Talk: Z-85 Headhunter

Back to page
Wiki-shrinkable

This is the talk page for the article "Z-85 Headhunter."

This space is used for discussion relating to changes to the article, not for discussing the topic in question. For general questions about the article's topic, please visit Wookieepedia Discussions. Please remember to stay civil and sign all of your comments with four tildes (~~~~). Click here to start a new topic.

WP-TCW

"This point forward, we are entering uncharted territory."

Z-85 Headhunter is within the scope of WookieeProject: The Clone Wars, an effort to develop comprehensive and detailed articles with topics originating in or related to the Star Wars: The Clone Wars television series, the related television series Star Wars: The Bad Batch and Tales, and related multimedia.
If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this notice or visit our project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.

Name

There is no actual source that refers to the fighter as a Z-85. These were a two engine variation of the Z-95 just like. This is not a canon article. —Unsigned comment by Ozzy667 (talk • contribs)

  • The episode guide on Starwars.com does identify the fighters as Z-85. See the slideshow. 1358 (Talk) 23:38, October 29, 2011 (UTC)
  • IT may also be possible that it is a typo, as prior to that refference it has been refered to in all press releases prior to the season as a Z-95, if they try to call it a prototype of the Z-95, that would be incredulous, as the Z-95 was released a decade prior to the clone wars —Unsigned comment by 66.229.172.207 (talk • contribs)
    • That COULD be possible, but we can't assume that. Knowing TCW's habit of destroying canon, this is probably intentional. 1358 (Talk) 19:34, November 3, 2011 (UTC)
      • I sure hope not, since the Z-95 has been in the Star wars universe since 1979, in its current look nearly as long, and in just about every major PC star wars game in the GCW era since the beginning including x-wing, tie fight, x-wing alliance, EAW/FOC, SW jedi starfighter, TFU 2, Galatic battlegrounds, SW jedi knight jedi starfighter, and SW Galaxies, and a ton of literature. —Unsigned comment by 66.229.172.207 (talk • contribs)
        • @User:1358, I saw the slideshow but saw nothing that contains the word Z-85, but only identified as Clone Headhunter starfighter. --Julian.lee.38 12:28, November 10, 2011 (UTC)
          • Indeed, starwars.com seems to have done something to the caption…as it looked like this before. 1358 (Talk) 12:55, November 10, 2011 (UTC)
  • I believe the terms we're fumbling for here is that an error has been corrected. As such, this article needs to be moved and all references to "Z-85"s need to be removed. DD97Which bear is best? 04:39, November 11, 2011 (UTC)
    • Merge taken care of. CC7567 (talk) 06:27, November 11, 2011 (UTC)
      • They removed "Z-85" from the episode guide, not replace it with "Z-95". There's no indication the TCW ship is intended to be a Z-95. -- I need a name (Complain here) 15:15, November 11, 2011 (UTC)
        • What evidence is there that this is a non-Z-95 type of Headhunter? If the "Z-85" gaffe had never happened, there likely never would have been a separate article set up at all, much less this discussion. DD97Which bear is best? 18:27, November 11, 2011 (UTC)
          • What evidence is there that this is a Z-95 Headhunter? If we use the "It's called a Headhunter and bares a superficial resemblance to the Z-95" logic, we might as well merge the Venator-class Star Destroyer article to the Imperial-class Star Destroyer one. After all, they're both big, triangular ships called Star Destroyers. -- I need a name (Complain here) 18:39, November 11, 2011 (UTC)
            • Your logic is flawed, the Venator and Imperial have distinct, measured characteristics (including names). It's important to note that there are a number of Z-95 variants who don't yet have visual depictions, allowing for a marriage of existing designation with the new visual design. And while it's firmly established that there are a number of widely varying types of ships that fall under the catch-all term "star destroyer", there are exactly 0.0 starfighters called "Headhunters" that are not Z-95s. To advocate such an extraordinary precedent would require extraordinary evidence, of which there is presently none. Indeed, the quiet retraction on sw.com's part can be used as evidence that they are Z-95s, and LucasFilm is trying to subtly eliminate the erstwhile disparity. DD97Which bear is best? 18:52, November 11, 2011 (UTC)
              • "Your logic is flawed, the Venator and Imperial have distinct, measured characteristics (including names)." No, man, A New Hope clearly establishes that Star Destroyers are Imperial-class. Since no other kind of Star Destroyer could possibly ever exist, anything that purports to be a Star Destroyer is an Imperial-class.
                "It's important to note that there are a number of Z-95 variants who don't yet have visual depictions, allowing for a marriage of existing designation with the new visual design." Cool. No doubt you have a source which identifies the TCW Headhunter as being one of them, correct?
                "And while it's firmly established that there are a number of widely varying types of ships that fall under the catch-all term "star destroyer", there are exactly 0.0 starfighters called "Headhunters" that are not Z-95s." Nice try. You're basically saying "There are no Headhunters other than the Z-95 (such as this ship, which is a Z-95), therefore this ship is a Z-95". I can do that too: There are Headhunters other than the Z-95 (such as this ship, which isn't a Z-95), therefore this ship isn't a Z-95.
                "To advocate such an extraordinary precedent would require extraordinary evidence, of which there is presently none." Number of times it's been referred to as something other than a Z-95: 1. Number of times it's been referred to as a Z-95: 0. That should be sufficient enough.
                "Indeed, the quiet retraction on sw.com's part can be used as evidence that they are Z-95s, and LucasFilm is trying to subtly eliminate the erstwhile disparity." Actually, the quiet retraction can be used as evidence that the name "Z-85 Headhunter" was simply too rad and that people wouldn't be able to handle the sucker punch of pure awesome that the name represents. LucasFilm didn't want to draw attention to the removal because they knew that no mere mortal is worthy of gazing upon such a glorious name.
                So, now that we've established that your claim that this is a Z-95 is based on nothing but bad logic, let's see if you can prove me wrong by providing a source that refers to this ship as being a Z-95. The source must be from before 00:15, November 12, 2011 (UTC), just in case you try using some future source to try and retroactively prove yourself right. -- I need a name (Complain here) 00:15, November 12, 2011 (UTC)

In spite of all the earlier disagreements, StarWars.com was kind enough to give us an Encyclopedia entry for the Z-95, which clarifies that it's the one seen in the Umbara story arc. CC7567 (talk) 07:42, November 12, 2011 (UTC)

  • Actually, the Encyclopedia entry confirms that the TCW Z-95 is yet another variant, just not known as the Z-85. I'll create a new article for the variant. CC7567 (talk) 07:49, November 12, 2011 (UTC)

Z-85 image

I tried to upload an image of Z-85s escorting an Acclamator from "Darkness on Umbara", but couldn't due to my edit count.

from here: http://www.starwars.com/explore/the-clone-wars/ep407/#!/media/slideshow

Can someone do it for me? It's the first image.

--WTRiker 07:15, November 1, 2011 (UTC)