Talk:All Terrain Armored Transport/Legends

--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. Shadowtrooper talk 00:50, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Why does the infobox contain this incorrect info still?--Eion 03:54, 13 May 2005 (UTC)
 * As nice as Saxton's work 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 another site 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.
 * 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)
 * Agreed. -Vermilion 00:23, 14 May 2005 (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)

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 in the summer than you can in the winter).