This is the talk page for the article "TIE/D Defender." This space is used for discussion relating to changes to the article, not for a discussion about the topic in question. Please remember to stay civil and sign all of your comments with four tildes (~~~~). Click here to start a new topic. This talk page has archives. 1

TIE/D Defender is a featured article, which means it has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wookieepedia community. If you see a way this page can be updated or improved without compromising previous work, please feel free to contribute.

This article was showcased on Wookieepedia's Main Page from 12 May to 18 May 2008.

This featured article was showcased on Wookieepedia's Main Page from May 21, 2012 to May 27, 2012.

Maneuverability??? Edit

Why is this fighter's maneuverability not listed??? Frank V Bonura STAR WARS Deckplans Alliance Founder 04:53, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

• Because the infobox didn't have a field for it. Now it does. Green Tentacle ^(Talk) 21:03, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Particle Shielding and Shadows of Mindor Edit

Okay, I know that Stover wrote the TIE Defenders as not having particle shielding, and it was essential to his story, but I think the article should mention how pretty much every other appearance of TIE Defenders, whether in the games or in Isard's Revenger, or every guide or RPG book that has the TIE Defender in it, the TIE Defender has shields that include ray and particle. I'm not here to bash Stover, but he did essentially get this wrong. --TIEDefenderPilot 04:22, November 12, 2009 (UTC)

Shielding (SBD rated too much) Edit

The shield measurement SBD was introduced by the X-wing computer game series. The 200 SBD originates to the second game of the series: TIE Fighter. It was revised to 100 SBD in the newest installment: X-Wing Alliance, but does not seem to be updated on this page... I understand if there are a lot of fans for this vessel, who want it to stay this powerful, but shouldn't the article - especially since it is a featured one - stay as canon as possible? --Deep Thought 42 (talk) 18:13, November 21, 2012 (UTC)

• You may want to take that up with the person who renominated it: Green tentacle. MasterFred^(Whatever) 18:17, November 21, 2012 (UTC)
  • Actually it's like that because it's not very clear. TIE Fighter says 200 SBD, X-Wing Alliance says 100 SBD, TIE Fighter: The Official Strategy Guide says "Forward/Rear projecting Novaldex Shields (rated at 100 SBD)" so seems to agree with XWA, but The Essential Guide to Vehicles and Vessels and Fact File 73 say it has a pair of shield generators. Given the difference between the two games I guess I took it at the time (and since it was five years ago I can't really remember) that each generator is 100 SBD, giving 200 SBD combined. Looking at other fighters in those games it does seem high, but I'm really not sure either way. Green Tentacle ^(Talk) 20:50, November 21, 2012 (UTC)
    • Oh ha - did not even think to compare the generator count - nice find! But it seems the Novaldex Shields are not all rated 100 SBD, since the Delta DX-9 seems to have "Forward/Rear projecting shield" but is rated 125 SBD: so counting the generators may not be a good way to compare the starships power... Each other media, known by me, using SBD ratings are more or less just game-manuals for the older games of the X-wing series - maybe good written and with a story arc but still especially produced for the older video games. Since Alliance is the successor of TIE-Fighter and X-Wing I would really like to see those shield and hull ratings updated to this last installment of the series. # compared with other starfighters the 200 SBD rating really seems a bit high. # the hull rating (20 RU) seems to be off as well --> XWA: 14 RU. # the TIE Avenger is outdated, as well. (Since XvT it was rated 40 SBD and 14 RU). Even thought video game measurement systems arent a big deal for the overall Star Wars canon, I do belive we should always use those of the newest games, unless these games aren't canon in the first place.--Deep Thought 42 (talk) 23:41, November 21, 2012 (UTC)
    • Any opinions? I still think we should change it... --Deep Thought 42 (talk) 13:51, December 6, 2012 (UTC)