Talk:TIE/sa bomber/Legends

Where does the max acceleration of 2380 G come from? That sounds like something from Curtis Saxton's ICS books, but those were prequel era and did not cover the TIEs. The max atmospheric speed of 850 km/h is ridiculously slow (less than Mach 1, and more than an order of magnitude slower than the atmospheric speeds of other starfighters shown in the ICS books), but sounds like something WEG would have came up with. Can you name your sources? I really doubt the authenticity of this information. JimRaynor55 04:00, 15 May 2005 (UTC) Thanks for the response. The info should stay up because it's official, but I must say that I'm disappointed in whoever wrote the NEGVV. The acceleration is great, and compares well to the numbers Saxton came up with. However, the atmospheric speed is still stuck in the Dark Ages of WEG. It just doesn't make sense. JimRaynor55 04:55, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Sorry it took so long to get back to you. The info comes from The New Essential Guide to Vehicles and Vessels.  It may not be the highest form of cannon, but it does supercede pure speculation. Shadowtrooper 02:08, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
 * I suppose we'd have to rationalize that, lacking shields, and being a rather unaerodynamic shape, the TIE craft must restrict themselves to ungodly slow speeds.--Eion 07:10, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
 * A problem with that idea though, is that TIE fighters were able to keep up with the Millennium Falcon without any trouble in the atmosphere of Bespin. -Vermilion 07:22, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Well, the MF was at a standstill, picking up Luke. I was going to make an argument about the MF's slow acceleration or unknown top speed, but we already have those from ANH, sigh. Yeah, it's a crap number.--Eion 07:31, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
 * You're all forgetting that the Falcon outflew a TIE Interceptor while the second Death Star was preparing to explode. That proves that both the Falcon as well as TIEs have decent, if not excellent speed capabilities.
 * They're talking about atmospheric flight, not space flight. They're totally different matters; there's no friction in space. – Aidje talk 22:05, 3 Sep 2005 (UTC)

Dupes
I'm just gonna assume it's the shape for now, since that's teh case with the others, but does anyone know for sure why they're called "dupes"? If it is a shape thing, I don't get it. CooperTFN 05:56, 10 Nov 2005 (UTC)

Capitalize?
Should we move this to "TIE Bomber"? Both the capitalized and uncapitalized versions are correct, but I think the TIE articles should be given titles with a consistent style. JimRaynor55 06:33, 5 Dec 2005 (UTC)
 * It really isn't neccisary. It's the TIE bomber, with or without the "B" capitalized. Admiral J. Nebulax 22:04, 5 Dec 2005 (UTC)
 * Although it's not critical, I think it should be moved for consistency's sake. Either way is okay, but we should use the same style for every TIE. JimRaynor55 22:58, 14 Jan 2006 (UTC)
 * I guess you're right. Admiral J. Nebulax 23:45, 14 Jan 2006 (UTC)

New picture, please
May someone find a picture of the model used in Empire Strikes Back as the official picture of the TIE Bomber on this page, (its common on the internet)? I think it is best to have an authentic picture of the model rather than a computer-generated picture. I have tried to upload the picture, but I am not sure how to get uploaded pictures into the page.
 * There is nothing wrong with this picture. It shows an accurate model of the craft. This image is completely fine. Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Implogo.jpg|20px]] 23:16, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
 * It looks ok, but the other TIE files in Wookiepedia all have pictures from the movies in them, and the picture I an recommending is common, looks better, and represents the art of Lucasfilm model makers who deserve credit, look at the Star Wars: Databank "TIE Bomber" section to see for yourself.
 * So? This picture shows a very good image of a TIE Bomber. There is no need to replace it at all. Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Implogo.jpg|20px]] 23:27, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
 * An image from the movie can be added into the article, yes, but the main image is perfectly fine. Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Implogo.jpg|20px]] 23:29, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
 * And yet you screw up the article... Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Implogo.jpg|20px]] 00:03, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
 * My apologies, I was only seeing if it looked o.k., I did not "screw up" the article. Trekkies screw up Star Wars articles with Kirk vs. Picard bull shit, I was comparing the revised article to the other ones and was wondering if anyone else could have the chance to voice their opinion on the new image on the discussion page.  I have placed the new image lower down on the page. Peace Admiral Nebulax!
 * "I was only seeing if it looked o.k.". That's what the "Show preview" button is for. Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Implogo.jpg|20px]] 00:14, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I commend you on your image choices on the other TIE sections. I do not wish to argue with you, your image is fine, and I accept your final decision but hope you leave a canon image on the page. You're right, I was being hasty, we should have a more democratic decision on this and other issues by consulting others on our decisions. In order to avoid other problems, I will post my potential images on the discussion page where you and others can review them before I post. Peace.
 * "but hope you leave a canon image on the page". That's what the first picture is. Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Implogo.jpg|20px]] 00:54, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Peace, buddy! Most of my canon information comes from the films. I didn't know where that computer-generated image came from, if it is canon, then its fine. Off-topic, I was talking with SillyDan over putting some banner over the X-Wing game article to warn of its misrepresentation of the Battle of Yavin and end non-canon information which states there was a battle with a frigate near the Death Star. What do you think of stopping X-Wing's misrepresentation of Star Wars canon on this site?
 * Well, most games do go against canon. The storyline is indeed canon, but the gameplay mainly goes against it. Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Implogo.jpg|20px]] 11:04, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

TIE/sa? Here we go again...
"TIE/sa" seems to be yet another fanon name (maybe from the non-canon SWG wiki). Can somebody provide a quote from a canon source?

- NobodyExpectsTheSpanishInquisition
 * Why do you think every name of a starfighter or ship is fanon? Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Implogo.jpg|20px]] 12:46, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, I think people should provide *canon* sources for their claims, rather than blindly copying fan sites like SWG wiki, Galactic Voyages etc. Or worse, inventing their own class names and designations. Don't you agree?       Anyway, I've never heard the name  "TIE/sa" before, so I checked my books, comics, and games. Unless it is mentioned in small print in some CCG card, I would say "TIE/sa" is fanon. Can you prove me wrong?  - NobodyExpectsTheSpanishInquisition