- The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a good article nomination that was unsuccessful. Please do not modify it.
3B3-1204
- Nominated by: Thefourdotelipsis 06:02, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
- Nomination comments: Compelling.
(3 ACs/3 Users/6 Total)
Support
- I'll take that as a yes. Kison likes PIE 1:09, 09 February 09 (UTC)
Chack Jadson (Talk) 20:44, 9 February 2009 (UTC)- Grunny (Talk) 06:29, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
- Cavalier One
(Squadron channel) 13:16, 24 February 2009 (UTC) 
Roger roger. Grand Moff Tranner (Comlink) 20:37, 24 February 2009 (UTC)- --Darth tom (Imperial Intelligence) 22:15, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
Object
- Toprawa:
I'm assuming some kind of appearance can be had for this guy in the novel and comic.Toprawa and Ralltiir 02:58, 11 February 2009 (UTC)- Nope, sorry. Thefourdotelipsis 04:15, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
- I really find that hard to believe, and I'd hate to go into these sources and find them myself. If the novel and comic include the Naboo escape scene and mention "battle droids guarding the hangar/Queen's ship" or some variation thereof, it would be appropriate to include an Indirect mention, which is what I'm after here. Toprawa and Ralltiir 05:56, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
- Well, in the comic, there's no commander droid, so there's no bearing for 1204's position. Similarly, there's no formation of droids in the comic that matches or even vaguely resembles that of the film, so the particular droid could be off-panel, but since the scene only vaguely resembles the film, there's no way of telling. Thus, he doesn't make an appearance. As for the novel, that's not really what constitutes an indirect mention. I mean, the droid isn't alluded to or anything, or hinted at, there's just a few broad generalizations in the prose saying that "there were droids in the hangar." So, that's not an indirect mention...it's an indirect appearance if anything, and it's so vague that to include it as an appearance would just be pointless, and somewhat misleading. It would be like a phrase in the ROTJ book, for example, saying that there were Ewoks dancing, and then constituting that as an indirect mention of some dancing Ewok from the film. It's not the case. Thefourdotelipsis 09:30, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
- I really find that hard to believe, and I'd hate to go into these sources and find them myself. If the novel and comic include the Naboo escape scene and mention "battle droids guarding the hangar/Queen's ship" or some variation thereof, it would be appropriate to include an Indirect mention, which is what I'm after here. Toprawa and Ralltiir 05:56, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
- Nope, sorry. Thefourdotelipsis 04:15, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
Additionally, would this droid not have to appear in the Episode I PC game? You have to dispatch the droids guarding the ship before the level can be completed, and there are only so many droids in that hangar.Toprawa and Ralltiir 06:00, 11 February 2009 (UTC)- Same story as before. They're all identical, there's nothing to distinguish 1204, and therefore, nothing to identify him with.
- To encompass both objections in my response here, it really shouldn't matter whether he is explicitly identified or not. There are only a few specific droids in the hangar, so it's not like the video game and the novel, etc., include completely different droids in that scene. It would, in fact, be appropriate to include an Imo of a mention of battle droids guarding the hangar. The novel, which is all but identical to the film in this scene, clearly marks "the battle droids who moved to intercept them." That, sir, is an appearance and an Indirect mention. I would like to see these identified in the Apps list. Toprawa and Ralltiir 22:16, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
- How is it identical? Unlike the film, which has a group of droids standing at the ramp of the ship, this has droids moving in on the group, utterly different dialogue...it resembles the film about as much as the comic does. Which is vaguely. The character's presence just plain cannot be confirmed as he does nothing unique, unless the book said something like the "the droid on the commander's right flank was beheaded by Qui-Gon's first stroke." Which it doesn't. It's all vague. It's nothing but an assumption to say that the character appeared in the book or the game, or the comic, since those just feature a generic set of battle droids. It's like saying that some stormtrooper on the Death Star appears in the LEGO Star Wars game because it featured stormtroopers in that particular room, or that the ANH novel said "there were stormtroopers" everywhere. That's utterly ridiculous and totally divorced from the spirit, functionality, and point of an appearance list. It's not like 1138, where something very specific happens to the character, and that specific action is repeated in the comic and the book. This is a droid that is only unique because of CCG, and can only be identified because of CCG's screenshot from the film. By this reasoning, everyone who was ever in the films is in the adaptations as well. Every senator in the Senate is in the book, because the book says "while their senators conferred with staff and visitors"? No. Thefourdotelipsis 22:32, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
- It's very simplistic. There are droids guarding the hangar that attacked the Jedi in the film. There are the same group of droids guarding the hangar that attack the Jedi in the novel. Hence, the Indirect facet of the appearance. To think you could have handled this objection umpteen times over in the time wasted arguing about something as piddling as this. Toprawa and Ralltiir 22:43, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
- It's not indirect, though. It's not anything. The only droid from that scene who we can confirm appears in the novel is the commander, because he has a line. And it's not a mention, because the characters are in the scene. So you're asking for an "indirect appearance," which doesn't quite make sense at all. In the comic, there's no commander or exchange of dialogue, in the book there's different dialogue, clearly the scene is different, and clearly, that assumption cannot be made. It's an assumption. We don't do them. Thefourdotelipsis 22:58, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
- It's very simplistic. There are droids guarding the hangar that attacked the Jedi in the film. There are the same group of droids guarding the hangar that attack the Jedi in the novel. Hence, the Indirect facet of the appearance. To think you could have handled this objection umpteen times over in the time wasted arguing about something as piddling as this. Toprawa and Ralltiir 22:43, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
- How is it identical? Unlike the film, which has a group of droids standing at the ramp of the ship, this has droids moving in on the group, utterly different dialogue...it resembles the film about as much as the comic does. Which is vaguely. The character's presence just plain cannot be confirmed as he does nothing unique, unless the book said something like the "the droid on the commander's right flank was beheaded by Qui-Gon's first stroke." Which it doesn't. It's all vague. It's nothing but an assumption to say that the character appeared in the book or the game, or the comic, since those just feature a generic set of battle droids. It's like saying that some stormtrooper on the Death Star appears in the LEGO Star Wars game because it featured stormtroopers in that particular room, or that the ANH novel said "there were stormtroopers" everywhere. That's utterly ridiculous and totally divorced from the spirit, functionality, and point of an appearance list. It's not like 1138, where something very specific happens to the character, and that specific action is repeated in the comic and the book. This is a droid that is only unique because of CCG, and can only be identified because of CCG's screenshot from the film. By this reasoning, everyone who was ever in the films is in the adaptations as well. Every senator in the Senate is in the book, because the book says "while their senators conferred with staff and visitors"? No. Thefourdotelipsis 22:32, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
- To encompass both objections in my response here, it really shouldn't matter whether he is explicitly identified or not. There are only a few specific droids in the hangar, so it's not like the video game and the novel, etc., include completely different droids in that scene. It would, in fact, be appropriate to include an Imo of a mention of battle droids guarding the hangar. The novel, which is all but identical to the film in this scene, clearly marks "the battle droids who moved to intercept them." That, sir, is an appearance and an Indirect mention. I would like to see these identified in the Apps list. Toprawa and Ralltiir 22:16, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
- Same story as before. They're all identical, there's nothing to distinguish 1204, and therefore, nothing to identify him with.
Also, have you checked the Star Wars: Episode I Insider's Guide for anything? I've never looked through that, but if it's anything like Behind the Magic, I'd be very surprised if there wasn't a picture or something.Toprawa and Ralltiir 21:54, 11 February 2009 (UTC)- I'll look into it. Thefourdotelipsis 22:05, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
- You may consider each of my objections here as Null and Void. I don't care to further engage in these completely pointless debates. This is what one gets for trying to help an article be as complete as possible. You're arguing about including an item in the appearance list. How more petty can something be than that? I'll repeat that. You're arguing about including an item in the appearance list. You could have added it to the list 100 times over in the amount of time it took you to type out these huge responses. I'm not trying to fight with you when I make objections like this, I'm trying to help improve the article, but somehow these types of things turn into debates with the same people over and over again. It's exhausting and immature, and I'm tired of subjecting myself to this. Toprawa and Ralltiir 23:03, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
- If I considered all of your objections null and void, I wouldn't be trying to look into checking the Insider's Guide—something that, admittedly, I have not checked, and did not think to check either, and I thank you for alerting me to its presence and likely content. Furthermore, since you made these objections, I have actually checked these sources again. Yes, again, believe it or not, I had actually checked them when writing the article, because I actually did some research, as shocking a development that may be. The fact of the matter is that I do not believe any of those to constitute an appearance, and thus, adding them being an "improvement" is highly subjective. I mean, if someone told me to mention that 1204 had marital relations with a pink elephant, it would potentially be quicker for me to add that to the article than it would for me to say that that is not the case whatsoever, but that doesn't mean I should just bend over and submit myself. Thefourdotelipsis 23:13, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
This one's clear-cut. Those droids who stopped the Jedi in the hangar are mentioned in all of the adaptations. Please check them and add (Indirect appearance) and/or any new information. Very simple checks, here. Graestan(Talk) 03:23, 12 February 2009 (UTC)- I've checked them all several times, as stated. He's not in any of them, just a generic "droids," and to say that he's one of them is to assume that the adaptations directly mimic the source, which they don't. He doesn't do anything specific to identify him either, so he's not in the adaptations whatsoever. Thefourdotelipsis 05:00, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
- On second thought, I've decided to utilize (Possible appearance) here, since (Indirect appearance) is pretty much a contradiction in terms. Hopefully, it should be satisfactory. Thefourdotelipsis 05:09, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
- I've checked them all several times, as stated. He's not in any of them, just a generic "droids," and to say that he's one of them is to assume that the adaptations directly mimic the source, which they don't. He doesn't do anything specific to identify him either, so he's not in the adaptations whatsoever. Thefourdotelipsis 05:00, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
- Toprawa
- I would actually prefer the indirect appearance over the "Pos," since I think that's just as bad as making an assumption on something, but I won't really push this further. I've removed the "Humans" description, per the objection below, if that's all right. Please also check the Insider's Guide. Toprawa and Ralltiir 00:24, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
- Oops, I meant to make this post a part of my own series of objections, not to latch on to the others, so please excuse that. I've formatted this as such per this latest edit. Toprawa and Ralltiir 00:25, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
- I would actually prefer the indirect appearance over the "Pos," since I think that's just as bad as making an assumption on something, but I won't really push this further. I've removed the "Humans" description, per the objection below, if that's all right. Please also check the Insider's Guide. Toprawa and Ralltiir 00:24, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
- Soresu
You refer to a group of Humans repeatedly. Jar Jar was there.stating that he was taking the Humans to Coruscant. Are you referring to Amidala's companions or the pilots?SoresuMakashi(Everything I tell you is a lie) 07:55, 13 February 2009 (UTC)- Both resolved --Eyrezer 06:07, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
- Toprawa's "Reinstated Objections"
- Since 4dot has stated he hasn't considered my objection null and void, you may consider this a retroactive objection then. Still missing sources from Ep. 1 Insider's Guide
as well as Ep. I Illustrated Screenplay.Toprawa and Ralltiir 17:33, 6 March 2009 (UTC)- No mention in the Screenplay. --Eyrezer 03:31, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
- Since 4dot has stated he hasn't considered my objection null and void, you may consider this a retroactive objection then. Still missing sources from Ep. 1 Insider's Guide
Comments
- I added a plating color to the infobox as decided per the most recent Mofference. Cylka-talk- 20:45, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
AC Removal Vote
- I'm not particularly pleased with starting a removal vote since this article has the required number of votes, however, there are objections that have not been addressed in three weeks. Cylka-talk- 04:54, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
- Meets the removal requirements. Move it or lose it, because we've got 40 other noms waiting to be looked at. Toprawa and Ralltiir 04:55, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
- Actually Soresumakashi's objection has been addressed. When Tope said he would void his objection, it was without those disputed "appearances." I've moved back to that point, and it should now be fine to archive. --Eyrezer 05:50, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
- Actually, Soresu needs to verify if his objections have been satisfied. And in this case, I reinstate my original objections and add another one. Toprawa and Ralltiir 17:30, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
- Actually Soresumakashi's objection has been addressed. When Tope said he would void his objection, it was without those disputed "appearances." I've moved back to that point, and it should now be fine to archive. --Eyrezer 05:50, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
- Graestan(Talk) 22:55, 9 March 2009 (UTC)