Forum:TC:Walkers

Forums > Trash compactor archive > TC:Walkers

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or, if the page was deleted, in the Senate Hall rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was No consensus for Unidentified All Terrain Armored Transport, delete Unidentified All Terrain Scout Transport (Hoth). Imperators II(Talk) 08:48, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

Unidentified All Terrain Armored Transport (talk - history - links - logs - delete - protect)

Nothing notable this walker in canon, it having a name in Legends doesn't have any impact on canon Lewisr (talk) 00:24, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Delete

  1. Lewisr (talk) 00:24, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
  2. Yeah, let's not. Role in bringing Luke to Vader can easily be covered on the relevant vehicle model, character, and event articles. OOM 224 00:27, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
  3. JediMasterMacaroni(Talk) 00:38, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
  4. Loqiical (talk) 00:48, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
  5. Imperators II(Talk) 13:36, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
    How is its role in delivering Skywalker and having a known officer aboard significant exactly? Sources also specify that there is supposed to be a commander aboard an AT-AT, so that point is rather moot. Erebus Chronus (Talk) 17:01, 3 January 2023 (UTC) (Vote struck, reason: Per policy: Blocked user -- OOM 224 22:29, 9 January 2023 (UTC))
  6. UberSoldat93 ClanMudhornSignet-Redemption (talk) 18:58, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
  7. Samonic Signatureicon (Talk) 19:01, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
  8. I don't think we have an article for the walker tripped by Ewok logs and I'm not sure how this is any more notable than that. - Thannus (DFaceG) (he/him) (talk) 23:55, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
  9. I'm very much pro-notability with multiple sources, but this is just a tool. It is indistinguishable from any other on the moon. Corellian PremierRogue SquadronMTFBWY 02:00, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
  10. ThrawnChiss7 (talk) 15:02, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
  11. Asithol (talk) 23:16, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
  12. —spookywillowwtalk 20:43, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
  13. Rakhsh (talk) 23:07, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
  14. NanoLuukeCloning Facility 22:49, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Keep

  1. I would say it bringing Luke to Vader would be notable enough because it indirectly leads to the chain of events that starts in the Emperor's throne room aboard the Death Star.Jaster Fett (talk) 00:27, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
    I don't see how that makes this vehicle notable, it would have happened if they took him to Vader on any other vehicle Lewisr (talk) 00:37, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
  2. Role aside, it's got a named officer on board. Braha'tok enthusiast Hello there 00:30, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
    Can you explain how that makes the AT-AT notable exactly? If it had been stated to be the personal walker of said named officer then maybe, but all we know it did was take them from one place to another, hardly notable actions Lewisr (talk) 00:37, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
  3. Bringing Luke to Vader is significant imo Manoof (he/him/his) RainbowRebellion2 01:08, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
  4. Per above, not major but still significant enough to the plot to warrant an article. Rsand 30 (talk) 01:16, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
  5. Major plot significance VergenceScatter (talk) 02:11, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
    Agreed, this is leading to a major plot twist in Star Wars, which is the redemption of Vader and the death of Palpatine.Jaster Fett (talk) 18:45, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
    As Lewisr points out, the plot twist would have happened with or without this walker, since once Luke surrendered, Igar would have found some way to transport him. The above argument is akin to saying the breakfast Luke ate that morning is notable, because that's what kept him from being too weak with hunger to fight Vader. Not everything leading to a notable event is in itself notable. Asithol (talk) 23:16, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
  6. GalacticRepublicEmblem-Traced-TORkit Winterz (talk) 14:10, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
  7. <-Omicron(Leave a message at the BEEP!) 14:15, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
  8. Fan26 (Talk) 19:07, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
    Rarely do I vote in TCs, but I believe this article to be notable. Jade Moonstroller (talk) 00:43, 4 January 2023 (UTC) (Vote struck, reason: Per policy: Blocked user -- OOM 224 22:29, 9 January 2023 (UTC))
  9. --Vitus InfinitusTalk 00:49, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
  10. LucaRoR Sigil of House Serenno (Talk) 08:35, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
  11. JMAS Jolly Trooper Hey, it's me! 23:26, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
  12. Dentface (talk) 01:48, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Comments

  • WEGCite-Icon "The Capture of Luke Skywalker" — Galaxy Guide 5: Return of the Jedi is a Legends story that reveals Luke was transferred between 2 walkers before being brought to Vader. Ergo the first walker, unnamed, has no article. Just making a note, as maybe that walker should, but seems precedent as not meeting notability guidelines. Hanzo Hasashi (talk) 18:57, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
    • That has no relevance here, as no such thing has been established in canon Lewisr (talk) 18:58, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
      • Maybe my message wasn't clear, but I was writing it seems there's already precedent that an AT-AT that captures Luke on Endor before he's brought to Vader isn't notable without a name. Hanzo Hasashi (talk) 19:00, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
        • Unless it was in a prior vote then there isn't really precedent to fall back on, it could just have not been made for any other reason Lewisr (talk) 19:04, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Unidentified All Terrain Scout Transport (Hoth) (history - links - logs - delete - protect)

Same as above, but even less notability for this particular walker Lewisr (talk) 00:24, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Delete

  1. Lewisr (talk) 00:24, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
  2. OOM 224 00:27, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
  3. JediMasterMacaroni(Talk) 00:38, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
  4. Loqiical (talk) 00:48, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
  5. Rsand 30 (talk) 01:00, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
    Manoof (he/him/his) RainbowRebellion2 01:08, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
  6. VergenceScatter (talk) 02:12, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
  7. Imperators II(Talk) 13:36, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
  8. GalacticRepublicEmblem-Traced-TORkit Winterz (talk) 14:10, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
  9. <-Omicron(Leave a message at the BEEP!) 14:15, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
  10. UberSoldat93 ClanMudhornSignet-Redemption (talk) 18:59, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
  11. Hanzo Hasashi (talk) 18:59, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
  12. Samonic Signatureicon (Talk) 19:01, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
  13. This one always interested me as a kid Fan26 (Talk) 19:12, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
  14. It was funny just seeing a random AT-ST on Hoth but it isn't anywhere near notable. It's just walking in the background. - Thannus (DFaceG) (he/him) (talk) 23:56, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
  15. Corellian PremierRogue SquadronMTFBWY 02:00, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
  16. LucaRoR Sigil of House Serenno (Talk) 08:35, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
  17. Asithol (talk) 23:16, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
  18. —spookywillowwtalk 20:44, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
  19. Rakhsh (talk) 23:07, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
  20. NanoLuukeCloning Facility 22:49, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Keep

  1. This is technically referenced in a source which is the LEGO Hoth AT-ST set.Jaster Fett (talk) 18:42, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
    The 30495 AT-ST as wellJaster Fett (talk) 18:44, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
    That's just a random AT-ST on hoth I think Loqiical (talk) 23:50, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
  2. I'd say there's enough BTS information regarding this AT-ST, specifically how it differs from subsequent AT-ST appearances in ROTJ. It just needs to be expanded. --Vitus InfinitusTalk 00:49, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
    Yeah, we should add this information onto the article itselfJaster Fett (talk) 20:44, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
  3. Above info brings new light to this, it should be kept due to both counts. Manoof (he/him/his) RainbowRebellion2 10:16, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
  4. Per Vitus. ThrawnChiss7 (talk) 15:02, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
  5. JMAS Jolly Trooper Hey, it's me! 23:26, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
  6. Dentface (talk) 01:49, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Comments

  • With the note about the walker and behind the scenes, I'm not sure if it's established that only one AT-ST is in ESB IU, for either continuity. As for the LEGO figures, don't seem obvious to be that one IU to me, unless there's something I don't see. Hanzo Hasashi (talk) 20:51, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
    • Star Wars: On the Front Lines establishes there were at least two AT-STs at the Battle of Hoth for canon, so we don't know for sure if the one depicted in the sets is the same as the one from the film. In fact, those sets are based on the ROTJ design for AT-STs, not the slightly different version in ESB, so they probably aren't the same. Rsand 30 (talk) 21:31, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
      • Oh, my specific comment was asking if anything confirms that, when at least twice there's a single AT-ST seen at a time in ESB, if anything confirms that IU it's the same one from the other shot(s). As I can't be sure about that, then it could be IU 2 different ones that have the unique design. Either way, seems to be better noted for the AT-ST behind the scenes. Hanzo Hasashi (talk) 21:35, 4 January 2023 (UTC)