Talk: RZ-1 A-wing interceptor/Archive1

Back to page |
< Talk:RZ-1 A-wing interceptor

This page is an archive of the discussion of an article. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's current talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.

Page History

  • 22:53, Mar 5, 2005 LtNOWIS m (fixed link)
  • 09:27, Feb 12, 2005 67.171.180.209
  • 05:48, Feb 12, 2005 60.34.17.202 (ja:)
  • 21:15, Dec 12, 2004 Jrquinlisk
  • 15:36, Nov 19, 2004 209.153.143.56
  • 03:20, Oct 19, 2004 B-101
  • 12:43, Aug 30, 2004 Kevyn m (Fixed link to Jan Dodonna)
  • 03:00, Aug 19, 2004 Oberiko m (iLinks)
  • 19:35, Aug 18, 2004 Grunt m
  • 19:35, Aug 18, 2004 Grunt m
  • 14:37, Jun 10, 2004 Oberiko m
  • 23:29, Jun 4, 2004 Morwen (Category:Star Wars craft)
  • 17:09, Mar 8, 2004 65.77.72.7
  • 07:31, Feb 19, 2004 Ike m (2 spelling corrections.)
  • 13:27, Nov 22, 2003 66.44.109.158
  • 17:07, Jul 4, 2003 Kchishol1970 m
  • 22:22, Nov 17, 2002 Lir
  • 22:05, Nov 17, 2002 Kchishol1970
  • 08:55, Sep 4, 2002 Brion VIBBER m (link starfighter, dogfight)
  • 16:12, Apr 28, 2002 Maveric149 m (from / page)

Name

As per other discussions, "RZ-1 A-Wing"? --SparqMan 20:40, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Orphaned pages

Check the orphaned pages for some of that equipment. Esplin 03:51, 5 Jan 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure we need all the red-links. With most of them the only thing the page will say would be "a component on the A-wing". YIIMM 07:32, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

  • True. The other starfighter articles don't have that section; I say just get rid of it. Admiral J. Nebulax (talk) 21:53, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

I'll do that now then. YIIMM 21:57, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

9.6 meters long?

Really?

Wow. Look at the pilot's head through that canopy. I didn't know all the A-Wing pilots were 12 feet tall.

That 9.6m length (and the derived width and height values) have to be fallacies started by licensees, somewhat along the lines of the Executor being a paltry 8000m long. The good people at Star Wars Deckplans Alliance have what are likely more accurate sizes at 4.6m long, 3m wide and 1.64m tall.

  • The X-wing Alliance Upgrade also determined a different size, putting it about 6 meters (if I recall correctly). I've been thinking about putting a "behind the scenes" section about the different size analyses, but questioning the holy word of WEG always causes edit wars. Darth Culator 02:37, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
    • If there's a canon size, it's a canon size, even if it messes something up. Unless there's a source that gives a more logical length, that is the canonical length, I'm afraid. Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) 20px 11:21, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
      • And the canon size would stay in the infobox and the main body of the article, we'd just have a BTS section mentioning the existence of alternative ideas about the issue. I don't see any harm in that. Darth Culator 11:29, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
        • I'd been wondering aboutt his myself, as I've seen this exact topic discussed somewhere on stardestroyer.net when someone had done scaling and come to about 4.5-5m length. And this would be a canon length since it's supported by RotJ itself. At the very least it's worth mentioning in the BTS. On the topic of a 4.6m A-Wing, that's freakishly tiny, considering they've crammed in 6 concussion missiles, a hyperdrive and some modicum of shielding. But being hand constructed and the like, I suppose it's a work of art.Orpheus 12:17, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
          • Haha, I've thought about bringing this issue up as well. I think this should be addressed in the BTS section, and have the canon 9,6m in the infobox.
            • I agree. Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) 20px 19:05, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
              • I would like to thank you for pointing out my work on the A-Wing at the SWDA Gallery site. I spent about 2 years painstakingly analyzing all source images I could find of the A wing. I strongly disagree with the indication that the A wing is 9.6 metres long. There are other ships that suffer this type of arbitrary determination of ship size. If you are interested in other projects that we are doing at the SWDA, please see our SWDA Forums, I am the Administrator there. We have an expanding resource section, where we are collecting all images and stats from all the Star Wars ships and vehicles, and there are several works in progress at the moment.--The Other Lucas 16:23, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
            • I think this is a pretty important issue here, since this site is dedicated to providing as accurate information as possible on SW issues. Couldn't we do the alternate A-wing length like we did with the Home One? Have the film scales in "( )" next to the publizised one and explaining why in the Bts section. I also remembered how these publications that first showcased stats, were RPG sourcebooks and therefore the stats were subject to game mechanics. Basically the reason why OT fighter-speeds are so ridiculously slow (even being surpassed by rl fighters). VT-16 09:37, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
              • Uh...I could swear I removed the length of 3,800 meters for the Home One in the infobox. We're fine with having that kind of thing in the Behind the scenes sections, but they should deffinately not appear anywhere in the articles, as we're meant to be a site dedicated to providing canon information. Yes, the films show things at different lengths sometime if they're measured, but no we don't use them unless they're stated in a fully canon source. —Jaymach Ral'Tir (talk) 10:04, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
                • Well, let's measure the A-wing and put the length we get in the Behind the scenes section and wait for a more accurate and canonical length. Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) 20px 12:59, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
                • And I put it back, next to the 1200m mark. It's nice that you're trying to incorporate second-hand material as much as possible, but if there's a contradiction with G-canon, then I'm sorry, the C-canon source has to take second place. It's as simple as that. The majority of shots in the film showed it being much bigger than 1200m, and that can't be removed from the main article (I consider only having it in the bts section as copping out). That's a slippery slope we go on, if things from the movies keep getting marginalized and trivialized like that. That's not how official canon works. You could have 100 novels describing Yoda's yellow skin and it would never change the fact that it's green. Luke's hair could be described as black, and yet, with no reference to its color in the films themselves, we must assume it's blonde. I've never heard anyone argue that. VT-16 14:20, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Basically, you're using several filmatic mistakes to somehow claim that most of the scenes with the Home One are just giant mistakes from day one? That any length which might or might not have appeared in one scene of the same film, gets higher priority? Why is the assumption that Mark Hamill's haircolor during a shot=Luke's haircolor, ok, but the assumption that the Home One's length in a film=/=the length stated in a RPG book written about it, is somehow not ok?

Why the double standard? Because that's what it boils down to, we're using different standards for different things in the same films. Boba Fett's helmet visor-thingy switches sides=understandable flipping-mistake, but Home One's length=something not seen in the very same film, only written about in a book, and the majority of shots were unintentional? VT-16 19:12, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

  • As an aside, the width and height sizes were calculated by me using the skematics from Essential Guide and based on the canon length. --SparqMan 19:22, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Ok, been fiddling with the numbers here and using a sideview taken from a model-shoot, you'd have to contradict the official size of the Lambda-class shuttle, to be able to fit it through the hangar opening on the starboard side, if that thing was 1200 meter long. I know no solid length has been measured perfectly, but the 1200 m length contradicts another size, from the same source. So what's it going to be? VT-16 20:33, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Well, we definitely have to get a canon length. What does it say about the A-wing's length in The New Essential Guide to Vehicles and Vessels? Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) 20px 20:42, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
      • I'm starting to think we need a "canon information, but not accurate" tag somewhere. And I say "not accurate" instead of "debatable", because the latter implies there is actual justification for nonsensical info, like the A-wing being so much bigger than its movie-appearance, that either all its pilots were giants (not documented anywhere), or the official number is simply wrong.
Here's a pic gone through by me, from the Behind the Magic multimedia CDROM. The ratio between the ship's length and the hangar's height is 78.5:1. [1]
If the Home One was 1200m long, the opening would be 15,3m tall. The same books that profiled the Home One, also profiled the Lambda-class, which they described as 20m tall. See the mess here? And in the film, the shuttle has good clearance between the upper and lower side, so the opening is therefore bigger than the Lambda shuttle's height. VT-16 21:05, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Why does everything have to be screwed up... You know, the guys over at Lucasfilm should just start from the beginning again when it comes to lengths and heights. Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) 20px 23:51, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

how did half of this entire section change from awings to home one and besides i thought u all agreed that the scaleing was off bcuz u all were so dead set that the executor was far bigger than it was said to be so there is definetly differences in lengths (Boommer3 00:23, 3 September 2006 (UTC))

the new Essential guide to vehicles and vessels have so many errors in them it's not even funny, it's actually rather disturbing. the Cross Sections books on the other hand, in particular the Complete Cross sections book has the A-wing appear to be in the range of just over 4 meters long, and they have the pilot crammed in there like a formula 1 race car.

  • After just completing a 1/72 scale model A-Wing (Not the Fantastic Plastic one but coincidentally the same size, so they must have come to the same conclusion)and having done extensive research based mostly on the ship size compared to the pilot on the film prop as well as the hanger matte painting and cockpit interior view I came to the conclusion it's actually supposed to be 6.9m and someone just got the numbers back to front. Made at this size it looks spot on in relation to the prop, it's not too crazily small like the 4/4.5m suggestion and it looks right next to the Fine Molds models in the same scale.

While we're discussing the A-wing's size...

How in the world do they fit a navcomp (even a limited one) in there? I can understand the B-wing having its own unit, but the A-wing's pretty claustrophobic. Jwebb1340px 23:30, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Reverted

Why was the last edit reverted?

It doesn't even mention the relation between the speed of the TIE interceptor and the A-wing--Herbsewell 19:23, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Mercenary A-Wing

I Think some where in this Article we should mention this Model thats Seen in Star Wars Galaxies

Image

Erk! Who put the current main image in? It has a strange pinkish tinge to it, and if I'm not mistaken the exact same image is somewhere else in the article...Unit 8311 08:14, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Incom or Koensayr?

The article here lists the 'standardised' A-wing Mark II as being produced by Incom, while the Wikipedia article puts the standardised manufacture under Koensayr. Is there a reason for this discrepancy (say through different references using different sources, possibly explainable by both companies producing A-wings) or is one or the other just plain wrong? Draxynnic 04:07, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Revenge of the Sith cross sections??????

How is Revenge of the Sith: Incredible Cross Sections a source?--The All-knowing Sith'ari 20:04, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

  • could contain a reference while discussing the Eta-2 Actis-class light interceptor or an editor could've mentioned something to do with the Alpha/Delta/Eta series while editing this article and included some facts that needed to be referenced by it. Tutos Lumenarious 10:55, 1 June 2007 (UTC)