Just wondering, can't find anything anywhere. Did the D-7 have any shields? Avid Soyak 03:14, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

• The New Essential Guide to Vehicles and Vessels says the Δ-7 does have a shield system, and it automatically redistributes power to weaker sections. I'm not sure why that's not in this article. —Darth Culator (talk) 03:48, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
  • I thought it didn't have a shield system, which it why it's not in there. Admiral J. Nebulax ^(talk) 20:46, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
    • The Eta-2 doesn't have shields. But the NEGVV explicitly states that the Delta-7 has shields, and I'm pretty sure the RPG stats have a shield rating for it. I think it would be less confusing if the Databank had separate pages for the Actis and the Aethersprite. —Darth Culator (talk) 21:23, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
      • Agreed. Admiral J. Nebulax ^(talk) 22:57, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
  • I believe it definitely has a shield. Slave 1's lasers explode a good distance behind OB1, and they seem to explode at roughly the same distance, up until he gets hit directly.--Commander Mike 01:05, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Well, let's remember that they were in an asteroid field. The blasts most likely hit small asteroids flying around, and then Jango managed to hit Obi-Wan's fighter. Personally, I wouldn't use that as evidence for the claim that the Delta-7 had shields, although I too believe that the starfighter had shields. Admiral J. Nebulax ^{(Imperial Holovision)} 11:14, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

In the novel for Attack of the Clones, Jango and Boba Fett are looking down at the fighter's landing pad, and Jango's quizzing Boba on it. There, it's mentioned that the R3-T is the usual droid attached to the craft because "its speed is so great that pilots tend to shoot their noses off", and that the droid helps with targeting. That a R4-P was attached told him the pilot was more interested in navigation than targeting. Should this be added anywhere to the entry, or is it considered "non-canon"?

• That's interesting. That definitely should be added in. Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax ^{(Imperial Holovision)} 11:38, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Okay, I was wrong; it was the R3-D, not the R3-T. I fixed the link on the Delta-7 page to reflect the R3-D.

• No, but I would consider the fact that it has very clearly albeled shield generators in the AOTC ICS evidence. Lowkey 00:08, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Please don't post in the middle of a discussion. Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax ^{(Imperial Holovision) (Data file)} 00:11, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
• From the AOTC:ICS, the Delta-7 has a shield generator installed in the area behind the cockpit, with the "fin" being used to disperse energy absorbed by the shield and with forward and rear deflector shield-projectors built into the edge of the fighter. VT-16 21:50, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Yeah, I checked it out before. Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax ^{(Imperial Holovision) (Data file)} 01:10, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Contents 1 Rogue Squadron 3 2 12,000 K/PH ! 3 Fight Mode??? 4 Picutre 5 Image change 6 Minor edit 7 Price 8 4 lasers? 9 Rebel Strike Delta-7 10 Is a toy really canon?

Rogue Squadron 3Edit

• Did the game say that the seismic charges were a modification? There's no mention of them on the Delta-7 in the AOTC ICS or any other source, and we shouldn't list modifications in the main info box. Also, were they launched in the game, or dropped like bombs? JimRaynor55 00:02, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
  • It's probably a modification. I'm removing it. Admiral J. Nebulax ^(talk) 00:06, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Well in the movie we see them being "dropped" behind Slave 1 yet in RS3 we see them being launched like a missle. Call it a homage to the movie and consider it a modification Phillowe88 00:11, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
    • No, Slave I used those. Admiral J. Nebulax ^(talk) 00:12, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
      • It's been a while since i saw the movie but I don't recall the charges being forard-launched like a missle or bomb. Did Slave 1 have a forward launcher? Phillowe88 00:20, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
        • I suggest you watch Attack of the Clones again. You'll see. Plus, the Delta-7 is too small to carry those kinds of weapons. Admiral J. Nebulax ^(talk) 00:22, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

The Slave 1 used rear launched Krupx Void 7 seismic charges.Master Halcyon

• Please don't restart old topics. Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax ^{(Imperial Holovision)} 20:18, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
  • I don't think the "modified" versions should be in the info box, unless the modified version is common. Any ship can have just about any kind of modification, and a couple modified ships don't represent the rest of the class. At most I think the article should have a couple sentences saying that some of these fighters were modified to carry seismic charges or bombs (as seen in the first episode of the Clone Wars cartoon). JimRaynor55 23:07, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Good point. Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax ^{(Imperial Holovision)} 00:37, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

12,000 K/PH ! Edit

I'm wondering about the top speed of the Delta-7 being that high. In The New Essential Guide to Vehicles & Vessels it says that The [Sharp Spiral] has a top speed of 8,000 K/PH. Why would it say that it was one of the fastest Atmoshpic craft in the Jedi fleet. Any reasons why it would say this if any Delta-7 outclassed it by 4,000 K/PH? Master Halcyon

• Many prequel trilogy vessels' speeds are faster compared to those of the original trilogy. And if a source says it, it's canon. Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax ^{(Imperial Holovision)} 23:48, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with that, but the Sharp Spiral is Sanasse Tinn's personal Cutlass-9 Class Patol Fighter.

• And your point is? Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax ^{(Imperial Holovision)} 15:25, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Don't you think that that fast a ship would have so much drag it would tear itself apart? Master Halcyon

• I don't argue with canon. Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax ^{(Imperial Holovision)} 23:01, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
• The only reason prequel fighters are faster than OT fighters, is because LFL finally figured out basing stats solely on RPG material where SW fighters are presented as slower than most modern-day fighters, was a silly idea.

"have so much drag it would tear itself apart?"

Then they'd never get out into space as quick as they do. Either materials are better or they have low-effect shields to aid them. VT-16 18:09, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

• It is Star Wars, after all. Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax ^{(Imperial Holovision)} 19:34, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree with them being faster than modern day fighters, but no other dhip comes close. They use repulsers to get into space, and even Podracer engines, which are bigger, and only reach a maximum of about 1000.

• Yeah, but regardless of what's slower but should be faster, canon is canon. Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax ^{(Imperial Holovision)} 20:18, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

This I have to say is sooo much faster than the X-Wing or TIE Fighters. 12times faster!! I would understand this if it were a more modern design, but the X-Wing predates it by 20+ years!80.33.138.137 14:45, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Don't know why someone took it upon themselves to change the top speed of the Delta-7 based on what some Campaign Guide says. I wasn't aware that the Complete Cross Sections speed was overriden by an RPG manual. Canon is canon, they can both be true due to the fact that ships can shape their shields to go faster, if they have them. Needless to say, the speed given by the RPGs is also governed by game rules.Vymer 05:07, January 22, 2010 (UTC)

I changed the speed listed (as well as the price) to match those listed in Starships of the Galaxy (Saga Edition) - a 2007 book and the most recent official source for specifications on the Delta-7. The previous editor had quoted the figures from The Clone Wars Campaign Guide which actually detail the "high-speed" variant, and not the standard Delta-7 model. As for "some Campaign Guide" overruling other sources... yes, it happens all the time. Cross-Section books are no more official than RPG books. And RPG stats for things like a ship's velocity, the number of crew to operate, passengers carried, etc., are generally not tweaked for game purposes; they are almost always official statistics. Unfortunately, until the Cross-Section book's listing for the ship's speed is officially declared incorrect (as it clearly should be), the shaky and (I believe) unofficial explanation between speed discrepancy will have to suffice. But for my money, the official maximum velocity in atmosphere for the Delta-7 is 1,150 km/h. Elrood 04:02, March 23, 2010 (UTC)

Fight Mode???Edit

This is from Full of Surprises, it shows Obi-Wan's Jedi Starfighter in Fight mode ???!!!! Should it be added to the article? Themelle444 16:13, 9 August 2006 (UTC) fight mode regular flaps

• Note that it was from Toys 'R' Us. They probably had no clue that the "fight mode" wasn't actually a feature of the Delta-7. Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax ^{(Imperial Holovision)} 20:24, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
• It was, this image is from one page before the Fight Mode panel Themelle444 21:02, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
• Look at the ridiculous amount of guns on it, too. I doubt it's canon. — Aiddat ^{(Holonet) (Contribs Log)} 22:07, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
  • It's just because the toy is like that. Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax ^{(Imperial Holovision)} 22:09, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
    • so what we gonna say, canon or not, i doubt it to be honest...bloody toys Jedi Dude 22:24, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
      • I say non-canon. Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax ^{(Imperial Holovision)} 22:27, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
        • thank god, so its not going in the article? or BTS maybe ?Jedi Dude 22:28, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
          • Behind the scenes. I'm surprised it's not there already. Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax ^{(Imperial Holovision)} 22:29, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
            • Actually the comic is produced by Dark Horse, and is fully canon...notice the mention of extra "four quad-pulse laser cannons" by Saesee Tiin in The New Essential Guide to Vehicles and Vessels...FOUR QUAD's...that equals 16 individual cannons...I'd say that accounts for all of the ones seen in that picture, although obviously they'd be of lesser power. —Jaymach Ral'Tir (talk) 16:51, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
• What about this flaps on the wings of the fighter. Is that canon too? Themelle444 17:08, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
  • The comic may be produced by Dark Horse, but this was based off the Hasbro toy. Dark Horse didn't create that. Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax ^{(Imperial Holovision)} 19:40, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
    • But nevertheless, it's canon because of its inclusion in said comic. Note this comic is from the same line from which we get Most Precious Weapon, whose depiction of a young Dooku adorns his page as a canonical image - Kwenn 19:41, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
      • Since when are toys canon? It's based off of a toy model. Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax ^{(Imperial Holovision)} 19:43, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
        • Granted. But the comic in which it appears in that form is canon. Besides, we do in fact have canonical toys; Utapau Shadow Trooper, Gungan assault cannon to name two - Kwenn 19:44, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
          • But this form of the Delta-7 has to be impossible. And just because the comic shows it like that doesn't make it canon; Dark Horse simply based it off of the toy. Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax ^{(Imperial Holovision)} 19:48, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
            • How is it impossible? It's shown in the comic. Just because you don't believe it could happen doesn't suddenly revoke its canon status - Kwenn 19:49, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
              • Exactly: Shown in the comic. That's the only place this has ever been shown. If Delta-7s had this feature, why wasn't this used by anyone in the Clone Wars? The toy model was out by then for the creators of the mirco-series to use. Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax ^{(Imperial Holovision)} 19:53, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
                • Now I'm not saying that it can't be a simple modification to one Delta-7. I'm saying that this probably isn't a feature on every Delta-7. Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax ^{(Imperial Holovision)} 19:55, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
                  • I wasn't saying it should be. However, you were saying it wasn't canon, which it is. It just depends in which capacity this model is used. Probably similar to the TIE prototypes that never saw mass production due to high expenses - Kwenn 19:57, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
                    • I'm saying it's non-canon simply because of this: Since when are toys on the canon scale? Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax ^{(Imperial Holovision)} 19:59, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
                      • Since they appear in comics. The toy isn't the issue here - Kwenn 20:00, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
                        • So going by that, the alledged Plo Koon without his mask is automatically canon? Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax ^{(Imperial Holovision)} 20:01, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
                          • Possibly. It's from a canon source. I haven't read it myself, so I can't comment on it - Kwenn 20:03, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
                            • So, if that's "Possibly", this is also possibly canon. Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax ^{(Imperial Holovision)} 20:03, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
                              • It's a "possibly" because I myself don't have a context for the Plo Koon image. I didn't mean it's ambigiously canon regardless - Kwenn 20:06, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
                                • Still, it is unknown if Koon really looked like that. And since they came from the same comic line... Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax ^{(Imperial Holovision)} 20:08, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
                                  • Also, I'd like to say what is in the text boxes in the third Delta-7 image in this topic: "What happens next...? With Slave I, the Jedi starfighter, and your imagination, the possibilities are endless! The Force is in your hands." Now does that seem like a canonical in-universe comic? Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax ^{(Imperial Holovision)} 20:26, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
                                    • The comic depicts a perfectly canon event: Obi-Wan is on his way to Albecus, gets attacked by Slave I (pre-Ep II), and manages to fight him off, with Jango fleeing into hyperspace. It then advertises the toy, by saying "with your imagination", anything can happen next. The same as when it says at the end of all the Marvel comics things like "Next issue: The Hand of the Empire!"...it's simply advertisement that doesn't make the comic any less canon. Additionally, it's entirely possible that the image of Plo Koon unmasked is perfectly canon. His species can't breath oxygen, I know, but we've already seen from KoTOR2 that Jedi can create "bubbles" of atmosphere which is different from the surrounding room...so either he could have done that, simply not breathed in the very brief time he's in that comic (we also know that Jedi don't need to breath for quite some time), or any other myriad of possibilities. Also, action figures themselves are fully licensed by Lucas Licensing thus, if they have any accompanying text, then they are considered canon. For example, the "rocket jetpack" Boba Fett figure is canon, and is referenced in the History of the Mandalorians article in Insider, the Shadow Troopers were referenced in What's the Story and now in the databank, etc. Despite this, even if they weren't, Dark Horse comics are fully canon unless specifically stated to be non-canon. This comic is not any different from any other, and as I said before there's even the mention in The Essential Guide to Vehicles and Vessels of the Delta-7's being upgraded by Tiin to house more weapons. "Tiin increased the starfighter's firepower by adding four quad-pulse laser cannons. The weapons remain concealed behind breakaway panels until they are absolutely necessary." Thus, even if the comic wasn't canon (which, I'm sorry to tell you, it is), The Essential Guide very much is. —Jaymach Ral'Tir (talk) 21:49, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
                                      • Oh well. Go ahead and add something in the article, then. Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax ^{(Imperial Holovision)} 00:29, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
• Or you can just add it to the BTS section. Themelle444 09:06, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Unfortunately, the majority says it's canon. Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax ^{(Imperial Holovision)} 11:47, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
• Since this comic shows the "fight mode", it would rank higher than a toy. VT-16 17:40, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  • VT, that's already been stated above. Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax ^{(Imperial Holovision)} 20:40, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
    • I couldn't read it properly because the images were messing up the format. It's fixed now. VT-16 21:39, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
      • Oh. Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax ^{(Imperial Holovision)} 00:48, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Picutre Edit

Shouldn't the main article picture use the one of Plo Koon's fighter? Just wondering because that is an official LFL image, whereas the main pic at the moment is a fairly poor drawing. Darth Windu

• The picture in use is an official LFL image though. -- I need a name (Complain here) 14:01, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
  • The main picture is from The New Essential Guide to Vehicles and Vessels, and it's not that bad. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax ^{(Imperial Holovision)} 14:02, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Well we'll have to agree to disagree on the quality of that picture. Simple fact is though that we're comparing a drawing in a book to a 3D model created by ILM and uses in Revenge of the Sith. If the picture hadn't already been changed, there really should be no question which one should occupy the main pic position. Darth Windu
      • Well, that's just your opinion. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax ^{(Imperial Holovision)} 21:49, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Image change Edit

Here we go. Basically, what I want to know is, why the current image is a crappy screenshot of Obi-Wan's fighter being chased by Slave I, when there is a superior alternative available (i.e. a picture from the NEGVV). I've tried changing it, but it just gets reverted. Can someone tell me why? I would appreciate it. Thanks! Unit 8311 13:29, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

UPDATE: Oh, hang on. I've just suddenly noticed that there's almost an exact same topic above. Oh, well. That one doesn't provide a good explanation anyway. Unit 8311 13:31, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

• And FYI: I gave an explanation in my edit summary. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax ^{(Imperial Holovision)} 21:21, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Well, yes, but 'your edits had been reverted previously' is not the best explanation in the world, is it? Unit 8311 08:21, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Because someone else already gave a reason when they reverted it. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax ^{(Imperial Holovision)} 12:16, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
      • Main image should be of the film...yeah, but there are plenty of other articles with main infobox pictures that are not from the film. Unit 8311 16:47, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
        • And they should all be changed also...please tell me which articles so that I can change them myself. —Jaymach Ral'Tir (talk) 16:52, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
          • But Jaymach, not all images from the film are of higher quality. And besides, for some articles that concern things from the EU, there are no images from the fims. And are you implying that it has suddenly become Wookieepedia policy to have every single infobox image from the film? Unit 8311 17:46, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
            • When they're in a film, yes. These TNEGtVaV images are horrible. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax ^{(Imperial Holovision)} 20:51, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
              • That's your opinion, Jack. Personally, I think they're good, but there you go. I remember seeing somewhere that images on Wookieepedia are supposed to be informative, rather than dramatic. And, if I may voice my opinions, I think that many film images are horrible. Especially the current one on the article. Too brown. Yuck. Unit 8311 21:00, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
                • I have a mixed opinion on the NEGtVaV images. I think most of them are good, including the Delta-7.--Lord Oblivion^{Sith holocron} 21:05, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
                  • Thank you, Lord Oblivion! At least one person agrees with me. Unit 8311 21:14, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
                    • The current policy is the use the latest images (IU-wise) from the films for any articles which can use film pictures. If no film pictures are available, or if they're simply a background character in the movie (ala Quinlan Vos) then an EU picture gets used instead. —Jaymach Ral'Tir (talk) 22:32, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
                      • Unit 8311, I hope you know that just because one person agrees with you doesn't mean that the image gets changed. It comes down to quality, and the film image is of a much better quality. No opinion there. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax ^{(Imperial Holovision)} 22:50, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
                        • Not necesserily. I'd say they were more or less of the same quality. But come on. Loads of major pages have non-film images. I never saw the image from the Grievous page being in the film, for starters. And if I absolutely cannot under any circumstances change the images, could somebody at least crop the current image to make the Delta-7 in the picture more prominent? Or maybe find a better film image? Unit 8311 12:01, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
                          • The new Grievous image, while not in the movie exactly, is based off the actual Grievous in the movie. One could easily say it's a picture of Grievous's head from the movie with the background taken out. The same cannot be said for the obviously not-from-the-film TNEGtVaV images. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax ^{(Imperial Holovision)} 14:43, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
                            • Jack, please try to understand. I'm under the impression that images on Wookieepedia are supposed to be informative. If I'm wrong, please correct me. The NEGVV images, whilst not always the superior alternative, that I'll admit, are sometimes the most informative. If I really cannot change the Delta-7 image, then, like I said above, could someone alter it to make it better? Oh, and here's a quote I found on the Grievous talk page: The main image should be chosen on the grounds of informativeness. Unit 8311 20:29, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
                              • The TNEGtVaV images are just as informative as ones from the film. I don't even know how an image can be informative. It doesn't make sense. And just because one person said that does not make it a policy. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax ^{(Imperial Holovision)} 20:37, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
                                • Images are informative as they actually show an object or whatever. You wouldn't know how, say, the Empire State Building looked like without an image. That's how its informative. And, er, And just because one person said that does make it a policy...so that means that if one person says, that makes it a policy? Great! Soon we'll have vandals dictating Wookieepedia policy! Unit 8311 20:52, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
                                  • One can gather information from an image, therefore images are informative.--Lord Oblivion^{Sith holocron} 21:08, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
                                    • But that would make a film image just as informative as a TNEGtVaV image. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax ^{(Imperial Holovision)} 00:47, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
                                      • No, because NEGVV images sometimes reveal more of a craft than film images, and do not have unneccessary, distracting backgrounds. Like I said, I would accept the current film image, if only it was trimmed down to get rid of that horrible brown background and the unnecessary Slave I, focusing on the Delta-7. Unit 8311 09:58, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
                                        • I agree to the trimming, but most of the TNEGtVaV images don't reveal more of the craft than what is seen elsewhere. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax ^{(Imperial Holovision)} 13:45, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
                                          • Well, in some cases, but in this case the image focuses solely on the fighter. Unit 8311 16:58, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
                                            • And once trimmed, so will the film image. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax ^{(Imperial Holovision)} 21:01, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
                                              • So can somebody trim it and settle this tedious debate? Unit 8311 13:46, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
                                                • I will, but not at the moment. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax ^{(Imperial Holovision)} 21:07, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
• This is retarded, the profile picture of an article should try to avoid exterior fluff as much as possible. Why is it important to have film shots only if they are worse in some cases than official drawings? VT-16 12:13, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Drawings are worse than official images, VT. The current main image can be easily cropped. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax ^{(Imperial Holovision)} 12:16, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
    • THERE! I've cropped the infobox image so it just shows the Delta-7. Now stop changing it to the NEGVV image people! - JMAS 13:00, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
      • Finally. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax ^{(Imperial Holovision)} 21:04, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
        • Could we perhaps cut out the explosion? Grand Admiral J. Nebulax ^{(Imperial Holovision)} 01:40, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
    • That drawing is an official image. VT-16 01:16, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
      • But the current one is more official. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax ^{(Imperial Holovision)} 01:32, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
        • Brilliant! Exactly what I had in mind. Thanks, JMAS! Unit 8311 16:41, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
          • The image is a little shorter than I expected, but nonetheless better. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax ^{(Imperial Holovision)} 20:11, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Minor editEdit

I swapped Obi-Wan's rank in the first paragraph from 'Master' to 'Knight', as the chase after Jango in AOTC happened well before he became a Master during the Clone Wars. - Indy Gold 01:33, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

• You don't need to explain every edit on the talk page, you know. That's why we have edit summaries. —Grand Admiral J. Nebulax ^{(Imperial Holovision)} 11:10, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Oh. Well, hurray; less typing for me, then. XD - Indy Gold 15:26, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Price Edit

I have a question purely hypothetical of course, but what do you think the price range is for one of these things. I put this question on a few pages all ready so just to let everyone know that I'm not spamming or anything like that. 216.26.216.168 15:46, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

• The Delta-7 is priced in the Roleplaying Game Revised Core Rulebook at 180,000 credits new, 145,000 used. jSarek 20:43, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
  • The price in the Clone Wars Campaign Guide is 385,000 Credits new, 290,000 used. Skypopper^(Talk) 14:17, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
    • But that is for the "high-speed" varient of the Delta-7. Starships of the Galaxy (Saga Edition) gives the info you need, and I updated the main page to reflect this. Elrood 04:07, March 23, 2010 (UTC)

4 lasers? Edit

Doesn't it say in The New Essential Guide to Vehicles and Vessels that this starfighter had 4 laser cannons not two? There are two more lasers right under the two visible lasers on top I think. Also, in some the comic book on the Battle of Kamino, a Jedi starfighter hit Merai's Shark, his starfighter with like multiple lasers. The Jedi starfighter was quick at firing lasers I guess, but there were so many that there were probably 4 laser cannons instead of 2 laser cannons being used. Is the information on the New Essential Guide wrong, or is it true? Cyfiero 05:20, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

• That's right in AOTC:ICS it has 4 lasers as well, it should be changed.Lieutenant J.J 04:54, 22 October 2008 (UTC)Lieutenant J.J
  • It shouldn't be changed at all. The current page says it has two dual laser cannons. That's two times two. —Jaymach Ral'Tir (talk) 05:53, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
    • Yeah, (lol) I figured that out a long time ago. Cyfiero 07:31, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Rebel Strike Delta-7 Edit

It is inferred in Rebel Strike that Obi Wan's Delta-7 was left behind on Geonosis, allowing it to be found by Wedge Antilles later.--Logan Felipe 21:49, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Is a toy really canon? Edit

Does anybody think that we should take down the image of Adi's fighter with like 16 laser cannons on it? I know that a toy was made with panels that snap off with more laser cannons underneath, and I know that the image came from a comic, but are toys really canon? Skypopper^(Talk) 14:13, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

• Why wouldn't they be? -- I need a name (Complain here) 18:47, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
  • If they contradict the original source, of course they wouldn't be. Alternatively, isn't a play feature like a game mechanic? 12seraph 05:14, November 18, 2011 (UTC)
    • Obviously, firing "laser projectiles" advertised on action vehicles would not be considered canon. The scale distortion for some vehicles (i.e. Hasbro's most recent Millennium Falcon regarding cockpit to hull ratio) would not be canon. Some design parameters also would not be canon (i.e. said Falcon's internal layout for 3-1/4 sized action figures vs. West End Games recorded layout from the sourcebook). However, toys, models, miniatures from RPGs and TCGs, still have canon elements. Particularly to flavor text and lore found on the boxes and packaging such merchandise is sealed in. To learn more on what works and what doesn't, read the Wookieepedia:Canon policy which follows Lucas Licensing's philosophy on continuity. Gethralkin^Hyperwave 08:05, November 18, 2011 (UTC)