Forums > Senate Hall archive > SH Archive/Starship affiliation
  • Should we be more specific with starship affiliations? For instance, rather than associating a TIE fighter with the Galactic Empire, should we instead have them affiliated with the Imperial Navy?--Mitth'raw'nuruodo(Imperial HoloNet)Imperial Emblem 00:56, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Good idea. I like it. I've always associated things like that with the evil Empire but if you change it to the Imperial Navy, people will not think of it as evil but as a servant. 01:12, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
    • This is a serious forum sir...or mamn. Eitherway your comments are silly and counterproductive. I encourage any and all readers to ignore this person's comments.--Mitth'raw'nuruodo(Imperial HoloNet)Imperial Emblem 01:55, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

What? Missed a joke. Anyway, the specification sounds good. --Riridadaecho7007Solo 06:28, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

  • Not an inherently bad idea, but I worry about such ships as the Z-95 Headhunter, which were used by, like, a thousand factions! Gonk (Gonk!) 12:15, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
    • That isn't much different from what it is now. The only differnence would be that instead of Alliance to Restore the Republic, Galactic Republic, etc., you would have Alliance Fleet (or Navy?), Republic Navy, etc.--Mitth'raw'nuruodo(Imperial HoloNet)Imperial Emblem 17:26, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
      • I don't see the point really. It seems to me that it's given that any organisation's ships will be a part of it's fleet. IMHO, it just sounds like an extra job. Darth Xadún(Consult the Holocron) 07:50, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
        • Assumptions aside, it's a question of proper classification. Should we be specific with a ship's association?--Mitth'raw'nuruodo(Imperial HoloNet)Imperial Emblem 11:21, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Can I assume that we can go ahead with the classifications?--Mitth'raw'nuruodo(Imperial HoloNet)Imperial Emblem 18:54, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
    • I'm actually going to chime in against this idea, for the sole reason that many starfighters are used by multiple branches of a single faction's military. For example, the TIE/ln is used by the Imperial Navy and the Imperial Army, and it may even be used by other branches of the Imperial military. I think ultimately it might just confuse the matter. Doluk 22:14, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
      • Actually, the Tie/ln starfighter is only used by the Imperial Starfighter Corps.--Mitth'raw'nuruodo(Imperial HoloNet)Imperial Emblem 02:27, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
        • It is nowhere in canon stated that they are, exclusively. Graestan(Talk) 02:33, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
          • Just because it was not mentioned that it was not used by another branch doesn't mean that it was. Can we assume that because it isn't mentioned in canon that Star Destroyers are not used by the Imperial Stormtrooper Corps that they weren't only used by the Navy? We can't use absence of evidence as evidence.--Mitth'raw'nuruodo(Imperial HoloNet)Imperial Emblem 02:43, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
            TIE ejection

            This is Biggs ejecting from a TIE on a Rebel mission.

            • You can't say things like "the Tie/ln starfighter is only used by the Imperial Starfighter Corps" if there aren't canon statements that support it. Who's to say SFS didn't sell them to others, especially after Endor? They were dirt cheap and made of cardboard, so finding buyers may or may not have been difficult. But, at any rate, we don't sit around deciding what is and is not canon on our own on this website, and if you continue to proliferate your personal takes on everything, one of these days some admin will take exception and block you for it. So chill, brosky. Graestan(Talk) 02:47, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
              • AND I have it on authority that the New Republic used captured TIEs from captured Star Destroyers before and during the Yuuzhan Vong War. Graestan(Talk) 03:00, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
                • Moreover, I am very suspicious of the mere EXISTENCE of the alleged "Imperial Starfighter Corps" - in fact, I just slapped a fanon template on it. I've never seen any reference to it in canon more concrete than the meager evidence already presented on the article's talk page, and it almost certainly isn't it's own separate branch. Anyway, regardless of its existence, Alliance Intelligence Report: TIE Fighters (from Star Wars Adventure Journal 10) among others is quite explicit about the ships being in Imperial Navy hands, and I'm pretty sure some sources discuss it being in Imperial Army hands, as well. jSarek 04:12, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
                  • I stand corrected on the Imperial Army assertion - Army garrison TIEs, while attached to an Imperial Army base, are in fact a detached Imperial Navy unit, as described on page 104 of the Imperial Garrisons article in Star Wars Adventure Journal 12. jSarek 04:24, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
                    • Would the AJ12 article trump the Imperial Sourcebook? In the latter on pg 95, when discussing ground support wings of TIE fighters (including TIE/ln, amongst other TIE variants) it says "The Navy wanted to retain control of the TIEs, but the Army insisted upon its own starfighters". So now I don't know whether Army-operated TIEs should still be considered to be Navy units or not. Doluk 16:36, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
            • If anyone is getting jumpy, it's you Graestan. I have not made any attempts to say what is and is not canon. You simply use a lack of evidence to support your argument, to which I say that I can't take that seriously. If you want to sit there and make threats and make ridiculous speculation on what someone might do to me that's fine too: because there is no basis for it, since I have done nothing to provoke such actions, either from you or anyone else. If you are that against the issue of specific starship classification that you're willing to claim that I am trying to "proliferate [my] takes on everything", then I'll simply drop the topic altogether and move on, because I don't take myself seriously to the point of making outrageous claims and threats.--Mitth'raw'nuruodo(Imperial HoloNet)Imperial Emblem 18:04, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
              • Let's try and keep things calm, Thrawn, shall we? You're making mountains out of molehills when there's absolutely no need to, and you're treading the line in terms of Wookieepedia:Civilty. Ample reason not to enact your idea has been put forward, so can we please leave it at that? EDIT: got edit-conflicted by Greyman. -- AdmirableAckbar (Talk) 18:14, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Let me comment as an impartial viewer of this circus. Thrawn, contrary to what you say right above, you did say earlier in this thread, "Actually, the Tie/ln starfighter is only used by the Imperial Starfighter Corps." And that claim has so far had holes pokes in it by a number of users, so you can't really say "I have not made any attempts to say what is and is not canon." Because, even if it wasn't your intention, that's what you did and that's how it was perceived by others who were/are reading this thread. I'm just pointing out something here that struck me as odd, as a casual viewer of this thread (and any forum for that matter), and I'm in no way looking for a "war of words" with you Thrawn, or anyone. Like I said, just pointing out something I found odd. Past this, I probably won't comment again since these threads have a way of turning into a airship that goes down in flames. Greyman(Talk) 18:11, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
    • I simply stated that in the Empire, not the Galactic Alliance, etc., all TIE/ln fighters were used by the Starfighter Corps, just as Stormtroopers were part of the Stormtrooper Corps. I have in no way been uncivil, I have simply tried to seek clarity in why such heinous accusations and threats have been put against me. But as I said, I have already seen the consensus and I have in no way indicated that I wish to push the issue further. I wish Graestan all the best and I hope that he can come to understand my argument and motives, so he may dispel any ill-meaning thoughts he may have about me. I am simply looking out for what is best for the wiki, and I do not want to press my way of thinking on anyone.--Mitth'raw'nuruodo(Imperial HoloNet)Imperial Emblem 18:23, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
      • I'm afraid that original research and speculation—fanon, basically—doesn't fall under the category "what is best for the wiki." We have a very fine-tuned system in place on the wiki, which goes a little something like this: if canon doesn't explicitly state something, we don't explicitly state that it's canon. Best not to make things up that you haven't read specifically in the sources. I've been watching you on that slippery slope for some time, and I am going to let you know up front that we don't do things like that here, and eliminate it when we come across it. That's what I and the other experienced members of the wiki who have posted on this forum are attempting to reinforce. Graestan(Talk) 18:33, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
        • If you wish to feel that way, it's your perogative, fine with me. I don't see what can be gained by discrediting me however (the "experienced members" part).--Mitth'raw'nuruodo(Imperial HoloNet)Imperial Emblem 19:33, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
          • I'm actually far less concerned with what your standing, or mine, for that matter, is than you seem to think. I just don't want such statements to pervade—they mislead readers and other editors, and end up creating debacles down the road. Did you know that I used to think that Dace Diath, Qrrrl Toq, and Shoaneb Culu were Jedi Shadows? I drew this impression from the wiki, early on, in my reader days, only to find out much later that the article had been written based on pure speculation. That's exactly the kind of situation that this leads to. Graestan(Talk) 19:38, 28 June 2008 (UTC)