Talk: OOM-9/Archive1

This page is an archive of the discussion of an article. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's current talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.

Anon Fanon

How is it possible that OOM-9 was deactivated in EpI and it appears in both EpII and III? - TopAce, 20:24 (GMT +1), 12th August 2005.

I doubt he did. Looking at the edit history, that info was contributed by an anon. I removed it. Good catch. – Aidje _talk 19:30, 12 Aug 2005 (UTC)

Where does it say that OOM-9 was reactivated and became a general? Unit121 Sep. 7 2005

I requested a source from the user who added that paragraph. I'm sure he'll provide one once he gets the message. – Aidje _talk 05:10, 8 Sep 2005 (UTC)
- Please refer to my answer on my Talk page. Cmdr. J. Nebulax 20:03, 8 Sep 2005 (UTC)

oom-9

he shows up in clonewars too, but there's no informations about this. could anyone add that info?

He doesn't show up in the Clone Wars. Admiral J. Nebulax 15:47, 24 Dec 2005 (UTC)
- I heard somewhere that he was in a ship that was shot down on Hypori, then i thought i saw him among the separatists Vader was hacking up...
  - Wrong, wrong. He was a command battle droid, one of many OOM-series commanders to be manufactured. Admiral J. Nebulax 21:36, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Here is the OOM-9 general info.

The majority of that is fanon. Admiral J. Nebulax ^(talk) 20px 19:31, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Quote

I have to seriously disagree with your deletion of the quote, Nebulax. The "...they won't stay hidden for long" quote underscores OOM-9's dedication to carrying out the bidding of the Trade Federation. Cutch 21:33, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

I suppose that it could serve as a lead-in quote. My only real problem with it is that in the movie, OOM-9 sounded like he had a Brooklyn accent. -- SFH 21:40, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
- Especially on the word "undahwattah". Cutch 21:42, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
  - In my opinion, quotes should be about the subject of the article, not what the subject of the article said. The whole quote only showed what OOM-9 was about to do. That's it. Admiral J. Nebulax ^(talk) 21:58, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
    - But the quote illustrates his character... er... programming. I mean... can you think of a better one? Cutch 22:33, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
      - How does it illustrate his character/programming? Admiral J. Nebulax ^(talk) 20px 00:09, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
        "They won't stay hidden for long"=I'm going to ruthlessly do the job I've been given. Maybe that's just my skewed opinion, but that's the way I read it. Cutch 00:23, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
        Well, the thing is, the quote talks too much about the mission itself, not OOM-9. Admiral J. Nebulax ^(talk) 20px 00:25, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
        What about "Open fire!"? Cutch 20:31, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
        You might can find a good one about him in Galactic Battlegrounds.--Rune Haako 20:56, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
        I hope so. No offense, Cutch, but "Open fire!" has less to do with OOM-9 than the last quote. Admiral J. Nebulax ^(talk) 20px 21:40, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
        Yeah, it was a joke on how few lines he has, LOL Cutch 21:56, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
        Just saying... Admiral J. Nebulax ^(talk) 20px 22:00, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
        You see, I dunno... I think that the "... they won't stay hidden for long quote" (even if we take just that section) speaks just as much about OOM-9 as "Be smart, be victorious" or "Try not. Do, or do not. There is no try" speak about Gial Ackbar and Yoda, respectively... and they have more lines to choose from than OOM-9 does. I'm not trying to be a negative Nancy about all this, but that's just the way I read the quote. Cutch 22:49, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
        The thing is, I don't really care all that much about the Yoda and Ackbar articles. I think that those quotes should definitely be replaced, however. But perhaps Rune Haako's suggestion will provide us with a good quote. Admiral J. Nebulax ^(talk) 20px 00:17, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
Okay, c'mon: the "parameters" quote is good. It shows that OOM-9 actually went above and beyond his programming. This is not a big deal. It's not like it's the quote for Luke or Vader. It's OOM-9: a droid in one movie with four lines. Cutch 05:29, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
- Not really. It's okay for now, or until a better quote might get found. Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax ^{(Imperial Holovision)} 20px 12:47, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
  - I doubt a better quote will be found—if so, I'll eat my hat. Cutch 15:16, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
    - Maybe there'll be a new book leading up into Episode I centered around battle droids that will give a great quote on OOM-9... I'm kidding, of course. Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax ^{(Imperial Holovision)} 20px 20:30, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
      - Yeah... okay, we agree. Cool. ;) Cutch 05:40, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
        Okay. Still, I like the "I have a task..." one. Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax ^{(Imperial Holovision)} 20px 13:15, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

COME ON!

--Rune Haako 22:08, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

I even put a note on the top of the page! Did you even click on the sorce?! Why is it that every time I try to help I'm just making it worse! I may be new at this wiki thing, but I am NOT an anon! I just wanted to make my first major edit on my favorite character! How was I supposed to know it was all fanon? You could at least apologize for saying that mean stuff about me! I have feelings to! -User:Maaul/sig

Wikipedia is not a source, and I didn't say anything mean to you.--Rune Haako 15:03, 6 April 2006 (PDT)
- We did not say anything mean. You're overreacting about the whole situation now. Admiral J. Nebulax ^(talk) 20px 15:05, 6 April 2006 (PDT)

Not you, but Aidje did! -User:Maaul/sig

Who?--Rune Haako 22:08, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
- Then why are you complaining about that here? Admiral J. Nebulax ^(talk) 20px 15:10, 6 April 2006 (PDT)
I don't even see where Aidje said anything.--Rune Haako 22:11, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
- It's probably on some other page that has nothing to do with this. Admiral J. Nebulax ^(talk) 20px 22:14, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
  - This discussion is pointless, anyway. Admiral J. Nebulax ^(talk) 20px 13:44, 7 April 2006 (PDT)

Edit

Why was my edit reverted? According to Galactic Battlegrounds manual, which gives a lot of canon info, he started as a normal battle droid. And his shoulders aren't painted yellow. So why the revert?

He was a command battle droid. And if this manual is the only place that says he started out as a normal battle droid, I doubt it. And it doesn't matter if his shoulders aren't painted or not. Admiral J. Nebulax ^{(Imperial Holovision)} 20px 20:09, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
Nothing contradicts it, therefore ot his canon. And this article states his shoulders were painted yellow.
- A Galactic Battlegrounds manual being canon? I don't think so. Games go against canon numerous times. Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax ^{(Imperial Holovision)} 20px 21:50, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
Nothing contradicts it. Battlegrounds is canon. OOM-9 being a standard combat droid is not a game mechanic. It might not be the firmest of sources but nothing contradicts it.
- Galactic Battlegrounds is a game. And, like most other games, it probably goes against canon because of game play. I suggest we wait until a good source says that OOM-9 started off as a standard droid. Also, the command battle droids, pilot droids, and security droids were upgraded models. I don't think the Trade Federation would waste its time upgrading a standard droid to a command officer when they could just buy one. Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax ^{(Imperial Holovision)} 20px 12:45, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
As I have just stated, OOM-9 being a standard combat droid has nothing to do with gameplay. You may not like it, but its canon.
- But it goes against canon and make no sense. Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax ^{(Imperial Holovision)} 20px 16:19, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
It DOESN'T go against canon.
- Command battle droids have different backpacks than the regular B-1s. OOM-9 is not a standard battle droid - Kwenn 16:54, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
  - It really does go against canon because OOM-9 was an OOM-series command battle droid. There aren't "OOM-series battle droids", and the Trade Federation wouldn't upgrade a standard battle droid when they could just buy a command unit. Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax ^{(Imperial Holovision)} 20px 16:55, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
    - Can you quote the line or page that supports your theory? I have the manual, but can't find anything about this - Kwenn 16:59, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
      - It really doesn't matter anyway. OOM-9 was a OOM-series command battle droid from the beginning. Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax ^{(Imperial Holovision)} 20px 19:27, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
    - As much as I try to let games fit into canon, I must agree with Admiral Nebulax. It's a minor source that doesn't make much sense. Battle droids probably don't get promoted. -Aiddat 23:18, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
      - Exactly. It's a major error on the part of whoever wrote the manual. Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax ^{(Imperial Holovision)} 20px 23:20, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
Very well. Consensus is against me, I will concede the point. Fact relegated to me-canon :D.
- Check out this new article: OOM officer droid. This should help. Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax ^{(Imperial Holovision)} 20px 10:57, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
Mind you, I feel battle droids must get promoted. If they don't, we should have an article for a corporal-class battle droid.
- Battle droids don't get promoted. If they're going to have a rank, they get programmed with that rank. Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax ^{(Imperial Holovision)} 20px 11:14, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
  - Sorry for re-starting an old topic, but this is ridiculous. The manual is a canon source - we can't just pick and choose what we accept for canon. .... 00:06, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
    - But its ranking on the canon scale is most likely the lowest, excluding fanon. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax ^{(Imperial Holovision)} 20px 03:06, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
      - It's C-Canon. We can't pick and choose. .... 03:21, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
        And where is it called C-canon? Grand Admiral J. Nebulax ^{(Imperial Holovision)} 20px 03:22, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
        Where is it called S-Canon, or N-Canon? .... 03:34, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
        And where is it called C-canon? See? It has no current canon status. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax ^{(Imperial Holovision)} 20px 03:37, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
        It's in a published, licenced LucasArts product. i.e canon. Messy canon, but canon nonetheless. Bit like the old Rune Haako problem. .... 03:44, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
        Well, it's canon that there are different types of battle droids programmed for different functions. That basically overrrides the Galactic Battlegrounds manual. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax ^{(Imperial Holovision)} 20px 13:21, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
        Yeah, I know what you're saying, but it still doesn't override the possibility of OOM-9 being a retrofitted Battle Droid. It's kinda like Tantive IV. .... 23:38, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
        Good point. That would fit perfectly with OOM-9 being the basis for the OOM-series B1 battle droids. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax ^{(Imperial Holovision)} 20px 23:41, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
Should I go ahead with it, or should I run it past Chee first? .... 23:53, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
- Ask Chee.=) --Imp 23:54, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
  - Agreed. Ask him first. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax ^{(Imperial Holovision)} 20px 23:59, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
    - Done. Now we just have to wait for the reply... .... 00:02, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
      - Excellent. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax ^{(Imperial Holovision)} 20px 00:02, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
        Ok, Chee said "It sounds like it could be true to me". Fantastic. .... 10:16, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
        Well, there we go. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax ^{(Imperial Holovision)} 20px 12:14, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
        I thought that was pretty weak grounds to set it in stone that that's what happened, but... .... 21:55, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
        It's set in stone anyway. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax ^{(Imperial Holovision)} 20px 01:00, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
Well, it is now. .... 01:02, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
- That's basically what I just said. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax ^{(Imperial Holovision)} 20px 01:05, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
  - Still...it's kinda shaky. Oh, doesn't matter. It's in there, and if it gets in the way of GA, it can go. .... 01:10, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Recent edit

This addition could be fanon. Note death date and last paragraph. - TopAce 19:19, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Uh, we've known that's fanon. Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax ^{(Imperial Holovision)} 20px 21:55, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
- I thought as much, just making sure - TopAce 23:03, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
  - Someone had added it on Wikipedia once, and I believe that I was the one who brought it here without knowing that it was complete fanon. Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax ^{(Imperial Holovision)} 20px 01:38, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

OOM-9 series?

The CUSWE says that OOM-9 became the basis for a whole series of battle droid. What source is that from? Is it true? .... 04:19, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

The OOM-series, yes. Supposedly, all commanders are OOM-series B1 battle droids. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax ^{(Imperial Holovision)} 20px 03:06, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
- Yeah, I got that part, it's just that the CUSWE said that specifically OOM-9 was the basis for a whole new series. .... 03:22, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
  - Well, I suppose OOM-9 could have been the first of the OOM-series... That would explain his overall control of the Trade Federation Droid Army. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax ^{(Imperial Holovision)} 20px 03:27, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
    - Yeah, problem is we need a source. And why 9? What the hell did 1 do? ;) .... 03:31, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
      - Maybe a lucky number in Neimoidian society. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax ^{(Imperial Holovision)} 20px 03:32, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
        Anyway, do you think this deserves a mention in a couple of places? Grand Admiral J. Nebulax ^{(Imperial Holovision)} 20px 01:14, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
        For this one, I think we'dd be needing a concrete source. .... 01:16, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
        Fair enough. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax ^{(Imperial Holovision)} 20px 01:18, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
        Four-dot, I assume, since you cited CUSWE above, you've actually checked its OOM-series droid article? The one that states Jedi Quest: The Way of the Apprentice as its one and only source? Because...that's, er, its source. - \\Captain Kwenn// ^{— Ahoy!} 21:13, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
        [futurama]No I did not.[/futurama] .... 22:58, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Episode 1 novelization

Does he make an appearance in the novelization of TPM? --Imp 00:00, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Yep. And he does jack. Funny - I just had to blow a whole lot of dust off my TPM novelisation. I should probably read it again. I think that OOM-9's real "fun-in-the-sun" appearance was in Galactic Battlegrounds. .... 00:02, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
- I suppose Galactic Battlegrounds is where that quote's from as well? --Imp 00:02, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
  - Yup. .... 23:50, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

100% success rate?

Is there even a source for that? And, even if it's sourced, can we really be so sure of it? Grand Admiral J. Nebulax ^{(Imperial Holovision)} 20px 20:52, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

I would assume it's referring to Galactic Battlegrounds, which details OOM-9's role in the Naboo campaign. Since the player controls him, he obviously wins every mission he's assigned - \\Captain Kwenn// ^{— Ahoy!} 21:24, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
- Do I have your permission to remove it? Grand Admiral J. Nebulax ^{(Imperial Holovision)} 20px 21:26, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
  - Er, no, because as far as I can see, he did have a 100% success rate during the invasion and pacification of Naboo - \\Captain Kwenn// ^{— Ahoy!} 21:28, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
    - Not really. The Gungans intially slipped through his mechanical fingers when they evacuated their underwater cities. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax ^{(Imperial Holovision)} 20px 21:32, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
      - He did not command those battles. .... 21:45, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
        Yes, he did. He even tells Gunray that he and his troops will be "searching the swamps for these rumored underwater villages" in Episode I. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax ^{(Imperial Holovision)} 20px 00:40, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
        Sorry, I thought you were talking about those battles where the Gungans liberated several Naboo cities. Technically, in the Naboo Swamp Battle, it was a victory, because he forced the opposition to retreat. .... 06:44, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
        Didn't the Gungans fleet before any battle could take place? Grand Admiral J. Nebulax ^{(Imperial Holovision)} 20px 22:00, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
        I thought there were some skirmishes...it wouldn't be much of a mission in GB if there was no fighting. .... 23:16, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
        Games go against canon. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax ^{(Imperial Holovision)} 20px 00:42, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
        No, they're C-Canon, like most other things. And since this is not attributed to game mechanics, then yes, he did have a 100% success rate. .... 23:20, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
        The way I see it, OOM-9's success rate is based off the player of the game, making it due to game mechanics. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax ^{(Imperial Holovision)} 20px 23:21, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
        No, because if you lose a battle, you do not progress. .... 23:24, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
        Exactly. Game mechanics. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax ^{(Imperial Holovision)} 20px 23:25, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
        You seem not to understand. The only way the story can be revealed is if you beat all of the missions. How you do it is beside the point - according to the game, OOM-9 won all of his missions. .... 23:28, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
        The point is, he didn't. The movie clearly shows that. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax ^{(Imperial Holovision)} 20px 23:29, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
        The Battle of Grassy Plains was won by the Trade Federation. The deactivation happened after the rout. .... 23:31, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
        But the Gungans slipped through the Trade Federation's forces' fingers before that. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax ^{(Imperial Holovision)} 20px 23:32, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
He forced a Gungan retreat. Therefore, victory. .... 23:34, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
- Thefourdot, that was not complete success. Besides, there's no real reason to have that in there. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax ^{(Imperial Holovision)} 20px 23:35, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
  - And besides, "The only way the story can be revealed is if you beat all of the missions" is still due to game mechanics. In order for OOM-9 to get a 100% success rating, you need to beat all the missions. That really makes no sense. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax ^{(Imperial Holovision)} 20px 23:38, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
    - I was looking in terms of 100% victories. He won 4 Battles out of 4 engagements. And you still don't seem to understand the concept of game mechanics. It is assumed, canonincally, that all levels are beaten by the protagonist in a videogame. .... 23:39, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
      - But you're still saying that you have to win the levels in order for OOM-9 to get 100% success. That means by winning the levels, you're actually losing them. And FYI, Thefourdot, I know plenty about game mechanics. I've been here longer than you, and in that time, I've pointed out what is game mechanics and what isn't. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax ^{(Imperial Holovision)} 20px 23:41, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
        ...judging by your past statements, I'm going to assume that you are not aware of the fact that the player controls OOM-9's forces in the Trade Federation campaign of Galactic Battlegrounds. .... 23:43, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
        Well, my friend told me you could also play as Naboo security forces... Apparently he's lying. Anyway, the fact that you play as OOM-9 assures you victory from the start (proving you beat the levels)—hence, game mechanics. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax ^{(Imperial Holovision)} 20px 01:40, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
        It's still a part of the story. The invasion on Naboo as depicted in GB is considered canon, so his success rate has to be as well. .... 04:22, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
        But as you said before, losing a level means you have to start that level over. Therefore, OOM-9's success rating wouldn't be 100%. But upon completion of the game, a 100% success rating is guaranteed. That means it's due to game mecanics. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax ^{(Imperial Holovision)} 20px 14:25, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
        No, you misunderstand. Canon assumes that, with all games, you beat the level on first try. Not having played GB, I can understand that it's difficult for you to comprehend. .... 21:46, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
        What's your source for "Canon assumes that, with all games, you beat the level on first try"? Grand Admiral J. Nebulax ^{(Imperial Holovision)} 20px 00:15, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
        Common sense? Kyle Katarn's not going to magically re-appear after dying in an Imperial base where everyone's conveniently forgotten what's just happened and repeat everything exactly the same as before, is he? -- I need a name (Complain here) 00:18, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
        That's not the point. For OOM-9 to get a 100% success rating, you have to beat the game. Now, if there weren't game mechanics, you would lose a level but keep going. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax ^{(Imperial Holovision)} 20px 00:19, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
        This is idiotic. Should we now go to the articles of all playable characters and add that they had a 100% success rate?--Lord Oblivion^{Sith holocron}30px 00:26, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
        Yeah, if OOM-9 gets it, so does every other playable character in video games. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax ^{(Imperial Holovision)} 20px 00:29, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
        No it doesn't because most other characters have had other documented failures, or possible failures. Since the Federation did not engage in any other military campaigns (barring Alaris Prime, and some other minor junk) we can say that OOM-9 was not in any other tours of duty other than the Battle of Naboo. In fact, I'm sure that GB mentions that this is OOM-9's 1st (and only) campaign. For OOM-9 to get a 100% success rating, you have to beat the game. Now, if there weren't game mechanics, you would lose a level but keep going. Canon assumes that you beat each level. .... 06:44, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
        Again, provide a source for "Canon assumes that you beat each level". Grand Admiral J. Nebulax ^{(Imperial Holovision)} 20px 12:17, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
I need a name just told you. Common sense. If OOM-9 failed to capture Vis, Parlaay and New Centrif, Naboo would have been able to send out a transmission to Coruscant. If he had failed to capture Theed, TPM wouldn't have happned. If he had failed to drive the Gungans out of Otoh Gunga, they would still be there in the film. And, TPM shows that he won Grassy Plains. I.E, 100%. .... 21:59, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
- You still fail to source your claim. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax ^{(Imperial Holovision)} 20px 22:47, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  - Gentlemen, I believe it's time to contact Mr. Chee. --Imp 22:50, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
    - If you insist. ;) Grand Admiral J. Nebulax ^{(Imperial Holovision)} 20px 22:51, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
      - I don't see why...suddenly we're questioning a perfectly acceptable canon source for no good reason? .... 21:44, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
        1) Games go against canon. 2) Game mechanics cause that. 3) It's logic vs. gameplay. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax ^{(Imperial Holovision)} 20px 21:45, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
        Where is this logic? .... 21:49, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
        The fact that in real life, there are no second chances. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax ^{(Imperial Holovision)} 20px 21:53, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
        And if you're so confident you're right, then give Chee a chance to prove you are. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax ^{(Imperial Holovision)} 20px 21:55, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
        I just can't quite get my head around what you think is involved with Galactic Battlegrounds. I'll edify for you: You play several missions as the Trade Federation, all considered canoninical. If you lose, that's it, you don't progress. But with all games canon does assume it. There's no source for that kind of thing - it's common sense. If Rom Moch gunned down Kyle Katarn on the Arc Hammer, Katarn would not have come back and tried again. But he didn't, canon assumes that he just went through the paces and completed every mission. .... 21:59, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
        Let's just wait and see what Chee has to say. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax ^{(Imperial Holovision)} 20px 22:01, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
It's not worth the effort! It's not a matter of debate. Needless to say, if you fail to complete a mission in GB, the next time you try it, you don't have Gunray saying: "You'd better not stuff it up this time". No, he just acts as though you're doing it for the first time. Which is what he is doing. All the time. The game does not recognise a failure. .... 22:04, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
- If you're so desperate to prove me wrong, let Chee answer. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax ^{(Imperial Holovision)} 20px 22:05, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
  - There, I've asked him. That also had the double edged effect of making me look like a complete and utter twerp, asking a question with such an obvious answer that is present in so many parts of SW media. And even if canon doesn't assume that, it's beside the point, since GB doesn't allow for a "second try". .... 22:10, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
    - Thefourdot, stop it already. Chee will give us the answer. And if you're right, I'll shut up. Otherwise, stop it. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax ^{(Imperial Holovision)} 20px 22:12, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Even if he wins all of his missions in the game, we don't know if that's all the missions he ever was involved in, unless some source explicitly states so. Games aren't necessarily all-inclusive of a character's activities. jSarek 22:35, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I think it's only meant to be the Naboo campaign, but still. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax ^{(Imperial Holovision)} 20px 23:13, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
...but what other military situations were the Federation involved in? And besides, until OOM-9 is documented as having being involved in other battles, we should consider it 100%...because it is. I really don't see what the problem is: GB isn't contradicting anything else. .... 23:13, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
- For God's sake, Thefourdot, let Chee reply. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax ^{(Imperial Holovision)} 20px 23:16, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
  - I don't even know if he'll answer; it's not a continuity dispute. It's not even a dispute at all. .... 23:20, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
    - Yes it is, because I'm disputing it. And Thefourdot, you're actually doing something someone said during my admin nomination: You're unwilling to listen to other people's opinions. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax ^{(Imperial Holovision)} 20px 23:22, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
      - This isn't a case of opinion, and this is by no means a dispute. Can we just start again: Outline exactly what the problem is that you have with the article. .... 23:26, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
        Thefourdot, that's not even the question I had in mind. It should have been "Did OOM-9 have a 100% success rating in the Naboo campaign?" Grand Admiral J. Nebulax ^{(Imperial Holovision)} 20px 23:27, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
        OK. Even I can answer that: Yes, every battle that OOM-9 has been documented as being involved in, he has won. .... 23:28, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
        <sigh> That's the question you should have asked Leland Chee. With all due respect, I don't need your answer again. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax ^{(Imperial Holovision)} 20px 23:30, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
        With all due respect, that's preposterous. I don't need to bother Chee with questions about things that are already clear-cut within the canon. .... 23:32, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
        No, clearly you don't need to bother him with that, but it's not because it's "clear-cut within the canon." Just because every conflict he's been *documented* in has been a victory doesn't mean there aren't conflicts he hasn't yet been documented in that he lost. Unless there's an explicit statement somewhere about his combat record, this statement shouldn't be included. jSarek 23:40, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
        To quote Jack, I give up. Happy? .... 23:44, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
        Not particularly; I always prefer it when one side is actually convinced of the worth of the other side's argument or a reasonable compromise between sides is reached, rather than one side conceding in frustration. However, I don't think I need to say that I do believe it's what's best for the article. jSarek 23:48, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
        Well, that makes one of us. Just a point of interest: The Han Solo doesn't say that he was dead by 130 ABY, but we can be pretty damn sure he was. .... 23:51, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
        I don't want a further issue on this, but... So far, there's no evidence Han's dead by 130 ABY. He could simply be retired, even though he's likely dead by then. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax ^{(Imperial Holovision)} 20px 01:06, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
        Han is Darth Krayt! :-O -- I need a name (Complain here) 01:13, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
        Nooooooooo!!! Grand Admiral J. Nebulax ^{(Imperial Holovision)} 20px 01:14, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
        So far, there's no evidence Han's dead by 130 ABY. There's no evidence to suggest that OOM-9 didn't have a 100% success rate, either. .... 01:31, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
        There's no evidence either way in both cases, so in both cases we should say nothing. No comment on Han's death or lack thereof, no comment on OOM-9's perfect service record or lack thereof. jSarek 01:42, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
No, there is evidence. All of OOM-9's engagments in canon were a success. So, until something is published that says he lost a battle, the 100% statement is true. .... 03:53, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
- Then, going by that, every playable person in video games has a 100% success rating. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax ^{(Imperial Holovision)} 20px 12:10, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
  - Military commanders, yes. However, OOM-9 is a rare case where the character is not explicitly defeated in any other source. Take Sev'rance Tann, for instance. She won all the battles of her campaign, but then Echuu Shen-Jon beat her in later campaigns, thus voiding her previously perfect record. 100% is a pretty significant thing for a military commander. Not even Thrawn was that good. .... 22:56, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
    - That's because The Thrawn Trilogy wasn't a video game. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax ^{(Imperial Holovision)} 20px 22:58, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
    - Technically, OOM-9 could not have had a 100% success rate since he allowed remaining Gungans (ones who would later draw the armies away from Theed allowing for the Viceroy to be captured) to escape. So, I wouldn't call it 100% success. --Redemption^{Talk 15px} 22:59, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
      - Well, Thefourdot has countered that by saying that OOM-9 forced them to retreat. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax ^{(Imperial Holovision)} 20px 23:02, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
        Exactly. A forced retreat is considered a military victory (for the forcers). There was an engagement at Otoh Gunga, but many civillians escaped. Nevertheless, it's almost identical to Hoth - An Imperial victory, despite the fact that Alliance high command escaped. .... 23:05, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
        Except a retreat is not a 100% victory. Therefore, as of then, OOM-9 did not have a 100% victory rating. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax ^{(Imperial Holovision)} 20px 23:06, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
        By 100%, I mean one victory (regardless of content), would be 100%, but one loss would bring it to 50%. .... 23:08, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
        But the fact that the Gungans escaped means that was not a complete victory. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax ^{(Imperial Holovision)} 20px 23:11, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Subheader for easier navigation

Please continue the discussion below. As I see it, this debate is going in circles. Now, I have a proposal: simply leave the percentage out, and reword the whole thing into "While initially successful during the Naboo campaign, OOM-9 was ultimately thwarted by his lack of independent thought (rest of text goes here)" That compromise should make everyone happy. Or? --Imp 23:25, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Eugh. Whatever. .... 23:26, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
- That's a great solution, Imp. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax ^{(Imperial Holovision)} 20px 23:27, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Ah. This is straight from Chee: I don't know of any OOM-9 failures prior to Anakin destroying the droid control ship.. How do you like them apples? .... 01:49, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

No need to brag about it, Thefourdot. The day after I made my last post on this topic, I decided this discussion wasn't so important. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax ^{(Imperial Holovision)} 20px 01:51, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
- Sorry Jack, but every thing here is as important as anything else, regardless of what you dictate. Looks like I'm going to have to put that "100%" thing back, then. .... 01:52, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
  - Thefourdot, you misunderstood me. It's important, yes, but I could care less about the outcome. Perhaps I should be more specific in the future. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax ^{(Imperial Holovision)} 20px 01:54, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
    - Yes, I did misunderstand you. So you won't mind a whit if I restore my original, correct and canoninical content. .... 01:59, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
      - If you stop bragging about it, yes. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax ^{(Imperial Holovision)} 20px 14:37, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
        Very well, I'll just resign myself to an arrogant smug look on my end of the line. .... 05:42, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
        <sigh>. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax ^{(Imperial Holovision)} 20px 03:10, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Pronunciation

Is it pronounced "oom-nine" or "Oh-Oh-Em-Nine?" Because in Galactic Battlegrounds, the Viceroy uses the former, but going by most droid designations, it seems like it should be the latter.--CT-5619 ^{helmet comlink} 23:19, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I've always pronounced it "ooh-oom-nine", though how I pronounce it doesn't matter much. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax ^{(Imperial Holovision)} 20px 23:51, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
- Well, due to other droid names, (R2-D2, C-3PO) I've always said Oh-Oh-Em-Nine. Chack Jadson 20:14, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
  - The only canoninical pronunciation is Oom-Nine, so we should stick with that. .... 23:26, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
    - in galactic battlegrounds, when you select him he pronounces his name as 'oom-nine', so i guess that's the canon one

Two things...

One. It says that OOM-9 had no independent thought in the article. And yet, in SWGB, Gunray talks to him as if he actually has some sort of conscious mind. And in the trivia section I think it was, it says that Haakoo calls him a captain--how do we know that that was OOM-9? Could have been any yellow commander droid really. If someone could resolve these two problems, I'd be grateful. Thanks. Unit 8311 20:11, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, for the first question, you don't need independent thought to reply to someone else. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax ^{(Imperial Holovision)} 20px 20:20, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
- For the first, the OOM command droid article states that they were pretty much the equivalent of the clone commanders. Wouldn't that imply they were given more independance than the average battle droid?--CT-5619 ^{helmet comlink} 22:22, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
  - Command droids possessed intelligence apart from the CCC.--Lord Oblivion^{Sith holocron}20px 22:29, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
    - But they were still limited by it. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax ^{(Imperial Holovision)} 20px 23:22, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
      - I suppose if command droids were just the same as normal battle droids in terms of independence, the TF wouldn't bother making them, as they would all just form a gestalt collective consciousness and therefore would not need command droids. Unit 8311 08:31, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
        Command droids had to relay commands from the CCC to standard battle droids. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax ^{(Imperial Holovision)} 20px 12:10, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
        But if all droids were slaved to the computer, command droids wouldn't be necessary, as all the droids would effectively be one. Unit 8311 13:31, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
        Well, all I know is that command battle droids would receive orders from the CCC and give that order to the standard battle droids. However, a commander is still needed for battle coordination. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax ^{(Imperial Holovision)} 20px 20:31, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
        There's actually a quote in the NEGTD stating that they possesed intelligence and independance apart from the CCC in the B1 Battle Droid entry.
        I remember reading that the CCC's control of the droid army wasn't perfect, and so command battle droids were necessary for coordination.--Lord Oblivion^{Sith holocron}20px 22:56, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
        Commander Jake: They were still limited by the CCC, though. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax ^{(Imperial Holovision)} 20px 23:40, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
        
        Okay, we've discussed the first bit, how about the second? Or can I just go ahead and change that? Unit 8311 08:18, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
        Don't change it yet. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax ^{(Imperial Holovision)} 20px 12:26, 22 January 2007 (UTC)