This is the talk page for the article "All Terrain Armored Transport." This space is used for discussion relating to changes to the article, not for a discussion about the topic in question. Please remember to stay civil and sign all of your comments with four tildes (~~~~). Click here to start a new topic. This talk page has archives. 1

saveable pictures Edit

Please make it possible to save pictures. When I right click, and choose to 'save picture' it saves "blank.gif" instead of the picture. Instead of using a bunch of code to pop up an unsaveable picture, just use simple, basic HTML that actually works. 209.216.186.146 21:26, May 17, 2010 (UTC)

• I'm having no problems saving pictures with both Firefox 3.6 and Internet Explorer 8. -- I need a name (Complain here) 21:31, May 17, 2010 (UTC)

the AT-AT was unsurpassed as the most awesome vehicle in the Imperial Army inventory. Edit

I believe the following line does not fit a proper wiki page. "The AT-AT was unsurpassed as the most awesome vehicle in the Imperial Army inventory." --Zlcoolboy 22:14, October 30, 2010 (UTC)

• That line is derived from The Essential Guide to Vehicles and Vessels: "Among the most awesome vehicles in the Empire's ground combat forces, All Terrain Armored Transports (AT-ATs) were unmatched by anything in the Alliance's arsenal." The New Essential Guide to Vehicles and Vessels also states the AT-AT is: "Possibly the most formidable military vehicle ever assembled," and also calls it "awe-inspiring." I've amended the sentence slightly to more closely reflect the original EGVV wording. Toprawa and Ralltiir 22:29, October 30, 2010 (UTC)

BTS info Edit

Is the sentence in the bts about how it is pronounced really necessary? Corellian Premier^{All along the watchtower} 22:23, March 19, 2012 (UTC)

AT-AT not completely immune to all attacks in rogue squadron Edit

In the "Behind the scenes" section it is stated that the AT-AT is immune to all attacks except the tow cable and the bomb from that one mission. But in the original Rogue Squadron, the walker actually can be destroyed by shooting it enough times, it just has such an astronomical durability that it is impractical to try; but you can look up demonstrations on youtube (this site won't let me post youtube links)

ESB= non-cannon source? Edit

I think I have a good idea why that might be so (they aren't directly called AT-ATs in The Empire Strikes Back film), however do we have reason to say it really isn't cannon, for some particularly academic or technical reason? After all it was more or less the first appearance. --Matthew Fishwick (talk) 06:56, March 17, 2013 (UTC)

• Nowhere is it written that their ESB appearance isn't canon... I really don't understand what you mean. --LelalMekha (talk) 19:33, March 18, 2013 (UTC)
  • Ah, Lelal, the link to the ESB video game was improperly formatted so it appeared as simply Star Wars Episode V: Empire Strikes Back. This has been fixed. Cade Calrayn 19:40, March 18, 2013 (UTC)
    • This explains that. I owe you an apology, Matthew Fishwick. --LelalMekha (talk) 19:43, March 18, 2013 (UTC)
      • No issue, you were confused and so was I! Anyway, great to hear it's been fixed. --Matthew Fishwick (talk) 21:26, March 18, 2013 (UTC)