Talk:Dark Trooper

Untitled

I don't really believe that the Dark Trooper is a cyborg. Play the Star Wars Battlefront game to assure that they are humans instead of droids. You can see them talking and having pain as a humans. DarthPlaegis, 7:27, August 28, 2005

There are various levels. Some versions are only exoskeleton suits. In Dark Forces, the final DT you fight, is Rom Mohc in a phase 3 suit. --Pictureuploader 00:08, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You are both missing the point: a cyborg is a fusion of man and machine- to say that one feels pain, does not give useful information, since both cyborg and normal human are the same in that respect. --Maru 01:04, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Dark Troopers as seen in Dark Forces were not all droids as written in The Essential Guide to Droids or on the Star Wars website. The Phase 1 had to have been a droid, as it is too thin to hold a soldier. However, the Phase 2 and Phase 3 both were suits and contained a human soldier. This is also shown in both Star Wars: Supremacy (also known as Rebellion) and in Star Wars: Battlefront, where the operators are human. I have added a little bit to the article explain these contradictions and I've also fixed a part of the article which regarded them as droids. Some guy 00:38, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If the phase II and III suits aren't droids, then it should be noted in those respective section of the article, yes? --Daedalus01 02:51, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Expanded Universe Continuity

I wrote the section about the attack on Mos Eisley in order to fit Battlefront in with the rest of the Darktrooper continuity. In Battlefront, it is the first level with the Darktroopers.

I do not think the events in Battlefront should be considered for this article, as the game is not really story based. Does it actually say the Dark Troopers were used to attack Tatooine? I don't recall this. Some guy 22:11, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dark Troopers in New Jedi Order?

"During the Yuuzhan Vong invasion, unknown to the New Republic, these droids did tremendous damage to the Yuuzhan Vong."

Is he talking about Lando's Yuuzhan Vong Hunters? Those weren't really Dark Troopers. Or is he talking about something else I'm unfamiliar with? --Joylock 10:30, 4 December 2005 (UTC).[reply]

You see them in Star Wars Tales 21 (I don't know if that's the right number, on the cover it says BlackEight flying for the Empire.) They get wiped out. --Anon

(Yes, that's the correct one; you can go see the cover over at Wookiepedia.)

Is that one of the canon Tales? --maru (talk) Contribs 21:10, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect

EEMIV has made a redirect to a Dark Forces page, this I have just undone since In think it should stay, however if a good reason for the reddirect is made we can leave it. All information including the picture is below as an archive. --Stealth500! (talk) 20:17, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've deleted the sloppy copy-and-paste; it's available in the edit history, or you can reformat it for appropriate talk-page display. --EEMIV (talk) 20:27, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok sorry about that. I read the article Star Wars Dark Forces and instead it will reddirect to Imperial Army (star wars) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stealth500 (talk • contribs) 21:06, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe if you're going to redirect to an article you could put some content on there, hmm? The only mention of Dark Troopers on Imperial Army (star wars) is in the caption of a picture. Until someone decides to put some on there, let's leave what we had here.--69.215.133.53 (talk) 05:57, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The one picture is the picture I insisted on moving however I agree that it would be very useful to haev some of this information. EEMIV and others what do you think? --Stealth500! (talk) 11:34, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why does this page have to redirect at all? Just looking at the Imperial Army (Star Wars) page there are several things on there from the EU, no more obscure than the Dark Troopers, and with significantly less to say, that have summaries with links to their own pages. The Dark Trooper is an interesting story, about how one little invention of the guys at LucasArts was seized upon by many EU authors reused. It would merely clutter the Imperial Army article right now to even TRY and summarize the Dark Trooper article, and it wouldn't make much sense at this point, since that article is supposed to be about the Army, not every little variaton of Stormtrooper. In fact, that would make MUCH more sense to redirect to, even if it IS deserving of an article addressing how they've changed since Dark Forces. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.215.133.53 (talk • contribs)

This article is uncited trivia, original research and plot summary. A better redirect target would probably be Dark Forces, which does have a section -- and citations -- about the Dark Trooper figure. However, this material is fancruft. Perhaps an AfD would be appropriate. --EEMIV (talk) 15:09, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What section? The only info on Dark Forces is contained in the Plot summary, and fleeting mentions of "various Dark Trooper models" at the end of a sentence about enemies. Your comments about the article being uncited bring about another point, how does one cite a videogame? Regardless, if you're dead set on redirecting somewhere, you could at least be bothered to perform some cursory searching for a suitable location. Next to this article, the most information about Dark Troopers is found on the Imperial Stormtrooper page, which was bi-directionally linked to this before all this redirect messiness.--129.89.249.115 (talk) 20:19, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The real-world info. -- which Wikipedia is concerned with -- is in the merchandising section of the Dark Forces article, which by the way is where I initially redirected it; the Army and Stormtrooper articles are in-universe tripe that should be heavily axed. For info. on what material should be included/cited for a good video game article -- or any article on elements of fiction -- see WP:WAF. --EEMIV (talk) 22:31, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's a difference between writing about what something is in-universe, and writing from an in-universe perspective. The Expanded Universe usage section of the old article, while not properly cited or written, is an example of such, were it to be re-written properly. This is the information I believe should be preserved. I could care less what their combat role is, that's something for Wookiepedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.89.135.220 (talk) 16:09, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]