Talk:X-wing fighter

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Talk:X-wing)
Jump to: navigation, search
Former good article nominee X-wing fighter was a good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
October 21, 2007 Good article nominee Not listed
WikiProject Star Wars (Rated B-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Star Wars, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Star Wars saga on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Edits by AdamWill[edit]

Stuff on my edits - X-Wing is an all purpose craft, it can carry out bombing missions (hence photon torpedo capability). A-Wing and Z-95 are the Alliance's dedicated fighters. I think the S-foil stuff is right.

Could the Rogue Squadron stuff not go on, uhm, the Rogue Squadron page? :)


I would tend to agree, I'll move that over if no one objects. --Brion

Incom defection[edit]

Can anyone confirm about the Incom defection? I vaguely remember it being described in the role-playing game sourcebook (which I don't have on me), but I don't know if it's consistent with the continuity in the various books, games, etc. (Certainly the movies never bother to discuss the matter!) --Brion

Never mind, the description at mentions it. --Brion
The essential guide to vehicles and vessels supports the Incom defection claim. -Lt. NOWIS
The Incom team that developed the T-65 defected to the Alliance. However, the Incom corporation as a whole did NOT defect. Refrence the Essential Guide to Vehicles and Vessels along with the Encyclopedia entry to verify the veracity of these statements.--Txredcoat 22:19, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Real aircraft?[edit]

I thought the X-wing was a real aircraft - a helicopter which can stop its rotor and use it as wings. -phma

You mean this one? Three guesses what it was named after. :) --Brion 20:39 Sep 4, 2002 (PDT)
The page on the aircraft says that plane/helicopter "may have" been named after the fictional fighter, but probably not. This is inconsistent with this article. How can we resolve this inconsistency? Willy Logan 05:29, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

X-wing vs. Z-95 Headhunter[edit]

The X-Wing is primarily a space superiority fighter with a secondary attack tasking (like the F-15 Eagle or F-16 Fighting Falcon). The Z-95 Headhunter is an aging and outdated craft that the Alliance only uses when they can't get X-Wings around.

Iceberg3k 06:29, Mar 28, 2004 (UTC)

Essential Guide to Vehicle and Vessels as source[edit]

NEVER use the Essential Guide to Vehicles and Vessels as a reference, it frequently gets details wrong (ie the Star Destroyer sensor domes being described as shields, Corvette drawings etc). Also the Incom defection is an Expanded Universe myth, there is no evidence to support it and it contradicts the movies. It was clearly designed during the clone wars as the ARC 170 seems to be derived from the Xwing, not the other way around. The EU claim even contradicts other EU sources like in the Rogue Squadron comics where Corran Horn flew an Xwing while working for Corsec. --WarHawk

Dude, the domes are shields. In VI the super star destroyer's domes are taken out causing the weapons officer to say "They've destroyed the bridge deflectors" 02:07, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
No, the line is "We've lost our bridge deflector shield!" Nothing indicates that the loss of the dome was the cause of this. It is far more likely that the shields going down enabled the A-wings to destroy the dome, not the other way around. Rogue 9 20:28, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
Then why would Lucas show the dome being destroyed the exact moment before the bridge officer says "Sir, we've lost our bridge deflector shield!"? It doesn't make sense, movie wise, to do this. In a real battle, yes, I could see that destroying the dome as a sensor would be an objective, but when you have the dome being destroyed in tandem with the line, then you get the idea that the dome housed the bridge deflector shield generator. --Stopher717 23:54, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
In every source I recall the domes house the shields. I believe in Rebel Assault you have to destroy a Star Destroyer's shield domes before being able to torpedo the bridge.Some guy 21:43, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
This is also the case in the X-Wing computer game. Please cite a source in which they are stated to be sensor domes and not shield generators. --HunterZ 18:17, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
They're right. They do house the bridge deflector shield generators. Therefore, destroying them (and they are both destroyed) causes the shields to fail. Just check Star Wars: Incredible Cross-sections for Pete's sake. --Doncroft 15:16, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
By the way, the Incom defection could still have happened. The officials would still have to leave the Empire to go to the Alliance so the time line of how and when the X-wing came about has no relevance.

Fighter vs. Bomber[edit]

At the time when the X-Wing saw it's greatest use (During the Galactic Civil war and the New Republic Era), the X-Wing was a fighter aircraft. I do not recall reading anywhere that the X-Wing had a "Bombing" capability (Proton Torpedoes are more of a 'missile' rather than a bomb). It is my opinion that the Y-Wing was used as the "Bomber" type spacecraft. I will consult my technical manuals and get back with some hard evidence on this.--Txredcoat 22:17, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)


The X-Wing clearly has deflector shields. Yet the shield entry for the ship data is N/A.

Should we use "Rated 50 SBD" for the shields stat? Isn't that a system from an RPG or a computer game or something? Is it canonical? --egoldber

First of all, no, a computer game is NOT canonical. If you really want to get into a debate on that, go to the message boards on and find the thread that is dedicated to that issue. Second of all, what is the SBD system? I have never heard of it, so if anyone would be kind enough to give me a quick explanation, that would be greatly appreciated. --Stopher717 23:56, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Image alternate text[edit]

Isn't the alternate text for the picture a little long? In Opera the image frame is wider than a 1024*768 screen, with images off.

Incom T-65B[edit]

Where does "Incom T-65B" come from? Should an expanded universe term which isnt used in the movies be put in the opening sentence? -- Astrokey44|talk 23:53, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Referring to the X-Wing as an "Incom T-65" is indeed in the movies. I do not remember where, however; does anybody else?--Longestpants (talk) 22:10, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

ChaseX and StealthX[edit]

What does everyone thing about adding a heading concerning different models such as the StealthX and ChaseX? -Skope 19:11, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Those articles are so small that they almost ought to be merged into the main X-Wing article. --HunterZ 18:19, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Where does the term "S-foil" come from?[edit]

Does the S mean anything? And how do you compare the term in use for the real world? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:10, Jul 9, 2006 (UTC)

I always assumed it meant "strike foil" or "stabilizer foil". I think the term "strike foil" might be used in one of the films. – Mipadi 12:28, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
S in S-foils stands for stabilizers. The X-Wing opens its S-foils in combat for better firing area and STABILITY during manuveurs (misspelled). Can't remember where I got this information, but I am absolutely certain it is correct. Someone will have to source me on this. --Doncroft 15:09, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
Stability? In vacuum??? -- wr (talk) 11:35, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
I know I'm violating WP:NOTFORUM by replying to this, but yes, there's such a thing as angular momentum. Having wider placed thrusters does, in fact, give better leverage for controling spin. i kan reed (talk) 21:13, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Fiction issues[edit]

I noticed this mentioned on wikien-l, and added the notice. The article currently has major problems with distinguishing fact and fiction, and places no emphasis on fact while placing complete emphasis on fiction. Apart from a single sentence ("... part of the fictional Star Wars universe."), and parts of the trivia section, the article treats the X-wing as a craft which exists, and treats everything about it as fact, without mentioning any real facts. For example, it was obviously not designed by the Incom Corporation, which doesn't exist. The entire article has this tone tone, and needs to be changed. Who actually designed it? Is there some history of its actual usage and changes throughout the films and other media that could be included? As noted on wikien-l, Red_Dwarf_ships is a good example of an article on a similar topic. While every sentence does not need to note that it is fictitious, and individual sentences can certainly have the tone that is here, there needs to be emphasis on the real world to break up the fictional information, so that the article sounds like an article from a real encyclopedia, not an article from an encyclopedia that is in Star Wars itself. --Philosophus T 21:03, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh please, everyone knows that Star Wars is a fictional universe, but based on the premise about a fictional universe the things said about the X-wing are facts. That's the beauty of it. For instance, Darth Vader is over 2 meters in height. No, not David Prowse (all due respects to the excellent job he did) but Darth Vader. Even though Darth Vader is a fictional character, it is still a FACT that he is over 2 meters tall. It's not that confusing to grasp. Wouldn't you agree? --Doncroft 15:14, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
Man take it easy. I am sure that if someone is searching info about X-wing he will know that it is fictional. Finally in article it is mentioned that it is in FICTIONAL Star Wars Uniwerse Don banan 17:09, 29 October 2006 (UTC)


Would it be too much to ask for at least an attempt for this article to meet the guidelines at WP:RS and WP:V? The entire article is completely unsourced. --ElaragirlTalk|Count 09:04, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

  • I'm working on compiling a sourced and externally verifiable rewrite of this article at User:Saberwyn/X-wing. Any sources or material that can provided would be appreciated. -- saberwyn 07:26, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Troop Capacity[edit]

Shouldent Troop capacity be "none" or "nil" instead of "pilot"? A pilot really isent a soldier in that sence Basejumper123 21:44, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Failed GA[edit]

Overall, I believe this article is fine, but small things nag at me. I'm sure there could be more interesting info worked into the overview, for one. Give some examples, maybe mention how in the EU, the X Wing is still the main starfighter of the Galactic Alliance even after 30-ish years since ANH. As well, the article mentions they were supposed to be more traditional looking than the TIE Fighters. I'd like to maybe have a small explanation of what that means. It's rather ambiguous to me, and I like to believe I know a fair bit about Star Wars. What will Sheila, who knows nothing about SW, think?

I also don't really like the "Cultural Impact" section. It's a one line mention of an X Wing mockup on display at a museum. That's all anyone could think of? Jesus, how many times has Family Guy alone made fun of Star Wars? There has to be at least one X Wing in there somewhere. Please, I beg you, flesh that puppy out with things that are references to the X Wing, other non-SW media it's appeared in, etc.

Overall, I feel this article is pretty decent. It's informative, but it feels not-so-depthy to me. Make some improvements and renominate this sucker. Howa0082 05:39, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Userspace rewrite[edit]

A couple of months ago, I began a massive rewrite of this article in my userspace (at User:Saberwyn/X-wing). Unfortunately, due to other commitments and projects, I have never been able to finish it, so I'm throwing it to the masses.

If anyone wants to take the text that is in my userspace, find some material to fill in the gaps and link it all together, then put it in the article, please do so. The Making of Star Wars: The Definitive Story Behind the Original Film by J.W. Rinzler has some excellent material, but I haven't been able to access a copy for long enough to use it. The Making of Star Wars, Return of the Jedi by John Phillip Peecher (editor), Once upon a Galaxy: a journal of the making of Star Wars The Empire Strikes Back by Alan Arnold, and The Star Wars Vault by Stephen J. Sansweet may also have useful material... I've never seen these works so I wouldn't know.

Please, bring life to this creation! -- saberwyn 22:47, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Cultural Impact?[edit]

Under "Cultural Impact," this article states: "In 2007, the San Diego Tripoli Rocket Association built and launched a 23-foot-long X-wing model propelled by four rockets, which exploded seconds after launch." Really? What cultural significance does this have? If NASA built an X-wing, yes, that would be an example of cultural impact, but this - hardly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 12:32, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Reverted move[edit]

I've reverted the move to X-Wing Fighter for a variety of reasons: simplest name seems appropriate, lowercase 'w' is consistent with style used in licensed media, "fighter" adjective is superfluous. Consider this an invitation to WP:BRD. --EEMIV (talk) 05:04, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

The move has been restored, and I see I missed a message on my talk page asking for additional comment despite my post here. Here's my response:
  • "X-Wing" with the capitalized W is just inappropriate: none of the material in- or (licensed) out-of-universe capitalizes the letter in any of the _-wing names. The exception is in the X-Wing series of flight sims, where the shift makes sense as title case.
  • Re. the "fighter" bit at the end: it's merely superfluous. The articles about e.g. the F-14, F/A-18 and F-35, to name a few, eschew "fighter" or "fighter-bomber" or "interceptor" or whatever role label is appropriate for those craft.
--EEMIV (talk) 04:46, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
Returning to this discussion on the Wikiproject page at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Star_Wars#Name_consistency. --EEMIV (talk) 17:26, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on X-wing fighter. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:31, 21 July 2016 (UTC)