- The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a good article nomination that was successful. Please do not modify it.
Booba Fett
- Nominated by: NaruHina Talk
04:45, July 1, 2013 (UTC) - Nomination comments: I seem to be visiting frequently at the moment, and this one was close enough to being done when I decided to slink away anyway.
(3 ACs/4 Users/7 Total)
Support
- Commander Code-8 You lost the game! 00:37, July 4, 2013 (UTC)
- Looks good. Nice to see you get back to re-nom it. 501st dogma(talk) 12:14, July 14, 2013 (UTC)
- Ayrehead02 (talk) 10:01, July 31, 2013 (UTC)
Um, interesting article. :P MasterFred
(Whatever) 18:51, August 7, 2013 (UTC)
- Exiled Jedi
(Greetings) 22:19, August 13, 2013 (UTC) - Winterz (talk) 10:52, September 2, 2013 (UTC)
- CC7567 (talk) 20:07, September 21, 2013 (UTC)
Object
CC-8
Probably say that specifically that An Apology is non-canon in the Bts.Commander Code-8 You lost the game! 01:37, July 3, 2013 (UTC)
Boobas
The Bts section has quite a few assessments, you should probably insert some references there.Winterz (talk) 13:45, August 20, 2013 (UTC)- Well, really it was all self-sourcing since it goes back to "An Apology." However, looking at it again, I agree that there's not really a way to structure it better to avoid the explicit ref (as is my preference in self-sourcing cases). Thanks for looking through, Winterz! :D NaruHina Talk 03:41, September 2, 2013 (UTC)
- Well, really it was all self-sourcing since it goes back to "An Apology." However, looking at it again, I agree that there's not really a way to structure it better to avoid the explicit ref (as is my preference in self-sourcing cases). Thanks for looking through, Winterz! :D NaruHina Talk
Attack of the Clone
A few prelims. First, the IU part of an article should use "that"/"those" and avoid using "this"/"these," as our articles do not take place in the same time period as the Star Wars universe. Please check and correct.- Are we still fighting about that? I thought we settled on it being so debatable and so minor to the point that it wasn't worth imposing on everyone. NaruHina Talk 23:35, September 8, 2013 (UTC)
- If that's the case, then I won't impose it on you, but I would still recommend it. CC7567 (talk) 23:50, September 8, 2013 (UTC)
- Well, I wouldn't say "take my word for it," especially since I've not been paying the closest of attention to current events as of late. What I remember is this conversation on my talk page that involved Jonjedigrandmaster (one of the big proponents of not using "this"), SavageBob (moderate hero of the discussion), and me (against not using it at all). Though it seems I broke a promise to respond to it once more when had more time and it's now long dead. I wrote something up, but I'd have no idea where it is now. That saddens me a bit. Anyway, it's something to read for that, at least. NaruHina Talk 01:27, September 9, 2013 (UTC)
- Furthermore, I would say this point we've debated the issue for multiple years and a good time to put it to a vote would have been when we'd been at it for one year. Do you know of anyone who'd write that CT? NaruHina Talk 01:41, September 9, 2013 (UTC)
- Furthermore, I would say this point we've debated the issue for multiple years and a good time to put it to a vote would have been when we'd been at it for one year. Do you know of anyone who'd write that CT? NaruHina Talk
- Well, I wouldn't say "take my word for it," especially since I've not been paying the closest of attention to current events as of late. What I remember is this conversation on my talk page that involved Jonjedigrandmaster (one of the big proponents of not using "this"), SavageBob (moderate hero of the discussion), and me (against not using it at all). Though it seems I broke a promise to respond to it once more when had more time and it's now long dead. I wrote something up, but I'd have no idea where it is now. That saddens me a bit. Anyway, it's something to read for that, at least. NaruHina Talk
- If that's the case, then I won't impose it on you, but I would still recommend it. CC7567 (talk) 23:50, September 8, 2013 (UTC)
- Are we still fighting about that? I thought we settled on it being so debatable and so minor to the point that it wasn't worth imposing on everyone. NaruHina Talk
"Nonetheless, someone by the name "Booba Fett" was alive, though this could have been a different clone": I'm not quite sure what you're trying to say here, and the speculative wording of the sentence is making me hesitant about it. Instead of saying it "could have been a different clone," perhaps something like "some believed that it could have been a different clone" would minimize the amount of speculation that's coming across in the article.CC7567 (talk) 23:14, September 8, 2013 (UTC)- "Future novels in the unending series will feature Maara Jade, Anaakin Solo, Booba Fett (or is it Boooba Fett?) and more beloved characters." That text is from the follow-up section outside the short story, in which Luuke also said that he was unsure if Booba was still the clone acting as Boba. It leaves doubt both in and out of universe as to whether it was the same Booba masquerading as Boba, so that wording belongs in the article. NaruHina Talk 23:35, September 8, 2013 (UTC)
- My understanding is that at the time of An Apology, Luuke doesn't know whether the current Fett clone is Booba or Boooba, but we know for sure that Booba exists, which is why this article exists. What I'm trying to say is that in spite of that IU/OOU lack of clarification, this sentence can still be worded less speculatively. Earlier on in the article, you say that "Booba Fett was a clone of the influential bounty hunter Boba Fett," so Booba definitely exists. However, the sentence right here instead says "someone by the name "Booba Fett" was alive," which opens up the possibility that Booba Fett is "someone" else entirely (I know that isn't the intention, but it's nevertheless a potential way to misread the article). Does that make sense? CC7567 (talk) 23:50, September 8, 2013 (UTC)
- I think I see. How about something like this: "Nonetheless, a "Booba Fett" was alive, though this person could have been a different clone, in that year." Gets rid of the (agreeably) troublesome someone, and makes it more laconic to boot. NaruHina Talk 01:39, September 9, 2013 (UTC)
- Is it known for sure that Booba was "alive" in "that year" (44 ABY I presume)? All I deduced from that quote was that by 44 ABY, there was a clone known as Booba who might or might not have been alive at that time (44 ABY). CC7567 (talk) 02:01, September 9, 2013 (UTC)
- Yeah, that wouldn't work, when you put it like that. I'll think on this some more later. NaruHina Talk 02:13, September 9, 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks for the bump, CC. I've been doing a lot this week, but should have found time for this earlier. I changed it to the current form because, after reading it again, I think the first statement that Luuke didn't know if it was the same clone is enough. Saying "the role of Boba Fett" when relating his political state in 44 ABY makes whether or not it was Booba playing him irrelevant, so this way I don't think there's any speculative-sounding connotations at all. Rephrasing it was a good call. NaruHina Talk 04:09, September 21, 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks for the bump, CC. I've been doing a lot this week, but should have found time for this earlier. I changed it to the current form because, after reading it again, I think the first statement that Luuke didn't know if it was the same clone is enough. Saying "the role of Boba Fett" when relating his political state in 44 ABY makes whether or not it was Booba playing him irrelevant, so this way I don't think there's any speculative-sounding connotations at all. Rephrasing it was a good call. NaruHina Talk
- Yeah, that wouldn't work, when you put it like that. I'll think on this some more later. NaruHina Talk
- Is it known for sure that Booba was "alive" in "that year" (44 ABY I presume)? All I deduced from that quote was that by 44 ABY, there was a clone known as Booba who might or might not have been alive at that time (44 ABY). CC7567 (talk) 02:01, September 9, 2013 (UTC)
- I think I see. How about something like this: "Nonetheless, a "Booba Fett" was alive, though this person could have been a different clone, in that year." Gets rid of the (agreeably) troublesome someone, and makes it more laconic to boot. NaruHina Talk
- My understanding is that at the time of An Apology, Luuke doesn't know whether the current Fett clone is Booba or Boooba, but we know for sure that Booba exists, which is why this article exists. What I'm trying to say is that in spite of that IU/OOU lack of clarification, this sentence can still be worded less speculatively. Earlier on in the article, you say that "Booba Fett was a clone of the influential bounty hunter Boba Fett," so Booba definitely exists. However, the sentence right here instead says "someone by the name "Booba Fett" was alive," which opens up the possibility that Booba Fett is "someone" else entirely (I know that isn't the intention, but it's nevertheless a potential way to misread the article). Does that make sense? CC7567 (talk) 23:50, September 8, 2013 (UTC)
- "Future novels in the unending series will feature Maara Jade, Anaakin Solo, Booba Fett (or is it Boooba Fett?) and more beloved characters." That text is from the follow-up section outside the short story, in which Luuke also said that he was unsure if Booba was still the clone acting as Boba. It leaves doubt both in and out of universe as to whether it was the same Booba masquerading as Boba, so that wording belongs in the article. NaruHina Talk
"However, another clone might have taken over Booba's position at some point." In light of the previous objection, I would suggest adding something like, "according to Luuke Skywalker, a clone of…" to this sentence somewhere for accuracy."any appearance of Boba Fett after the undisclosed point at which Booba was created would be Booba, though the short story was an epilogue to the Fate of the Jedi series, and at least any appearance after that would be Booba Fett": please check this; it sounds rather repetitive.CC7567 (talk) 04:22, September 21, 2013 (UTC)
Comments
Approved as a Good article by AgriCorps 20:07, September 21, 2013 (UTC)