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)

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)

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)