Talk: All Terrain Armored Transport/Archive1

Back to page |
< Talk:All Terrain Armored Transport

This page is an archive of the discussion of an article. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's current talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.

Old talk

--Eion 05:16, 13 May 2005 (UTC)==Height== Some literature describes their height as 15.5 meters, but onscreen measuring places them closer to 25 or even 30 meters.

  • Why does the infobox contain this incorrect info still?--Eion 03:54, 13 May 2005 (UTC)
  • As nice as Saxton's work[1] is, the WEG sources and the Essential Guide (take a look on Amazon) point to 15.5 meters in height, 20 meters in length (tip to tail), and by conjecture about 5.5 meters in hull width. Either way, I don't see the info in the infobox. Am I missing it? --SparqMan 04:24, 13 May 2005 (UTC)
    • It's listed as depth, which is very confusing to me. Height is used for external measurements, depth is used for internal measurements of empty spaces.--Eion 05:16, 13 May 2005 (UTC)
    • The movies show a larger size, so as usual, the WEG sources are wrong. -Vermilion 04:53, 13 May 2005 (UTC)
      • Whoa whoa. While the movies overrule any other sources, it does not mean that Saxton's measurements of the movies do. Is there a DK or ICS source that support Saxton's measurements? If not, short of someone in the movie or novelisation saying "Deploy our 23 meter tall AT-ATs!", I think we have to go with what "Essential Guide" and WEG sources list it as. --SparqMan 05:04, 13 May 2005 (UTC)Italic text
        • The movies are saying the walkers are 23m (or whatever) tall. They don't have to have it in dialogue. Now, we have nothing to argue if the calculations are accurate (and I have no reason to believe they are not). The WEG and derivative sources (derivative meaning they just took WEG’s arbitrary numbers at face value) are contradicted by higher sources (The Films themselves), ergo they are not official.--Eion 05:14, 13 May 2005 (UTC)
          • Exactly. IIRC, the SW ICS has them at around 20-25 meters, but I don't have the book here to check. -Vermilion 05:46, 13 May 2005 (UTC)
          • Also, here's [link has been removed due to Wikipedia policy; find link in article history] that scales the AT-AT to about the same size as Saxton did. -Vermilion 05:54, 13 May 2005 (UTC)
            • Websites are well and good, and clearly Saxton is a qualified analyst on the topic, but the results of his measurement techniques, no matter how accurate, are not canonical until supported by a source. I'm sure that if LFL wanted to make a point of clearing up the WEG error, they would do so in the ICS books. Can we find someone with this book to check it? --SparqMan 22:28, 13 May 2005 (UTC)
              • The measurements are directly supported by the movies. If the movies show them to be ~23 meters tall, that's how big they are. What other sources say doesn't matter; the movies are 'absolute canon' and always override any contradictions. -Vermilion 00:23, 14 May 2005 (UTC)
                • I'm just trying to be the Devil's Advocate here. How do we know that the measurement techniques that work for the physics of our world may not work for the physics of the Star Wars galaxy. Don't you think that if they wanted to firmly establish a height of the AT-AT that contradicts the EGV&S or WEG that LFL would have done so via DK or ICS? --SparqMan 01:08, 14 May 2005 (UTC)
                  • What evidence do you have that he physics of SW are so radically different from our own that simple distance measurements would be off? Veers is 6'3", and is able to stand up inside the cabin of the walker. This gives us a certain minimum height. I do see how you could argue this--Eion 05:37, 14 May 2005 (UTC)
              • I agree with using the movie. If a non movie source said Vader was 4 foot tall, yet clearly wasn't in the movies, then the movie is the source to go by. I think that's what should apply here. --Fade 01:01, 14 May 2005 (UTC)
  • While I am operating under the assumption that the AT-AT is as big as we say it is, I found another contradictory measurement, this one from the EGVV. The Imperial Tank Droid is said to be twice the size of an AT-AT (the droid is supposed to be about 32m long and 30+m tall). If the droid is indeed twice as big, and the walker is as big as we say (a little over 20m tall), then we're looking at a monsterously huge tank droid--about 50m long and 50m tall minimum. I'm not really sure what to do with that.

Shadowtrooper talk 00:50, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Sorry if this is late, but I just remembered: In Dark Empire, with the two-page spread of the Imperial Civil War, you can see a XR-85 fighting besides stormtroopers. It didn´t look like it was 60 meters tall, so I guess the "double-size" is in comparison with the "15 meters"-number. VT-16 15:22, 30 Aug 2005 (UTC)

Article Title

Sticking with the "names not titles" theme, I see no reason that this article shouldn't be titled "All Terrain Armored Transport" and have the first paragraph begin as "The All Terrain Armored Transport, or AT-AT, was...", with this article title redirecting to it. --SparqMan 04:13, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

Tell me if I'm wrong, but "All Terrain-Armored Transport" is incorrect. in it's unabreviated form the hyphen is unnesesary. Now, I'm not a master of the English language or anything, but I feel that if there were any hyphens at all it should be "All-Terrain Armored-Transport" in the full title. I checked the Essential guide and they don't use any hyphen at all in the full written name. I would edit the title, but we have about three million links here, and other vehicles with similar issues in the name. --Beeurd 23:18, 18 Jul 2005 (UTC)

Added to all of that, would you say it in a discussion, A-T-A-T or AT-AT? The Pure 501st 01:41, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

  • I was hoping to find someone else with an interest in this. It's been a source of debate between myself and a close friend for years. Personally, I'm all for "AT,AT" as an addition to the list of perfectly acceptable pronunciations. He feels that "A,T,A,T" is the only way to go. --School of Thrawn 101 10:27, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Spelling

Why was this moved from 'armored' to 'amoured'? If anything, armored should be the 'correct' spelling, I think. --Fade 12:35, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

  • Oops, just a typo.=P --SparqMan 14:26, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
  • I thought 'armoured' would be more appropriate than 'armored', but after checking the definition, it seems 'armored' is the American-English way of writing it (and since these are American films, that should be the correct spelling here). VT-16 19:17, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Yes, exactly. I'm British, myself, but that's the guideline here. --Fade 19:27, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
  • The consistent use of "armour" is acceptable in the text of an article, but proper names use whatever spelling the highest canon source assigns them. In this case, G-level canon uses the "armored" spelling. --SparqMan 20:39, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Didn't realise it's canon related- I just figured that Star Wars pronouns were invented in 'American' and thus are to be spelt as such. I know it's only a technicallity, since most official sources would spell it American style anyway. --Fade 21:07, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
  • I disagree that it is canon-related, as even some official sources change the spellings of words in countries that do not use US-English. But for the purpose of consistency, we should stick to one language and US-English is the language of choice for the Wookieepedia. :) --beeurd 20:24, 20 Sep 2005 (EDT)

Speed

I read The Essential Guide to Vehicles and Vessels, and it said that you can't out run an AT-AT, so in the Battle of Hoth, how was Luke fast enough to get under it if he came from the back of it, not to mention how hard it is to run in the snow.

  • He's a Jedi Knight-in-training who happened to escape a wampa. Go figure. Plus, the AT-AT isn't exactly as fast as a speeder. Cmdr. J. Nebulax 15:39, 20 Sep 2005 (EDT)
  • Plus, nobody ever said that AT-ATs would run at top speed during a battle. I would imagine that a walker would have to reduce it's speed during battle to increase it's accuracy. --beeurd 22:15, 20 Sep 2005 (UTC)
    • And another thing, how could a walker of such size be really fast? Why do you think they called it the "elephant walker" during production? Cmdr. J. Nebulax 22:55, 20 Sep 2005 (UTC)
      • They're REALLY big; each of those apparently small strides actually takes it over a fair amount of ground. jSarek 20:42, 20 Sep 2005 (EDT)

I guess you guys are right, plus now now that I think about it driving an AT-AT must be like drive a car (what I means is you can drive better and faster in the summer than you can in the winter).

  • According to Wikipedia, elephants can go 24 miles an hour (40 km/h), at top speed.-LtNOWIS 01:36, 21 Sep 2005 (UTC)
    • Well, when ESB was in production, I think what they meant by "elephant walker" was that the AT-AT could go as fast as an elephant walking, not running. Cmdr. J. Nebulax 20:01, 21 Sep 2005 (UTC)

I just want to let you guys know that The Essential Guide to Vehicles and Vessels said that AT-AT's top speed is 60 km/h. Double D 11:03, 24 Sep 2005 (UTC)

Weight

Just out of curiosity, but do any sources say how much these behemoths actually weigh? I'm in the middle of converting some SW gear for a GURPS game, and weight/mass for items is often critical.

Id guess about 300 tons or so- Gimodon

Why are AT-AT's weaker after being "grounded"?

Well, in the games and in Episode V the walkers were only destroyed by tripping them first, then blasting their grounded bodies? Why are they weaker?

Once grounded, a number of things happen: the chin-guns can only fire at ground level, the vehicle is stationary which makes vulnerable areas easier to target, and the impact of something that large falling is likely to cause some major internal damages. --SparqMan 03:13, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Plus, the neck structure was more vunerable. Admiral J. Nebulax (talk) 20px 18:41, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
    • I totally agree with jack. In wikipedia it says that the speeders were able to get a quite clear and easy shot to the neck.Star Destroyer 2500 01:52, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
      • Exactly. Presumably, they could also get a clear shot from the sides and above as well. Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) 20px 12:24, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
        • The walker also gets severely damaged when it falls. -Aiddat 18:25, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
          • How so? Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) 20px 19:02, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
            • Let's say 2/3 of the height is the legs. 2/3*22.5m*3ft/m=45ft. So after it was tripped, it fell 45 feet. That's a lot of force, especially when you consider the lack of armor on its underbelly. Corky842 16:40, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
              • The fact that the AT-AT that was destroyed after being tripped to the ground during Hoth has, as has been stated here, everything to do with the fact that its highly vulnerable neck was in plain sight to be fired upon. This, of course, does nothing to explain why AT-ATs suddenly explode when fired upon from any conceivable angle after being tripped in Star Wars: Rogue Squadron. Just because it falls doesn't mean its entire armor shell is suddenly weakened. It still remains "too strong for blasters." Perhaps some areas may become more damaged and vulnerable, but it's neck still remains the key to everything; and to hell with stupid games like Rogue Squadron that make this fact more complicated than it needs to be.Toprawa and Ralltiir 17:27, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Red Eye

In ESB The AT-ATs front window had a red Glow. In the original 64 game Rogue Squadron the walker also had the glow. Why do the newer appearance of them do not have the glow? --QX100 08:12, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Perhaps it was some kind of cold weather device. Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) 20px 01:53, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Maybe, but it was probably there to make them look more intimidating.Star Destroyer 2500 01:52, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
      • That's true. Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) 20px 12:59, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
        • Some sort of infrared targeting device? VT-16 05:52, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
          • Well, we now have three suggestions, and there are probably tons more. Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) 20px 11:25, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
            • Glare from the laser bolts (this would be movie-only, I think, since they're permanent in some sources, regardless of firing.) VT-16 17:34, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
              • Now that I think about the infrared targeting device suggestion, wouldn't you see it during the shots from the cockpit of Blizzard 1? Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) 20px 20:23, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
                • It's likely a night lamp that was left on by the pilots. The AT AT at Endor was using it at night, and the interior of transports are likely dark. The red color is used to not damage night vision, and also to aid with bio rytnms. submarines and warships use red lamps for nighttime conditions Admiral Wes Janson
                  • I don't think the commanders of the AT-ATs would be so careless. Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) 20px 12:47, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
                    • It depends on what time the Battle of Hoth took place. If they started in early morning when it was still dark out, they would turn them on for that. Later, it is easy to imagine that there are more important things to do than turn off a night lamp, such as negotiate the trecherous terrain or deal with enemy fire. It wouldn't be so much careless as either "busy" or "not really important" --AdmiralWesJanson 07:14, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

First Appearance

The AT-AT's first appearance was in the battle of Jabiim. Yet in Star Wars: Empire at War, the Imperial campaign has the mission where Emperor Palpatine wishes you (the player) to overseer General Veer's "new weapon's" capabilites. Which one is EXACTLY the AT-AT's first appearance?

Of course it is Sherlock. :) 1st variant in Jabiim? And subsequent new generation AT-AT's at the PC game Star Wars: Empire at War.

Ok, Star Wars timeline taken into consideration here. Heheh.

  • Actually, that's not it. If that would be the case, the Star Wars Republic issue would be the first appearance. Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) 20px 22:11, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
  • the battle of jablim was the first time the AT AT (well the predecesor) was used, but i thought it goes in order of real life? Jedi Dude 22:17, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
    • It does, which is why I said it in the first place. Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) 20px 22:20, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
      • In-universe, it's Jabiim. The AT-AT's origin is also covered in Galactic Battlegrounds, though the differences between the Republic and Imperial walkers suggest the prototypes developed by Veers in GB are but advancements of that earlier design, and not entirely new vehicles as thought pre-Jabiim. Empire at War enjoys dubious canocity anyway, so I'm not too concerned about that - Kwenn 19:58, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Neck Joint

If the Neck Joint is a weak spot, why do that need Air Speeders and Tow Cable the destory it when any Air Craft can shoot it there? Double D 02:50, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

  • This was partially discussed in a few sections above, but anyway: In order to fire at the neck joint, you need a clear shot, and the easiest way to have a clear shot at it is when it's grounded (as seen in TESB). Sure, you could probably still have clear aim while it's in motion, but if the head turned to one side, it could block the lasers from reaching the neck. Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) 20px 11:25, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

If Hoth's planetary shield was up, how did the AT-ATs get through it?

It would of helped if Empire Strikes Back had shown the landings. Still, the AT-AT were clearly through the shield or they would not have been able to fire on the generators any more than the star destroyers could. Will 19:56, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

    • Play galactic battlegrounds, that shows the landing etc. Jedi Dude 19:56, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

You did not answer how they got past the shield. Will 20:01, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

    • Alright, be a bit more polite in the future with that kind of attitude you don't deserve an answer, but they needed to use a ground assualt to get to the shields, there wern't just the one set you know Jedi Dude 20:08, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

That only confuses me more. I was polite and I do not understand your statement about the shield. Will 20:38, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

    • Right the planet shield was bipassed by dropships which took down the shield generater when it came online, the troops were there before the shield was up Jedi Dude 20:40, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
  • No, the sheild can only defend against Planetary bombardment. Physical objects (such as Starships or Organic beings) can pass through. one example of this is in the Battle of the Grassy Plain in Ep. I. Although the tanks gunfire could not bypass the sheild, the droids could. Jasca Ducato Sith Council (Sith campaign) 20:43, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
  • The shields didn't have to go to ground level to cover bombardment. The drop ships landed beyond the shields. -Finlayson 21:38, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Ducato's comment about the battle of Battle of the Grassy Plain would apply to battles involving Gungans only. None were present in the Battle of Hoth. Besides, if physical objects could penetrate, just start firing proton torpedos in. No landers needed. Further, Gungan sheilds were only vernable to slow moving physical objects. Will 23:10, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

  • "would apply to battles involving Gungans only". What the hell? And also, there are types of shields that prevent weapons from penetrating. Therefore, I have no doubt in my mind that the Gungans' shield and the Echo Base shield are the same type of shield. Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) 20px 00:02, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

In The Phantom Menace, the Gungans' shield capability were unknown until Jar-Jar mentioned them. Hence, I have to believe they were not standard Old Republic technology. Will 06:58, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

AT-ATs and other walking or rolling vehicles can bypass shields because they are grounded and any shield disruptions that would down flying vehicles or missiles, do not affect them. The dropships landed outside the range of the shield (which did not cover the entire planet) and then the walkers walked through it. Here's a handy illustration: [link has been removed due to Wikia policy; check article history]VT-16 15:45, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Height vs. Length

Exactly how is the Length longer than the Height?

Weaknesses in Design

Should a subsection in the article "Weaknesses in Design" be added? There are several weaknesses in the design of these walkers. 1. Weakness in back of neck, limited armor plating 2. Weakness first noted by Davin Felth, for which he was transferred to the stormtroopers 3. Required to lower to ground, where they were more vulterable, to allow troops to embark/disembark The middle one is currently not mentioned in the article at all, and there is a strong canon source for that.Even if this subsection isn't created, that should be remedied.Serendipitousus 06:13, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

  • Well, I don't know much about number 2, but number 1 was only a weakness when the walker was tripped. As for number 3, EaW: FoC, I believe, shows that troops could also be deployed from the walker by using cables to lower themselves to the ground, so I don't know if number 3 is really even a weakness. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) 20px 14:06, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
The fact that it has legs and can trip is a huge weakness. A juggernaut would never have that problem. 69.34.163.82 07:48, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Admiral Nebulax is right, in fact it's in both Empire at War and EaW: Forces of Corruption that the Troops are seen using Cables to lower themselves to the ground. However, The walker has to remain stationary for a short period of time to allow the troops to reach the ground safely. --Jedimca0 (Do or Do Not, There is No Try) 08:07, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Let's face it, it's not the best design ever, and the only real purpose it's practical for is a head-on long range assault (like the assault on Hoth). Also, the neck weakness isn't that hard to hit while it's moving because, after all, they are fairly slow moving. And yes, it is in both the original and expansion of EAW (great games, by the way), I was going to point that out as well if Jedimac0 hadn't already. 129.107.81.12 05:07, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

CIS AT-ATs?

Look, I've read the CWA#4 story where people think there's an AT-AT, but the only thing I've seen is an AT-ST inside the CIS research facility. The picture which I suspect most people believe is an AT-AT guarding the facility, is just the shadow of two snowdroids. I reckognised it when I saw the artist cut&paste most of the poses just to fill out the panel. :P If that isn't the panel in question, please point it out. VT-16 07:44, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

--Rune Haako 21:43, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Empire at War

Does anyone know where the AT-AT's appearance in EaW fits in chronologically? -- I need a name (Complain here) 16:54, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Height & Length

The height and length are now referenced. Maybe the repeated changes to them will stop (or slow down at least). I missed VT-16's source in the edit summary earlier. I didn't know what "SW:CL" was anyway. -Fnlayson 23:09, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

  • Well, I'd always stick to the newest source - in this case the Complete Cross-Sections. But if you prefer the Complete Locations-measurements and think that this one book has a higher significance than a dozen other sources - including the newest - just revert my edit... -Borsk Fey'lya 00:11, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
    • Seeing as Dougherty only recycled WEG RPG material for the stats in the "revised" SW:ICS part of the new book, I'm inclined to do so. Unfortunately, since they both rank the same (both are DK books and therefore only deal with things in the movies) and SW:CCS is the more recent one, that takes precedence. Unless we include that little thing called ESB, which shows Luke Skywalker in relation to the AT-AT, and it didn't fit the 15 meter tall proportions, or the 15 meters! And the films have been used to settle things in LFL before (the Executor-length for one, which Leland Chee even commented on that the end result "was more in line with what the films showed"). So what we have is the film The Empire Strikes Back and the books that follow the film's scale, and on the other hand, RPG based information made by people who've already flunked on other scaling issues. VT-16 01:26, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

So was SW: Complete Locations supposed to be SW:Complete Cross-Sections? It doesn't look like it SW:CL would list vehicle specs. -Fnlayson 04:11, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

  • No, it was Complete Locations. On page 143, as part of the section on the Battle of Hoth, it details the Y-85 Titan dropship and how it can carry four 22,5 meter tall AT-ATs to the battlefield. All the Dorling Kindersley Locations books have these technical trivia throughout them, that way we learn more about vehicles even if there's no room in the actual Cross-Sections books. Problem is, the 15 m height comes from RPG materials which always show a badly drawn AT-AT. The film version doesn't look like it, and the size of the walker in the films doesn't correspond with a 15 m height. VT-16 10:28, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
    • OK, 15.5 meters tall is definitely off, unless we aren't counting the legs, (which I think we should be.) I can also prove this by using clips from Episode V, along with other information from Wookieepedia. Here's how I did it: First, I looked up Luke Skywalker's height. 1.72 meters. After I did that, I went and took a photo of Luke right next to an AT-AT in Episode V. (You can find the photo [link has been removed due to Wikipedia policy; find link in article history]. Sorry, it's fuzzy.) After I did that, I took a picture of an AT-AT, and compared Luke's height to it. It took me seventeen Lukes to get to the top of the AT-AT, (photo [link has been removed due to Wikia policy; check article history].) So, we would multiply 1.72 by 17, and we wind up with just over 29 meters tall. --Bounty Offering 22:52, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Nice work! Just take into account the AT-AT leg is in front of him, so if put side by side, it will be a little smaller. The scene where he goes up the side of the AT-AT is also a good marker, since there's no way a 15.5 meter tall AT-AT is that big compared to him. VT-16 07:35, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Yeah, we had noticed that the leg was slightly in front of him. But, yeah, there's no way that the AT-AT is only 15.5 meters. Unless it's like, only counting up to the control "head." Then that's only a few meters off. --Bounty Offering 02:59, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
      • On top of this, the [link has been removed due to Wikia policy; check article history] drawn to depict the AT-AT with the stats, didn't even look like the ones in the movie. The most obvious error is the legs, they were too short. And subsequently, the human figure shown for scale, is too long. The answer could be that a shorter AT-AT line was built as well, if this shorter walker has been depicted in stories as well. VT-16 12:56, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

I beleive that was the more economic "Kenner" AT-AT :P

I notice that the article for a time displayed both heights, with sources, until someone took it upon themselves to decide to get rid of the 22.5m height, even though it is obviously correct compared to the nonsensical 15.5m height. 22.5m has been added back in. If anyone wants to revert it as if 22.5m is invalid, lets discuss how one can justify 15.5m height in relation to TESB, yes?Vymer 04:19, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

And that goes for those who think that the discrepancy in between 15.5m and 22.5m should be resolved by deleting the figure that actually agrees with what we can see on screen, please - the best compromise is AT-AT variants with varying heights, barring 15.5m being simply relegated to "Behind the Scenes, this is balderdash" status. Vymer 10:25, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

    • Vymer, you sound technologically savvy, and you've some good things to contribute here. I just ask that you do so in the proper way. This seems like just an extension of our Executor conflict. I don't dispute the 22.5 height, I just ask that it be presented in the proper way. For the sake of accuracy, cleanliness of article, and professionalism, we do not put conflicting heights together in an info box. No. We put one height in the infobox-personally, I don't care if you put the 15.5 or 22.5 in there-and then we explain somewhere in the article, most likely the BTS, how there is a discrepancy, and we list the sources that claim each respective heights. Toprawa and Ralltiir 17:14, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
  • So edited. --Jerry 23:37, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Clone Wars Section

I'm doing a bit of maintenance, and I noticced that the Clone Wars section requires a clean-up. In what way does it require a clean-up? I can't find anything wrong with it in the Manual of Style. Thanks. TheFeldster 06:50, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Nothing is wrong with the MOS of that section...the Crap tag, in this case, is meant to show that that section is just that - crap. Toprawa and Ralltiir 16:12, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
    • So, basically, it just requires some rewording? TheFeldster 06:08, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
      • Sure, if by "rewording" you mean a complete overhaul/vast expansion. The section is five sentences long...I'm unfamiliar with the AT-AT Clone Wars material, but I'm willing to bet there's more information out there than five measly sentences. Toprawa and Ralltiir 07:21, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
        • Ok, well, I'm not familiar with this information either, so I can't edit it. Someone else is gonna have to TheFeldster 07:54, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
          • Cancel that. Article just been fixed :) TheFeldster 08:01, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Elephant walk

Has anyone else noticed that the part about it's elephant like walk is credited to facebook's Jedi vs. Sith application? Is that really a reasonable thing to source? (reference number 18, fyi) 129.107.81.12 04:59, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Re:speed

Luke could of used force speed Master Gresh 12:30, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

  • If he knew how. Remember, at this point in his training, even pulling a lightsaber to his hand was a desperate challenge. jSarek 12:53, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Firepower

Should it be mentioned that they are capable of shooting through the hull of an Imperial Star Destroyer, based on a scene occurring in what I believe was Rogue Squadron III: Rebel Strike in which three of them did so in order to escape a crashed Star Destroyer. Dark Ridley 21:25, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

  • The Star Destroyer had fallen from orbit after being damaged in battle. The hull was probably not the strongest it could have been. TheAinMAP 20:22, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Stealth AT-AT

Titanium series released a "Stealth AT-AT". It is completely black, and the description says it was used where the firepower of this magnitude was needed in stealth attacks. Someone had better add the article.--Governor Jerjerrod 01:19, 31 July 2009 (UTC)