tale. That's an uppercase "i", not a "l" as in TIE/ln. Maybe the original author was confused by this? Anyway now is canon, so I think this article should be renamed to "TIE/in interceptor". Lowercase "in" for consistency with other TIEs, and "interceptor" because a)that is the main role for this craft, and b)the name given both in-universe and real life. Agreed? - NobodyExpectsTheSpanishInquisition
 * No. It's TIE/I starfighter, which stands for "TIE Interceptor starfighter". Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Imperial_Emblem.svg|20px]] 22:14, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Sorry if I repeat myself, but please, can you provide a canon sources for your claims? - NobodyExpectsTheSpanishInquisition
 * I know it's called the "TIE/I" in a canon source. Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Imperial_Emblem.svg|20px]] 22:28, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
 * And I know it's never been called the "TIE/I" in a canon source. Only "TIE/In" in the The Stele Chronicles. Maybe I'm mistaken, but "Submitted content must be from a canon source and verifiable" hmmm? - NobodyExpectsTheSpanishInquisition
 * How the hell do you know that it's never been called the TIE/I in a canon source? There's no way you could have possibly searched every source that has "TIE Interceptor" in it. Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Imperial_Emblem.svg|20px]] 22:37, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Okay, since "TIE/I" is unsourced as of now, let's move this to "TIE/In starfighter" (note the capital "I") to keep with the other TIE variants. Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Imperial_Emblem.svg|20px]] 22:45, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Any objections before I move it? Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Imperial_Emblem.svg|20px]] 23:55, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Following the discussion here, it seems that TIE/In interceptor would be the more proper title. Any objections to that? Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Imperial_Emblem.svg|20px]] 23:59, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
 * It would be better to use "TIE/in". The decipher ccg cards use both TIE/ln-TIE/LN, and TIE/sa-TIE/SA. TIE/In (with i) looks like TIE/ln (with L). It will confuse people, probably like it confused The Stele Chronicles author. And it is more consistent with TIE/ln, TIE/gt, TIE/rc, TIE/fc, TIE/sa, TIE/sh etc - NobodyExpectsTheSpanishInquisition
 * I agree with the "TIE/in" suggestion, though if it must be kept here, we at least need "youmay" tags for the TIE/In and TIE/ln pages - Kwenn 15:41, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I disagree with the "TIE/in" suggestion. This is Wookieepedia. We have the youmay templates to avoid confusion. Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Imperial_Emblem.svg|20px]] 21:03, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
 * The problem is, this is different from all the other TIE designations which have small letters. Following this practice would give us /in not /In. VT-16 09:26, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree, but still, canon says "In". Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Imperial_Emblem.svg|20px]] 11:25, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Royal Guard Interceptor
Should there be a page that talks about the Royal Guard's version of the TIE Interceptor? DAWUSS 20:59, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
 * There already is. Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Imperial_Emblem.svg|20px]] 21:03, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Weapons
According to Essential Guide to Vehicles and Vessels,

"For weapondry, the interceptor has four laser cannons, one at the end of each solar panel. Advanced targeting software gives the pilot greater fire accuracy even during complex maneuvers. While the interceptor does not have a pair of laser cannons below the pilot's compartment, the cannon hardpoint is still in place and additional cannons could be mounted there if technicians could find the room for additional power generators."

- pg. 182, EGVV

Now, I know there is a little contradiction in the New Essential Guide to Vehicles and Vessels (the TIE Interceptor schematic at the bottom), but is that enough to override this? The EGVV has more description on the weapons of the interceptor than the NEGVV...

Maybe we could have an addition, "4, 6 with upgrade" or something as a compromise. Jorrel Fraajic 15:14, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
 * No, it has six laser cannons. Comics have shown them firing. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Imperial_Emblem.svg|20px]] 21:36, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Not just comics. --  Darth Culator  (Talk)(Kills) 22:02, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Alright, movie takes the cake over reference book... sorry for the confusion. Jorrel Fraajic 22:18, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Although it's been solved, what does TNEGtVaV say? Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Imperial_Emblem.svg|20px]] 23:21, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
 * The text only mentions the wing-mounted cannons. The schematic, however, points out all six, though, oddly, it labels the four wing-mounted cannons blaster cannons.-- Lord Oblivion Sith holocron[[Image:Sith_Emblem.svg|30px]] 23:28, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I assume you mean "six" and not "sex". ;) Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Imperial_Emblem.svg|20px]] 23:32, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
 * He he he... oops. Corrected.-- Lord Oblivion Sith holocron[[Image:Sith_Emblem.svg|30px]] 23:43, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, I'm just glad it's settled. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Imperial_Emblem.svg|20px]] 23:47, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Sorry to restart this discussion, but what about all the novels and such that describe the interceptors as having four laser cannons? I think Iron Fist does, and I thought a couple others did as well. No offense, but that screenshot doesn't seem to show cannons in the main pod. Atarumaster88  [[Image:Jedi_Order.svg|20px]] ( Audience Chamber ) 04:08, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry, Ataru, but that bolt is lined up directly with one of the cockpit laser cannons. &mdash;Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Imperial_Emblem.svg|20px]] 12:15, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
 * It's okay. Canon is canon. Atarumaster88  [[Image:Jedi_Order.svg|20px]] ( Audience Chamber ) 16:49, 1 March 2007 (UTC)


 * It's clear that both the 4- and 6-cannon versions exist. Not to mention, if the 6-cannon version has blaster cannons rather than laser cannons in its wings, it obviously doesn't have 6 L-s9.3 laser cannons. It has 2 L-s9.3 cannons and 4 blasters of unspecified model. Thus, I've changed the infobox to reflect this. However, given the prevelance of 4-gun Interceptors in EU sources, I don't think the article text implying that the 4-gun version was phased out entirely in favor of the 6-gun can be justified. At the very least, 4-gun TIE/Ins continued to be used in large numbers. Red XIV 19:27, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
 * What if they were six L-s9.3 laser cannons, and not just two of those and four blaster cannons? After all, I don't think there's a source that says there were two different types of laser weaponry on the TIE/In. &mdash;Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Imperial_Emblem.svg|20px]] 17:02, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Name
This makes me mad; How are we meant to know the difference between the TIE fighter and the TIE interceptor. Shouldn't this article be TIE/In interceptor?--The All-knowing Sith&#39;ari 20:42, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
 * No. &mdash;Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Imperial_Emblem.svg|20px]] 20:44, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
 * And why not?--The All-knowing Sith&#39;ari 11:33, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Because it's officially TIE/In starfighter. &mdash;Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Imperial_Emblem.svg|20px]] 14:30, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * And as pointed out somewhere above, it'd be daft to use "interceptor" over "starfighter" since the "/In" designation stands for "interceptor". That's like calling the Armored Assault Tank an "AAT tank"; a mistake which I've actually been seeing a lot on battle infoboxes lately... - \\Captain Kwenn// &mdash; Ahoy! 14:46, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Agreed. &mdash;Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Imperial_Emblem.svg|20px]] 14:48, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * But /In also stands for Ion engine in TIE fighter. How are we meant to know the difference?--The All-knowing Sith&#39;ari 16:09, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, it's "ln" (lowercase "L"), as in "line starfighter". "In" (uppercase "i") stands for "interceptor" - \\Captain Kwenn// &mdash; Ahoy! 16:41, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Ah. Case closed, then?--The All-knowing Sith&#39;ari 19:28, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah. &mdash;Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Imperial_Emblem.svg|20px]] 21:20, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Numbers
Same thing as my comments about the TIE bomber. Where did you get your max atmospheric speed and acceleration numbers from? JimRaynor55 04:01, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Where is this talk of radiator panels coming from? All the data I've seen or read,designates them as solar collector panels. Sochwa 03:19, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

General Editing

 * This should be the final "tweak" after about two days work of general editing. Overall, I attempted to bring the article to a more cohesive message, along with sourcing the information about the craft, while leaving as much of the original message as possible. In the latest change, I removed the ROTJ reference to the six cannon variant, replacing it with a NEGVV reference courtesy of Darth Culator. After discussion with Gonk, Jaymach, and Havac among others, it was decided there is no significant proof of the 10 cannon model of the TIE Interceptor, thus I removed this point. I googled TIE Interceptor searching for cannon sources of this model, to no avail (www.theforce.net is not canon). If anyone locates it, please send me a link to the source, or reference material so I can replace it. I would like to make it known to anyone interested in collaboration that I would like to expand the history of the T/I, along with add more information about its mission roles, known squadrons, and any other miscellaneous points. I currently have the EGVV and TIE Fighter: Official Strategy Guide (TIE:OSG) on hand. The collector’s editions of the TIE:OSG, along with the other X-wing series guides, are in route to my location now. I intend to use these sources to accomplish this goal.--MIS Tau 1 18:32, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
 * It's interesting to see that my cleanup of the article was apparently reverted only because I had that bit about the ten cannon version in the main article, which I did not know was fanon. Therefore, I'll have to cleanup the current version without trying to incorporate a previous version. &mdash;Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Imperial_Emblem.svg|20px]] 21:49, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
 * If it leads to the expansion or increased cohesion of the aticle, you have all my support--MIS Tau 1 19:32, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
 * My edit wasn't anything major. Just a few minor things. &mdash;Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Imperial_Emblem.svg|20px]] 20:00, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Those are very applicable edits Jack, it looks good. I'm waiting on some more guides, I would like to get some more history on here. You got anything?
 * Are you looking for anything in particular? &mdash;Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Imperial_Emblem.svg|20px]] 00:54, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
 * The Interceptor is such a Star Wars icon, there has to be more that can be added to the history, I just need a good source.--MIS Tau 1 04:31, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Do you have The New Essential Guide to Vehicles and Vessels? &mdash;Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Imperial_Emblem.svg|20px]] 14:33, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I do, but it's not with me right now, should be recieving it in the mail soon. I used the original EGVV to do my last major edit. The history in the original is a little weak, I would like to get more substance. I just finished an edit on the TIE Avenger page, there were edits preceding mine that suggested SFS had competing teams during the T/A and T/I developement, that seems like a key point, but there's no reference to prove it.--MIS Tau 1 19:13, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
 * In the beginning of the article it says the TIE Interceptor could rival or surpass the A-wing in speed, the MGLT numbers do not support this and it seems likely it is a misconception created by the quote about the A-wing being able to match the TIE Interceptor in speed (not the other way around). So, until you can provide a canon source stating that it is faster or as fast as the A-wing, I will slightly re-word that part of the article.Nebulon B freak 18:33, 13 June 2008 (UTC)