- The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a good article nomination that was successful. Please do not modify it.
R3-T2
- Nominated by:
AV-6R7Crew Pit 19:02, January 3, 2018 (UTC) - Nomination comments: Background droid who appeared in a LEGO set 41 years after the fact.
(3 ACs/2 User/5 Total)
Support
- Provided all sources and adaptations were checked. Hanzo Hasashi (talk) 02:57, January 5, 2018 (UTC)
- Jinzler (talk) 20:25, February 19, 2018 (UTC)
Ayrehead02 (talk) 18:50, February 22, 2018 (UTC)- Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 22:01, March 8, 2018 (UTC)
MasterFred(Whatever) 06:06, March 9, 2018 (UTC)
Object
Hanzo
Intro needs expansion and more details such as its escape from the pirates being by 0 BBY.Hanzo Hasashi (talk) 12:45, January 4, 2018 (UTC)
Jinzler
It could be worth a mention in the BTS section that R3-T2 appeared in the Lego set. The box of the Lego set also appears to depict R3-T2 being captured by Jawas, so that would also be with mentioning. Jinzler (talk) 07:37, January 31, 2018 (UTC)You also could add an image of the Lego set or of the Lego R3-T2 to the BTS section. Jinzler (talk) 07:37, January 31, 2018 (UTC)- R3-T2 has also appeared in the background of a recent Golden Book, but I don't know if it's appropriate to list this stuff on the Legends page since it was released after the EU ended. - AV-6R7Crew Pit 07:43, January 31, 2018 (UTC)
- I would agree with you that it is not necessary to mention the Golden Book. My thought process here was that if the Lego set is being listed as a source and we are happy that it is appropriate that it be listed here as a source, then it is therefore potentially worthy of a mention in the BTS section. My understanding is that Lego is non-canon and therefore still applicable to be mentioned in Legends articles if of relevance. I would agree that this is an area where perhaps some greater clarity could be provided in the Layout Guide. Jinzler (talk) 08:12, January 31, 2018 (UTC)
- R3-T2 has also appeared in the background of a recent Golden Book, but I don't know if it's appropriate to list this stuff on the Legends page since it was released after the EU ended. - AV-6R7Crew Pit 07:43, January 31, 2018 (UTC)
Ayrehead
Why are you counting a 2018 LEGO set as a legends appearance?Ayrehead02 (talk) 06:08, February 11, 2018 (UTC)- I've seen post-2014 LEGO sets listed on other Legends page; do we have a concrete policy in place concerning the LEGO stuff? - AV-6R7Crew Pit 06:10, February 11, 2018 (UTC)
- Do you have any examples you could link? I can't really think of any good reason that we would treat LEGO as default Legends material. Since the set has the TLJ packaging and contains nothing that's explicitly Legends I'd say it doesn't need to be on the Legends page. Ayrehead02 (talk) 08:27, February 11, 2018 (UTC)
- Sandspeeder, for one, which is seemingly based off the old Kenner prototype. However, it was released in TLJ packaging and features the helmet of Dosmit Ræh. Wierd. Since there's no such ambiguity here, I'll remove it from the article. - AV-6R7Crew Pit 20:44, February 11, 2018 (UTC)
- I think that sandspeeder might actually be based on Battlefront 2, and given Ræh's in it I'm fairly certain it shouldn't be in Legends; however, I'll double check that. Out of interest is R3-T2 actually named on the LEGO set? It might count a source for the name in canon. Ayrehead02 (talk) 22:52, February 11, 2018 (UTC)
- Sandspeeder, for one, which is seemingly based off the old Kenner prototype. However, it was released in TLJ packaging and features the helmet of Dosmit Ræh. Wierd. Since there's no such ambiguity here, I'll remove it from the article. - AV-6R7Crew Pit 20:44, February 11, 2018 (UTC)
- Do you have any examples you could link? I can't really think of any good reason that we would treat LEGO as default Legends material. Since the set has the TLJ packaging and contains nothing that's explicitly Legends I'd say it doesn't need to be on the Legends page. Ayrehead02 (talk) 08:27, February 11, 2018 (UTC)
- I've seen post-2014 LEGO sets listed on other Legends page; do we have a concrete policy in place concerning the LEGO stuff? - AV-6R7Crew Pit 06:10, February 11, 2018 (UTC)
The cantina's name can't be sourced to ANH. I'm not sure photoreceptors can either.Ayrehead02 (talk) 22:52, February 11, 2018 (UTC)
Ecks Dee
"R3-T2 was one of the few R3-series astromech droids to avoid service aboard warships built during the Galactic Civil War." This is a bit ambiguous. Was R3 built during the GCW, or are we talking about the warships?I think you're overcomplicating reference 4. Only the first sentence should be enough.1358 (Talk) 00:17, February 25, 2018 (UTC)
Toprawa
I added "desert" to the intro and article body in relation to Tatooine. Please make sure that's still sourced properly in the body.The article body needs to mention the "Arthree-Teetoo" variation of the droid's name.HasbroCite template needs a backup link.- Just noting that instead of treating the "mystery owner" part as an error, I've actually incorporated it into the article body. Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 19:19, March 7, 2018 (UTC)
Comments
- Instead of R3-T2's owner still being a mystery from the action figure being treated as an error, should it not be reconciled that the refugee droid obtained new ownership after escaping the pirates, though who owned the droid remained unknown? Hanzo Hasashi (talk) 15:10, February 22, 2018 (UTC)
- I think that relies to much upon speculation, don’t you? - AV-6R7Crew Pit 19:13, February 22, 2018 (UTC)
- Well when an IU source says unknown it doesn't count as speculation, an example being the ultimate fate of Cane Adiss during the destruction of the Khetanna, but if Rayc Ryjerd was said to be most likely killed, unknown if he escaped, etc, that would count as speculation. I would say some text like "R3-T2's owner after its escape from the pirates was a mystery" could be worked into the article. Hanzo Hasashi (talk) 02:41, February 23, 2018 (UTC)
- I actually did as Hanzo is suggesting in my review before I noticed this discussion. Needless to say, I definitely agree with Hanzo, as it's a common practice to not necessarily treat something as an inconsistency or error if we can work it into the article body as a sort of alternative explanation of events. Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 19:20, March 7, 2018 (UTC)
- Well when an IU source says unknown it doesn't count as speculation, an example being the ultimate fate of Cane Adiss during the destruction of the Khetanna, but if Rayc Ryjerd was said to be most likely killed, unknown if he escaped, etc, that would count as speculation. I would say some text like "R3-T2's owner after its escape from the pirates was a mystery" could be worked into the article. Hanzo Hasashi (talk) 02:41, February 23, 2018 (UTC)
- I think that relies to much upon speculation, don’t you? - AV-6R7Crew Pit 19:13, February 22, 2018 (UTC)
Approved as a Good article by AgriCorps 06:06, March 9, 2018 (UTC)