Talk:Battle of Hoth

this is dumb
there are actual battles from wwii and beyond that have less coverage on wikipedia than this. why do you delete so much good stuff and encourage things like 'casualty lists' of fictional battles. there are people dying every day in bbttles that dont make it on here and would probably get deleted by some admin if you put them on here

Link removal
I removed a link to a so-called "battle of hoth documentary", which is obviously a joke-movie. 62.194.170.62 20:31, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

According to the Inside the Worlds of the Star Wars Trilogy, there were Blizzards 6,8, and 9. So there must have been more than the 5 in the movie. Also, the commanders of the other AT-ATs were Brig. Nevar (the one Wedge destroyed) and Col. Starck (the one Luke destroyed).- B-101 20:17, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Are you saying the "battle before" means which battle Hoth was before?- B-101 13:33, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Just out of sheer morbid curiousity, where are we getting the statistics in this article, such as the Rebel ship losses? Gulfstorm75 03:39, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Those are from Inside the Worlds of the Star Wars Trilogy.- B-101 12:31, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Whoever keeps reversing the battle order, please stop it. It makes things more confusing and it is not needed.- B-101 12:29, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The rebel defeat at Hoth was because of its lack of coordination and perhaps their nearly desintegration. DarthPlaegis; 11:05; October 3, 2005

“The battle was not without loss for the Empire: Imperial-class Star Destroyer Tyrant (changed to Avenger in the movie) was disabled by the planetary ion cannon”

Can someone explain the bit in brackets? If not I propose its deletion. The disabled Star Destroyer was not referred to by name in the movie, so why should we assume that the movie has it as Avenger? The only Star Destroyer referred to at all is the Avenger but that was much later on when it found the Falcon. One could easily assume that the disabled Star Destroyer couldn’t be fixed quick enough to be involved in the chase of the Falcon. -Chris

"This plan had been formulated in advance, with tow-cables outfitted onto the Rebel's Snowspeeders due to a prediction that the main portion of the Imperial surface force would consist of AT-ATs"
 * Certainly an attack was likely, if not inevitable, and the installation of the shield to protect from bombardment would prescribe a surface assault. However, in the film, there is no reference to retro-fitting the speeders with the tow-cable cannons for the specific purpose of tripping up AT-ATs.  In fact, one might presume that the discovery of this functionality was serendipitous (by Luke) and that the speeder's tow-cable/cannon is standard.  Suggesting this statement may be false (without documentation) and be deleted.  Twiftshoeblade 19:49, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Check the origional "Essential Guide to Vechicals and Vessels" under 'Snowspeeder'.

Addition of the Prelude section
I changed the article so that information about what happened before the battle is in a separate section, bringing it closer to the Battle of Endor and Battle of Utapau articles, something that should probably be done with as many Star Wars battle entries as possible.

Removed TESB novel reference
The novel passage about the snowspeeder run into the AT-AT is contradicted by the film- it claims that it's Hobbie making a suicide run into General Veers AT-AT before he could destroy the shield generator- obviously the events of the film are quite different.Beryoza 05:27, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Atat.jpg
Image:Atat.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 04:01, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Redirect
I've redirected this article to the movie article. This article was entirely unsourced and consisted mostly of excessive plot summary from the movie. --EEMIV (talk) 14:00, 2 October 2008 (UTC)