Talk:M-TD

The image isn't fan art. It's by Pablo Hidalgo. Although the person who included the link screwed up the link formatting it was still there on the image's page. Please check the source first before you remove things.--DannyBoy7783 17:59, 26 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Granted, I didn't dig as deep into the source question as I probably should have. A switch like the one I made (from the current picture to the Essential Guide to Droids one) has occurred before, and I happened to notice what Kwenn wrote back then on the image talk page of the Pablo Hidalgo pic. So when I saw the EGTD image replaced by this one, I automatically assumed this is fan art. However, I've now taken a look at Hidalgo's site. And I have to say I agree with Kwenn. Even though Pablo Hidalgo is the big man on Star Wars campus right now, does that mean that pictures made by him (and published on a site that has no official affiliation to Lucas) have a canonical status? I doubt that. The way I see it, it's fan art. High-level fan art, but fan art nonetheless. It's not that big of a deal to me which picture is displayed, but this isn't just about personal preferences. It's about drawing the line between what kind of pictures can be used on Wookieepedia and what cannot. Sorry if I'm wrong about this, but I thought my point was worth bringing up. I've posted a question about this on the Community Portal talk page to see what others think. --Tinwe 12:43, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree with you but considering the source I think we can let it slide. And the picture is a lot better than the previous one and it is in color.--DannyBoy7783 13:56, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't care if it's pulled off of George's own website&mdash;fan art is fan art. It's outta here. --Imp 19:09, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Mmmm, democracy at its finest...--DannyBoy7783 23:48, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
 * "Being an administrator is not about doing what's popular&mdash;it's about doing what's right." I am merely following our canon-only policy. --Imp 23:49, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree with him, if that helps. CooperTFN 23:50, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Considering it was brought up for discussion at the community page I assumed it wouldn't be removed until the discussion finished and a consensus was reached. Rules can be bent, especially when they improve the article. Also, on a side note, I think the polic towards images is a bit harsh. Fan art is not the same as fan writing. If it improves on what exists then I think it should be used. It should be a last resort type of thing. People mention a slippery slope but I don't think it would become that. But then again, that's just my opinion and I could be wrong.--DannyBoy7783 00:58, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Does this image solve the colouring in problem? &mdash;Jaymach Ral'Tir (talk) 14:20, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, thanks!--DannyBoy7783 14:46, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Current Image
Why does the current image have that news print/checkered pattern on it?--DannyBoy7783 01:03, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Bad scan. I'll add it to my list of things to tinker with. CooperTFN 06:55, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Done. CooperTFN 07:47, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Awesome! Thanks!--DannyBoy7783 14:46, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Date of assembly
What is the source for the 22 ABY "date of assembly?" Admittedly, I didn't have a source that states his DoA, and put down 23 ABY, since it seemed like the obvious answer (very flimsy reasoning, I know :P). Anyways, I'm interested to know where this is stated, or how this conclusion was made.Muuuuuurgh 01:43, 1 March 2006 (UTC)