Forum:TC:Unidentified Twi'lek administrator

Forums > Trash compactor archive > TC:Unidentified Twi'lek administrator

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or, if the page was deleted, in the Senate Hall rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was Delete. Toprawa and Ralltiir 14:30, February 17, 2011 (UTC)

Unidentified Twi'lek administrator (talk - history - links - logs)

Okay, this character here, he is obviously Bib Fortuna. One will only have to look this, this and this to see the resemblance. However, there aren't any official source to confirm this. Do we need a proof that he is Bib, or is the resemblance enough to delete this article?

If the article is deleted, I will ask the article's GA nomination to be deleted as well. Kreivi Wolter 15:09, January 22, 2011 (UTC)

Keep

Let the canon resolve the conflict on its own. At the very least, ask the author of the comic or Leland Chee in a public forum if it is. Graestan(Talk) 15:43, January 22, 2011 (UTC)
  • All one has to do is walk around a college campus to see similar-looking humans wearing the exact same outfits. It's not impossible in the Galaxy Far, Far Away. Graestan(Talk) 15:44, January 22, 2011 (UTC)
    • Do you know are there any ways to ask such things without the need of registering to forum? Kreivi Wolter 16:34, January 22, 2011 (UTC)
      • The talk page for the article is a good place to ask first. Graestan(Talk) 16:35, January 22, 2011 (UTC)
  1. Can't be sure for 100 percent. Therefore keep. Clone Commander Lee Talk 15:48, January 22, 2011 (UTC)
    Looks like we have absolutely no proof for this whatsoever; saying they're the same person is pure speculation. Jonjedigrandmaster (Talk) 15:52, January 22, 2011 (UTC)
    No proof. 1358 (Talk) 16:42, January 22, 2011 (UTC)
    Grand Moff Tranner Imperial Department of Military Research (Comlink) 16:46, January 22, 2011 (UTC)
  2. No reason to think it is Bib <-Omicron(Leave a message at the BEEP!) 16:52, January 22, 2011 (UTC)
    Per Jon. Master Jonathan New Jedi Order (Jedi Council Chambers) 23:02, January 22, 2011 (UTC)
    Per Jon and Omicron. - JMAS Jolly Trooper Hey, it's me! 23:07, January 22, 2011 (UTC)
    Looking similar to each other doesn't make them the same character. Looking at the obvious consensus here you might as well keep working on your nomination. Holocron Greatholocron (Complain) 14:41, January 24, 2011 (UTC)
    • Mmm-m. Looks so. However, perhaps it would be wisest to wait until the comic ends. I mean, it would be pretty pointless to make this a GA if the comic suddenly reveals that he actually is Bib. Kreivi Wolter 18:18, January 24, 2011 (UTC)
      • Do you intend to get him to good status regardless of this? 1358 (Talk) 19:15, January 24, 2011 (UTC)
        • Actually, no. Feel free to remove the nomination. Kreivi Wolter 20:01, January 24, 2011 (UTC)
  3. Duh. Toprawa and Ralltiir 21:32, January 24, 2011 (UTC)
  4. Per Tope. --Doctor Kermit(Complain.) 03:53, January 25, 2011 (UTC)
    Per JJGM. Corellian PremierAll along the watchtower 17:40, January 26, 2011 (UTC)
    Grunny (talk) 23:33, January 28, 2011 (UTC)
    Though it's likely this character is meant to be Bib, saying so without explicit proof violates WP:NOR. Darth Karikawill destroy your planet! 19:00, January 29, 2011 (UTC)
    CC7567 (talk) 19:20, January 29, 2011 (UTC)
  5. JangFett (Talk) 21:24, January 29, 2011 (UTC)

Delete

  1. Kreivi Wolter 15:09, January 22, 2011 (UTC)
  2. Delete. Duck test. We do this all the time when a movie character is featured on the cover of a novel, say, without an explicit indication that it's really, say, Lando and not some other dark-skinned guy with a handlebar mustache and a propensity to wear capes. ~ SavageBob 23:51, January 28, 2011 (UTC)
    • But a painting of Lando isn't the same thing as a cartoon of a Twi'lek when other Twi'leks have been shown to wear similar clothing. Graestan(Talk) 17:33, January 29, 2011 (UTC)
      • I've moved my comments below, as I believe this warrants more discussion. ~ SavageBob 20:14, January 29, 2011 (UTC)
  3. Merge then Delete per artist confirmation presented below. - JMAS Jolly Trooper Hey, it's me! 21:20, January 29, 2011 (UTC)
  4. Per JMAS and the artist confirmation. Master Jonathan New Jedi Order (Jedi Council Chambers) 21:43, January 29, 2011 (UTC)
  5. Merge, in light of evidence. SinisterSamurai 22:30, January 29, 2011 (UTC)
  6. Only because of the confirmation. NAYAYEN—it appears to be a frammistat 23:53, January 29, 2011 (UTC)
  7. Per Nayayen—really. CC7567 (talk) 07:36, January 30, 2011 (UTC)
  8. 1358 (Talk) 07:40, January 30, 2011 (UTC)
  9. Menkooroo 09:57, January 30, 2011 (UTC)
  10. Given this development. Grand Moff Tranner Imperial Department of Military Research (Comlink) 00:31, January 31, 2011 (UTC)
  11. Glad we have it sorted out. Was only a matter of time, it seems. Graestan(Talk) 00:35, January 31, 2011 (UTC)
  12. Grunny (talk) 02:33, January 31, 2011 (UTC)
  13. We've got proof that he is Bib now. Why exactly is this still open when the problem has been solved by the original author of the material? Holocron Greatholocron (Complain) 09:52, January 31, 2011 (UTC)
  14. Per Holocron. Darth Karikawill destroy your planet! 03:59, February 3, 2011 (UTC)
  15. We have confirmation. Jonjedigrandmaster (Talk) 01:48, February 4, 2011 (UTC)
  16. To compensate for the six lazy people. NaruHina Talk Anakinsolo 23:29, February 8, 2011 (UTC)
  17. Per Mr. Hodges. Corellian PremierRobotechAll along the watchtower 22:03, February 9, 2011 (UTC)
  18. Pfff... MasterFredCommerce Guild(Whatever) 17:28, February 11, 2011 (UTC)
  19. While I'm not certain either the duck test or authorial intent alone would be a clear-cut case, the combination is more than convincing. jSarek 23:35, February 11, 2011 (UTC)

Comments

  • If there's a case of another Twi'lek that's not Fortuna wearing identical clothing to Fortuna, then, yeah, I'd reconsider. I just see this as a bad precedent; if we see someone with the features of a movie character and wearing clothing closely associated with that movie character but unnamed in some source, I think it's dangerous for us to have to assume it's not that movie character unless explicitly named as such. This seems like the same argument we used to propose the duck test, so that when we see a Devaronian in a panel of a comic book, we assume it's a Devaronian and not, say, a Clawdite pretending to be a Devaronian. In other words, I think (and previously, we all have thought) that we should assume something is what it appears to be unless the source proves otherwise. If we don't, we can't ID anything that isn't explicitly named in the source. And even then, do we start questioning character dialogue in case someone's lying, say? It just becomes a deconstructive mess. If there's some reason to treat Bib Fortuna as a special case, I can see the other side, though. ~ SavageBob 19:01, January 29, 2011 (UTC)
    • An artist created this image of Tekli based on this live-action image of Kabe. Does that make them twins? No. Tom Hodges used Bib Fortuna (a majordomo for a Hutt crimelord) as his basis for drawing this character, another majordomo for another Hutt crime lord. It doesn't make them the same person, or twins for that matter. That is especially the case when you consider that sources have Fortuna working for Jabba long before the Clone Wars broke out. This Twi'lek works for Torpo, not Jabba. This is nothing more than an artist using a live-action character from the films for artistic reference for a completely different and new character. - JMAS Jolly Trooper Hey, it's me! 20:33, January 29, 2011 (UTC)
      • And I was wrong. I emailed Tom Hodges to ask about this, and he confirmed that is IS Bib Fortuna. - JMAS Jolly Trooper Hey, it's me! 21:20, January 29, 2011 (UTC)
HodgesReply
        • Good that we were able to get confirmation here. I still am troubled that the earlier swing of the vote here indicates that we'll have to stop assuming characters and species and vehicles and things are what they appear to be (and not, say, Sith illusions or Clawdites in disguise) without some form of official confirmation, but I suppose that in this particular instance, the point is moot. ~ SavageBob 21:53, January 29, 2011 (UTC)
          • I could be wrong, but now that we have a definitive answer, any consensus at this point is moot. The pages should be merged per existing policy, and I would think this thread would simply be dismissed/thrown out. If someone feels a distinct need to be particular, or a need to, I dunno, question JMAS's credibility or something, a new consensus or discussion thread can be developed. SinisterSamurai 22:30, January 29, 2011 (UTC)
  • To avoid similar failed nominations, it would be wise to expand Rule 5 of GAN. I mean something like "Do not nominate anything that will surely have a new appearance in two weeks." The Bib's webcomic has new pages every week. Darth Morrt 22:14, January 30, 2011 (UTC)
    • Well, that's pretty much what it says currently anyway. An amendment must be CTd, too. 1358 (Talk) 12:50, January 31, 2011 (UTC)
      • I'll keep that in mind. Kreivi Wolter 16:12, February 2, 2011 (UTC)