Talk:Walker (Star Wars)

Length of AT-AT

Im curious where this 15.5 meters comes from? In the attack on Hoth, I clearly see a much much larger AT-AT walking around. 15.5 meters means that we could have three of these beasts end to end in an olympic sized, pool... I would more closely estimate the length at one olympic sized pool (50m). I mean Luke flew circles around the legs of this thing! Anyone else have any thoughts here?

I personnally think that the height is more important. There's a shot in Empire when Luke uses the grappling hook on the underside of one AT-AT. Saying that Luke is around 6ft tall, I made a rough calculation. When I did this I came up with 86.25ft as the height of that AT-AT. Imperial spy

Light or medium blasters?

In the SW Craft template : "2 cheek-mounted light blasters"

In the article : "two temple-mounted medium blaster cannons"

Are they light or medium, and are they cheek- or temple-mounted? The Star Wars Databank says "a pair of light blasters located on the walker's "temples,"". kallemax 15:57, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Speeder crash

"a third blew up when a speeder crashed into it."-Is this true? I don't remember it? Maybe it was in the novel? Or was I just not paying attention?-LtNOWIS 04:51, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Snowspeeder crashed into it. It was in the backstory of the Battle of Hoth. Apparently one crashes into General Veers's AT-AT, killing the pilot, destroying the walker, and crushing Veers's legs. -- Riffsyphon1024 06:27, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • If the whole thing was destroyed, seems to me Veers would have lost more then his legs. Lots42 02:09, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I think this was a scene which didn't make the final cut I beleive it was Hobbie's speeder. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.241.70.66 (talk) 12:19, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

the pilots wear white

File:AT-AT Driver 02.jpg

File:AT-AT Driver 01.jpg

Why not tanks?

Why the Empire chose such vulnerable platform (the legs are its Achiles' heel) instead of very large tank or hovercraft? MathKnight 15:17, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

Because legs probably provide the support needed for the thick armour and heavy weapons, whereas the hover propulsion would probably end up being so great it would be more effective as a starship.

its just a movie...Lord revan 15:45, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

...it's also a stupid design. Lucas the liberal has no military sense whatsoever. Haizum 06:00, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

If they had tank treads it would be too easy to stop. Treads would come off too easily. Darth Bane

I am sure lucas was aware of its vulnerability. anyway from robotwars, I learned that stomp bots can carry more weight. 67.176.160.47 (talk) 07:31, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

They use legs because this makes these vehicles tall. And shooting from above is more effective against infantry in trenches than shooting from ground level.46.133.171.5 (talk) 21:34, 6 February 2017 (UTC)Sobear

Pronounciation of AT-AT?

For years I've said "ay-tee-ay-tee" as many others I've heard say. Lately though, I've heard it pronounced "aat aat" (similar sound to att-ack) How is it pronounced?

For what it is worth, me and my family pronounce it the same way. --Maru (talk) Contribs 01:23, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

"Att-att" here, but I'm Norwegian, so that might have something to do with the way I pronounce it. kallemax 15:04, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

That's intresting actually. How would you pronounce AT-ST? (I say "aay-tee, ess-tee", and that's the only way I've ever heard it said)

Ditto. --Maru (talk) Contribs 17:41, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

In Star wars Battlefront 2 in "Rise of the Empire", on the last level they say,"Defend the att-atts!". Darth Bane -17 November 2006

Yes then again in Star Wars Empire at War, they are pronounced aay tee aay tee, I prefer to call them by what they should be called RoflOhLol (talk) 21:32, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

I pronounce it "Imperial Walker". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.115.155.55 (talk) 18:07, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

It's Ayy-Tee Ayy-Tee in the rogue squadron games. Ayy-Tee S-T would be the accompanying phoentic pronunciation. This is kinda obvious, and I'm surprised at how fiercely the fanbase continues to debate this!

Weird...ay-tee ay-tee sounds like 80 80!! It's always been att-att in UK. I think this difference is an English Americanism. They do tend to say the name of the letter in a word e.g. "eye-rack" for Iraq or "ay-rab" for arab rather than pronounce the word by its sound.21:03, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

according to the Time Magazine article, "How do you pronounce ATAT?" Lucasfilm's public relations dept states that it rhymes with, "hat hat." http://techland.time.com/2010/09/02/how-do-you-pronounce-at-at/

How do they...?

How the hell do they get these things down to the planet surface? Do they use some kind of dropship? -albrozdude 05:58, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

• Yes. Here's the Wookieepedia page on the Y=85 Titan dropship. -- saberwyn 23:43, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Is it possible the AT-ATs on Hoth had shields?

The first AT-AT to be destroyed by blaster weapons only exploded after it was tripped up and collapsed. Up until then, blasts that hit them were literally being soaked up. Shield generators are supposed to be quite heavy, but would that really be an issue with an AT-AT? HalfShadow 03:21, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

No clue. I seem to recall, though, from West End Games' RPG material that shields in Star Wars aren't particularly effective, or have difficulty operating, in an atmosphere. Certainly that was derived from what they saw on screen, perhaps also from production notes. Eh. Yeah, no idea. --EEMeltonIV 03:24, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Seems to me if something so big and heavy goes a-slamming to the ground, it'd warp and tear, providing enough 'holes' for weapons to get through and blow it to kingdom come. Lots42 02:10, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure they didn't have shields, just very thick armour. Luke wouldn't have been able to cut open the hatch to throw the bomb in if it was shielded.121.73.121.233 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:29, 8 August 2010 (UTC).

Suggestions for improvement

1) Careful with the POV words. There's no need to describe the weapons as 'devestating', just describe what they can do.

2) Heavy reflective armor? What? No speculation please.

3) Break up the sections more, the contents box shouldn't be waaay way down below like it is currently.

That is all. Tip your waitress. Lots42 02:07, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Rewrite

Considering the overwhelming in-universe-ness of AT-AT, AT-PT, AT-ST and AT-TE, I plan to create a new Walker (Star Wars) article and redirect those four to the new one within the next couple of weeks. I'm tweaking and, hopefully, finalizing User:Deckiller's rewrite/amalgamation of this article (merged with other All Terrain vehicle articles) now sitting at User talk:EEMeltonIV/Walker‎. Notably lacking are citations for merchandising and a 'graph on the AT-AT's depiction. Comments on suggested additions, sources, and copy-and-pastes from the existing articles that should be integrated into the rewrite are welcome at User_talk:EEMeltonIV/Walker. Thanks! --EEMeltonIV 04:18, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Between being bored and the general lack of activity on the AT-related articles over last few weeks, I'm going to make the migration within the next few hours. --EEMeltonIV 13:41, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Credit where credit is due

Most of this article was amalgamated by User:Deckiller. --EEMeltonIV 13:44, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

GA nom?

Say when, and I'll nominate it, it looks really good! Judgesurreal777 21:11, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

AT-TE Image

Can anyone provide an image for the AT-TE? The other 2 have images. ĞavinŤing 14:52, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Work

I'm ready to work on this page a bit more. Melton, I appreciate your help; however, I was saving the actual article publish for a Did You Know front page nomination. It's all good. — Deckiller 05:02, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

GA result

Good language, content, sourcing and images. GA passed. Vikrant Phadkay 14:35, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

This is in no way an acceptable review, even for a GA pass. This article will require a proper review; I am initiating a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations to gain a consensus on whether or not it is appropriate to merely revert the "pass" (which failed to remove the article from the nominations list or update the status of the article) or if I have to take this to WP:GAR. Cheers, CP 05:06, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

MT-AT

Wasn't there a MT-AT (Mountain terrain armoured transport??) as well? --Jameboy (talk) 01:16, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

There are dozens of walker varieties; however, most are only seen once or twice, and therefore aren't mentioned in this article. They are generally described well in the external links. — Deckiller 01:44, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

GA Review

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Comments:

1. The lead needs to conform to WP:LEAD. Specifically, it must cover every major point/heading made in the article. Currently, I do not feel that the leads goes into enough detail about the points made in the article.
2. All one-two sentence paragraphs must either be expanded or merged with other paragraphs, as they cannot stand alone.
3. Following from that, I feel that the one-two sentence intros to each type indicate a lack of broadness of coverage. For example, at the beginning of AT-AT you write "The AT-AT is a large, four-legged walker introduced in The Empire Strikes Back during the Battle of Hoth. An AT-AT also appears in Return of the Jedi." This could easily be expanded with more discussion of their role in the films themselves and, since it's uncontroversial material that is inherent to the film, the same level of referencing can apply.
4. The direct quotes in the "Depiction" section for the AT-AT must be directly sourced, even if the reference at the end of the paragraph/sentence contains the appropriate citation. Same with the in the last paragraph of "Prequel trilogy"
5. I won't hold it against a GA pass, since it's somewhat inherent to the game, but it might be helpful to cite "In addition to appearing in Dark Force Rising, the AT-PT is featured in a number of video games, including the Rogue Squadron series, Star Wars: Force Commander, and Star Wars: Galactic Battlegrounds." (Expanded universe) if possible
6. There is far too much white space after the "Merchandise" section. I suggest moving the picture to clear it up.
7. Would it be possible to expand the "Merchandise" section with perhaps a little more detail? If not, I suppose that it's good enough, though if you could, it would also help the white space problem.
8. Ref #19 needs to use a citation template or similar format. Or at least capitalize the name of the game.
9. Ref #38 seems to be broken.

To allow for these changes to be made, I am putting the article on hold for a period of up to seven days, after which it may be failed without further notice. Thank you for your work thus far. Cheers, CP 04:57, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. I originally wanted to have more detail about the main three walkers, but another editor feels that excessive in-universe summary is unnecessary. I generally agree, but I also like to see a balance. I'll expand it a bit. The GA nom was premature regardless; I wasn't planning to nominate this until more work had been done anyway. — Deckiller 04:53, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

FWIW, I liked the balance on Star Destroyer. Cheers, CP 04:57, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the hold has been up a week and not enough work has been done to merit a Good Article pass, therefore I will be failing the article at this time. If you feel that this decision is in error, you may take it to good article reassessment. Thank you for your work thus far. Cheers, CP 17:15, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

AT-ATs are not 15 meters tall

The Databank is simply wrong. We see AT-ATs at the same distance as Luke Skywalker in The Empire Strikes Back, allowing for very accurate scaling, and the result is approximately 23 meters. We get another opportunity for scaling in Return of the Jedi when the AT-AT pulls up to the handrail at the Endor base; again the result is 23 meters. The movies are a much higher order of canon than West End Games' RPG statistics, which unfortunately someone decided to use for the Databank instead of more accurate sources. Source. Rogue 9 (talk) 18:20, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Fan sites -- even technical commentaries on the venerable TFN -- are not reliable sources. Perhaps you can take a look at the cross-sections books he helped write -- they might have a different figure. If you can cite it, then the phrasing can be changed to reflect this ambiguity. --EEMIV (talk) 18:31, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

The Wookieepedia article cites a few print sources -- which I think Saxton worked on -- with the taller figure. If someone can crack open one of those and take a gander, then this other figure would be okay to include in the article. --EEMIV (talk) 18:39, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I have the Original Trilogy cross-section book in front of me; sadly, that was published before Saxton's time as an author for Star Wars technical books, and consequently it has no figures for the height listed at all. Scaling from the stormtroopers shown inside the cross-section, again, shows a height of a little more than twenty meters, but it doesn't come out and say it; in fact it provides no numbers whatsoever. I will consult friends who have more recent books; I don't own any of the newer ones. Rogue 9 (talk) 18:46, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Inside the Worlds of the Star Wars Trilogy lists the AT-AT as 22.5 meters high in the entry on the Titan dropship. I'm getting a page citation now. Rogue 9 (talk) 19:52, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. The latest measurements puts the AT-AT at a height of 22.5 meters (the Inside the Worlds of the Star Wars trilogy and also Star Wars: Complete Locations). SincereGuy (talk) 17:18, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I have updated the article to reflect the differing height figures. Next time, SincereGuy, please don't just change a figure when the cited source indicates something else. It's not enough simply to provide information; editors also need to indicate in the article where the information comes from. --EEMIV (talk) 17:28, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you (I just realized I had forgotten to include the sources and I was about to do that), but two things: One, you are not an administrator and two, judging by the history of this article, you should take a look at your own conduct. What you have been doing is nothing short of vandalizing the article.SincereGuy (talk) 20:09, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Please provide a diff illustration what vandalism I've committed. Quite the contrary, User:Deckiller and I have done quite a bit to make this a worthwhile article. (And whether one is an an administrator or not has nothing to do with, well, anything here.) This article may have failed it's GA nomination, but it wouldn't have even been considered a few months ago. Take a look at WP:WAF, WP:ICA and WP:AGF and perhaps reconsider this notion that I've vandalized this article. --EEMIV (talk) 20:18, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Alright then, it seems as if the height issue wasn't properly cited earlier. My apologies.SincereGuy (talk) 20:28, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't even see why any of this is an issue; the position that scaling is original research is absolute nonsense. It's simply citing the definitive original source, i.e. the movie itself. Rogue 9 (talk) 08:39, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

the movie does not state their height, it must be interpreted. 67.176.160.47 (talk) 07:36, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Pod walker

Aren't you forgetting this one! RoflOhLol (talk) 01:06, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

If there are reliable sources that offer significant third-party coverage of the topic, then, yes, the pod walker can be included here. Feel free to track down sources and integrate them into the article. --EEMIV (talk) 03:25, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

AT-TEs in space

In the Cartoon Network Clone Wars series, Anakin and his fleet outflank one of Grevious' Droid fleets in an asteroid field by placing AT-TE's (I could be wrong on what exact type it is, but it is definitly one of the Republic's 4-legged Walkers) on asteroids, hidden from Grevious' view until he passed by them. First of all, it depicts them in space. Shouldn't that be included if they are armored enough to keep clones safely inside them, even in space. Second of all, the walkers have guns strong enough to take down one of Grevious' fleet ships. It seems like these details should be included in this article, but I need confirmation of what Walker model it was. Can someone help me please? The episode its from is Episode 6: Downfall of a Droid. You can see a clip of it here: http://theclonewars.cartoonnetwork.com/ Thanks! Cactus Guru (talk) 23:14, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

AT-IC

There is no mention of the AT-IC (All Terrian-Ion Cannon). Here's a link about it on Wookiepedia:

• http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/All_Terrain_Ion_Cannon

--Victory93 (talk) 01:57, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

It never actually appeared in any Star Wars fiction. It never made it out of the toy concept stage. Powers ^T 12:39, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes I know but it is talked about in such books as the complete Star Wars encyclopedia and the new essential guide to waepons and such. It describes it as being used for strategic positions. So it's at least worth a mention on this article. --Victory93 (talk) 00:40, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Got any reliable third-party sources, then? Powers ^T 14:51, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Well if you look at the Star Wars wikipesdia article above, it will tell what sources and references it comes from. --Victory93 (talk) 23:23, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

The sources are not third-party, and the external link is not reliable. Nothing there meets the general notability guideline. Powers ^T 14:46, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Price / Cost of original AT-AT toy

We'd like to know what the original AT-AT toy cost. We have ours out for our grandchildren/nephew and we imagine it must have cost a lot but we can't remember what it cost and we're surprised they don't make them anymore. They're really cool :) 24.99.28.223 (talk) 19:50, 23 January 2010 (UTC) By "we'd like to know," i mean, please add this information to the main article, b/c it was probably one of the most expensive Star Wars toys made back then. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.99.28.223 (talk) 19:51, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

catwalker

isn't catwalker a nickname for the AT-AT? 67.176.160.47 (talk) 07:37, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Nope. But AT-ST were also called Chicken Walkers KhlavKhalash (talk) 15:50, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

EL

This arts-and-crafts link fails to meet the WP:EL requirement/guidelines. I've again removed it. --EEMIV (talk) 13:28, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Walker (Star Wars). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070928014432/http://www.decipher.com/starwars/cardlists/swallcards.pdf to http://www.decipher.com/starwars/cardlists/swallcards.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:12, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• AT-AT walker.png

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 01:46, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

Guerrilla walker listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Guerrilla walker. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:57, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Oakland Cranes

Since this article mentions the fairly widespread Oakland cranes myth, I feel like it should also include this. The crane walkers seen in Solo: A Star Wars story are inspired by those cranes and an obvious nod to the longstanding theory, as mentioned by one of the ILM concept artists on Instagram. There is more on detail in the Art of Solo book by Phil Szostak, but I don't have that on hand. Star Wars wiki Artists Instagram post Jonas1015119 (talk) 13:59, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Pronunciation

Even of some official source said, they could be called "at-at", it doesnt make any sense. By this logic, how fo you then call the smaller AT-STs. You're welcome. KhlavKhalash (talk) 15:54, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Error in Mythbusters' calculation

The Mythbusters did claim that each log would have an impact energy of 2 megajoules, but this figure must be based on an erroneous calculation. Gravitational potential energy equals mass x height x acceleration due to gravity. Therefore a 4500kg log would have to fall a vertical distance of 45m (in Earth gravity) to convert 2 megajoules of energy from potential to kinetic. The Mythbusters' logs did not fall anywhere near that height. 1.42.163.159 (talk) 14:41, 20 October 2024 (UTC)