http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Category:Rebel_Alliance_starfighter_squadrons

Looking at this list, I have found some other awkward names. Alphabet is not the worst ( but not far IMO)

I feel that the names that are too closely related to an earth only concept are not great because it goes against our vision of the universe.

Gavial, panther, griffon... For animals and beasts.

Other terms like " Pyrrich victory", or other that are referring to something of real history/geography.

So alphabet, in starwars, could be OK, but I know the galaxy speak mostly basic, using Aurebesh. So I am confused.

So don't say starwars fans are insane just because they are consistent. 40 years of fandom cannot be ignored in just 4 years.

God I can't imagine caring this much about a title.

http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/High_Galactic

As for them using Roman letters for things like X and Y wings, there is this. This was created as an explanation as for why there are Roman letters in the Star Wars universe. Originally I thought it was EU only but they seem to have used in in new canon as well.

6 hours ago, Captain Lackwit said:

God I can't imagine caring this much about a title.

I mean, it's a terrible title and should never have gotten the stamp of approval through the story group, but yeah...

• The fact is, in universe we've heard X-Wing class fighter on screen in ESB.
• Modern era books and EU have noted the other fighters by name.
• The fact that they do not resemble the aurebesh lettering convention is a non-factor in how the fighters were named
• "alphabet" to symbolize the mixed nature of fighter types is not entirely inaccurate. Terrible, but not wrong.

3 hours ago, LagJanson said:

I mean, it's a terrible title and should never have gotten the stamp of approval through the story group, but yeah...

• The fact is, in universe we've heard X-Wing class fighter on screen in ESB.
• Modern era books and EU have noted the other fighters by name.
• The fact that they do not resemble the aurebesh lettering convention is a non-factor in how the fighters were named
• "alphabet" to symbolize the mixed nature of fighter types is not entirely inaccurate. Terrible, but not wrong.

So why is it so bad then?

14 minutes ago, Captain Lackwit said:

So why is it so bad then?

And this is a great question.

The title is supposed to draw attention, interest and be connected to the story itself, of course. In this, Alphabet Squadron is apparently a GREAT title. Like, the best title! Wonderful, even!

The downside to it is that it can cause the misunderstanding with certain readers and cause the disconnect that we're seeing. Further, Alphabet Squadron hardly sounds heroic at first take, so those looking for a strong and powerful name to get behind are finding themselves at a loss and start wishing for stories they had in the past (Rogue, Wraith) and don't have today. So while the title does it's job of describing, it's probably smacking the disenchanted Star Wars fans with another opportunity to rail against the injustice on how their childhood icon is being treated. This will discourage the number of readers, despite the book getting more recognition.

So while descriptively not incorrect, I stand by my opinion that it's a bad title.

That said, this is my opinion and titles are an art form in itself. Just because I say it's terrible, doesn't make it so for everybody.

9 minutes ago, LagJanson said:

Further, Alphabet Squadron hardly sounds heroic at first take,

Honestly, it sounds like a children's book, just from the title.

A is for A-Wings, fast and light

B is for B-Wings in all their might!

C is for Corellia where ships are made

D for TIE Defenders that hit and fade

...

39 minutes ago, Captain Lackwit said:

So why is it so bad then?

It sounds like a book meant to teach 4 year old children letters.

It would sound terrible even if it didn't already have the precedence of the badass sounding Rogue Squadron weighing down on it.

Edit: Oh wow, @JJ48 the timing of that...

2 minutes ago, GuacCousteau said:

It sounds like a book meant to teach 4 year old children letters.

That being said, I would definitely buy such a book for my nieces and nephews.

21 hours ago, CaptainIxidor said:

I saw this. I think the author made an oversight by saying the U-Wing's only function is as a troop carrier. You can put an Electronic Warfare group on the U-Wing to help co-ordinate the battle similar to modern AWACS. So despite not having the same speed as the faster fighters, the U-Wing can still contribute something to the battlespace other than as troop carrier.

That's my only nitpick, the rest of the video was fairly spot-on. It's still a logistical nightmare compared to having 2 Xs or 2 As, 2 Ys or 2 Bs.

I'm getting a very "Dirty Dozen"-feel to the concept though, you're bringing in a diverse group of specialists for an objective. So if nothing else the book will demonstrate what a Y-Wing brings that a B-Wing doesn't and vice versa. Same for a X-wing versus an A-wing.

22 hours ago, CaptainIxidor said:

I am curious if there has been a mention of the term "Aurebesh" or any of the aurebesh character names in the Legends material or the current Star Wars canon? If the term X-Wing is written out in universe it uses the Aurebesh lettering but it is still referred as an X-Wing and not a Xesh-Wing.

1 hour ago, joeshmoe554 said:

I am curious if there has been a mention of the term "Aurebesh" or any of the aurebesh character names in the Legends material or the current Star Wars canon? If the term X-Wing is written out in universe it uses the Aurebesh lettering but it is still referred as an X-Wing and not a Xesh-Wing.

Aurebesh has been seen a bunch in canon, most recently on the hitch point sign on the train in Solo, but I don't think it or any of its letter names have ever been referred to on screen.

http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/High_Galactic_alphabet

Droids and Ships are named in High Galactic.

9 minutes ago, thespaceinvader said:

Aurebesh has been seen a bunch in canon, most recently on the hitch point sign on the train in Solo, but I don't think it or any of its letter names have ever been referred to on screen.

It's also on the Resistance flight vests (written upside down and reading "Pull to Inflate" or something).

The sad thing is that Aurebesh didn't even appear in the Original Trilogy until the Special Editions; originally it was the visually similar Basic alphabet, but WEG just grabbed a few characters off the screen and made the rest up for the d6 RPG. AFAIK no one has ever reproduced the complete Basic as it appeared prior to the SE.

Aurebesh is used everywhere in Star Wars from the movies and TV Shows to video games like The Old Republic or Galaxy of Heroes. The characters are definitely prolific in Canon and Legends now, but I was curious if the term "Aurebesh" and the names of the characters were still relegated to fan use or if that had appeared in canon sources. Would the term Alphabet Squadron make sense, if nobody in the Star Wars universe actually uses the term "Aurebesh".

I also wonder about some of the more uncommon characters in that alphabet like thesh or shen that I don't recall ever seeing in any canon sources, but that is probably best suited to a different thread.

On 10/9/2018 at 3:59 AM, dadocollin said:

They're getting hammered on Facebook for the title. Intense debate over whether the word "alphabet" exists in the SW universe.

Actually that was my first reaction too. That title really bothers me.

No E-Wings?

They should be a general rule: "Anything that sounds like it might have a Earth origin (Roman/Greek Letters, various animals, terms that only have meaning in an Earth historical context) has it's origins in Pre-Republic Human Culture and the precise origins have been lost to time." That would end a lot of these arguments.

10 hours ago, GuacCousteau said:

It sounds like a book meant to teach 4 year old children letters.

It would sound terrible even if it didn't already have the precedence of the badass sounding Rogue Squadron weighing down on it.

Edit: Oh wow, @JJ48 the timing of that...

Not every squadron is Rogue Squadron. Also I can't believe you associate the alphabet with childhood.

10 hours ago, LagJanson said:

And this is a great question.

The title is supposed to draw attention, interest and be connected to the story itself, of course. In this, Alphabet Squadron is apparently a GREAT title. Like, the best title! Wonderful, even!

The downside to it is that it can cause the misunderstanding with certain readers and cause the disconnect that we're seeing. Further, Alphabet Squadron hardly sounds heroic at first take, so those looking for a strong and powerful name to get behind are finding themselves at a loss and start wishing for stories they had in the past (Rogue, Wraith) and don't have today. So while the title does it's job of describing, it's probably smacking the disenchanted Star Wars fans with another opportunity to rail against the injustice on how their childhood icon is being treated. This will discourage the number of readers, despite the book getting more recognition.

So while descriptively not incorrect, I stand by my opinion that it's a bad title.

That said, this is my opinion and titles are an art form in itself. Just because I say it's terrible, doesn't make it so for everybody.

Not every squadron is Rogue Squadron.

Besides, they don't sound heroic at first. Okay, neither does Rogue, Wraith, Red, Blue or Gold. The first two imply being the opposite more or less, the rest are colors.

I dunno' dude it just doesn't seem like a huge deal. Besides, there are only so many cool names to use.

Eventually you're gonna' land on a story about Chuba Squadron.

2 minutes ago, Captain Lackwit said:

Not every squadron is Rogue Squadron.


Besides, they don't sound heroic at first. Okay, neither does Rogue, Wraith, Red, Blue or Gold. The first two imply being the opposite more or less, the rest are colors.

I dunno' dude it just doesn't seem like a huge deal. Besides, there are only so many cool names to use.

 Eventually you're gonna' land on a story about Chuba Squadron.

Indeed. If you recall, I'm the one who noted not to judge a book by its cover.

I'm not putting down the story. I'm quite neutral in this whole thing. I believe people are overreacting, but I can see some reason for disappointment if I look.

1 hour ago, LagJanson said:

Indeed. If you recall, I'm the one who noted not to judge a book by its cover.

I'm not putting down the story. I'm quite neutral in this whole thing. I believe people are overreacting, but I can see some reason for disappointment if I look.

Is anyone putting down the story yet? Just because I'm looking forward to the book doesn't mean I can't have fun with the title. (Though I still wonder about what sounds like it'll be a single squadron with such vastly different ships.)

1 hour ago, LagJanson said:

Indeed. If you recall, I'm the one who noted not to judge a book by its cover.

I'm not putting down the story. I'm quite neutral in this whole thing. I believe people are overreacting, but I can see some reason for disappointment if I look.

Well, that's pretty fair.

Regardless, I’m still gonna read this book. Sounds like it could be exciting.

Speaking of which what are people’s opinions about Twilight Company? I’ve only read Freed’s adaptation of Rogue One which I thought was decent.

15 minutes ago, Wraithdt said:

Regardless, I’m still gonna read this book. Sounds like it could be exciting.

Speaking of which what are people’s opinions about Twilight Company? I’ve only read Freed’s adaptation of Rogue One which I thought was decent.

Twilight Company? Did we really need a book about sparkly vampires and werewolves fighting the Empire?

On 10/8/2018 at 9:59 AM, dadocollin said:

They're getting hammered on Facebook for the title. Intense debate over whether the word "alphabet" exists in the SW universe.

Should be "Aurebesh" Squadron