Wookieepedia:Good article nominations/Freon Drevan

< Wookieepedia:Good article nominations
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a good article nomination that was successful. Please do not modify it.

Freon Drevan

  • Nominated by: Menkooroo 13:46, December 19, 2011 (UTC)
  • Nomination comments: With love to Fourdot.

(3 ACs/6 Users/9 Total)

Support

  1. Hanzo Hasashi 18:22, December 19, 2011 (UTC)
  2. ~SavageBOB sig 21:00, December 20, 2011 (UTC)
  3. NaruHina Talk Anakinsolo 01:03, December 22, 2011 (UTC)
  4. --Cal JediInfinite Empire (Personal Comm Channel) 04:08, December 22, 2011 (UTC)
  5. A really needed fifth user vote. Clone Commander Lee Talk 12:02, December 23, 2011 (UTC)
  6. ACvote Well done. Grand Moff Tranner Imperial Department of Military Research (Comlink) 18:49, December 28, 2011 (UTC)
  7. Per Lee.--Exiled Jedi Oldrepublic crest (Greetings) 23:52, January 2, 2012 (UTC)
  8. ACvote Toprawa and Ralltiir 19:26, January 4, 2012 (UTC)
  9. ACvote JangFett (Talk) 23:45, January 4, 2012 (UTC)

Object

Prepare to be savaged…
  • Not sure about this one, but the use of "man" and "men" for non-Humans always strikes me as odd. I think it's because LFL tends to reserve those words for Humans only and to use "being" for others. Can you think of any examples of the words applying to aliens? Like I said, this is just a gut feeling, and I could be wrong. Otherwise, a great article, (4) hands down.~SavageBOB sig 18:50, December 19, 2011 (UTC)
    • I can't. The wording in the databank entry is "right-hands Xexto," which seems like a conscious effort to not use "man." See how this looks.
  • Actually, one other thing: Is it a retcon to establish an identify for someone for whom no previous identity had existed? In other words, if this guy was terra nullis, is it a retcon to give him a name? Or does a retcon have to override something that existed previously? I've always interpreted it as the latter, but could be wrong. ~SavageBOB sig 18:51, December 19, 2011 (UTC)
    • I think so. It's a bit different than just giving "Unidentified business partner" a name; it's consolidating "Unidentified business partner" and "Unidentified food vendor" as the same person, and then giving him a name. As a comparison, the CCG naming this guy s'Too Vees isn't a retcon, but the CCG naming this guy Lieutenant Page—someone who already existed in canon—is a consolidation of two existing characters who weren't originally intended to be one and the same. And that's a retcon. Does that make sense? Menkooroo 19:01, December 19, 2011 (UTC)
      • OK, not trying to be a semantics lawyer or anything, but our article on retcon seems to imply that you have to override previously existing facts to be a retcon, which I'm not sure this does. Again, we have two characters being described as the same, but no previous continuity really changes with that identification, does it? At the end of the day, this is a minor point, and the article is great, but I want to make sure we accord with our own article on the subject. :) ~SavageBOB sig 16:08, December 20, 2011 (UTC)
        • It is an example of previous continuity being changed --- even though "Unidentified business partner" didn't have a name, s/he was a distinct character who was never intended to be "Unidentified food vendor." Merging two characters into one is retroactively establishing continuity; it wasn't the CCG author's intent that "Unidentified business partner" be the food vendor, but after the DB entry was published, it retroactively consolidated the two into one.

          It definitely fits with what we've always defined as a retcon at this site --- see, for example, Airen Cracken's Appearances and Sources sections (another guy who was an EU character before he was an ROTJ character). When Airen Cracken was created by the EU, he wasn't intended to be the white-haired guy on the Falcon, but the CCG introduced some retroactive continuity and changed the white-haired guy's identity. The previous continuity that's been changed in these cases is the existence of two distinct characters. Now they're the same guy, and any previous distinctions between them are retroactively moot. Menkooroo 18:15, December 20, 2011 (UTC)
          • OK, I still don't think it should count, but it's not something that should be hashed out here, and it's incredibly minor in what is a really well-done article, so no worries. ~SavageBOB sig 21:00, December 20, 2011 (UTC)

Comments

Approved as a Good article by AgriCorps 23:45, January 4, 2012 (UTC)


  • A quick note that "right–hands" comes from the databank entry and refers to the Xextos' many arms. Menkooroo 13:48, December 19, 2011 (UTC)
  • Really necessary to write his species again in the personality and traits? I already mentioned on another article, Charpp, that one's species is certainly not part of either. As is, his species is also already mentioned in the bio. Hanzo Hasashi 16:05, December 19, 2011 (UTC)
    • Good catch. I think I've used the word "Xexto" too often throughout the entire article, so one less time is definitely a good thing. :D Menkooroo 18:05, December 19, 2011 (UTC)
  • Only one request/semi-objection: Please find a way to link to the specific Boonta Eve Classic. Grand Moff Tranner Imperial Department of Military Research (Comlink) 18:49, December 28, 2011 (UTC)
    • Done. Thanks for alerting me to the existence of this article; I have a few other pages to edit now... Menkooroo 20:08, December 28, 2011 (UTC)