Talk: Booster Terrik

Template:FeaturedPast

Article milestones Date Process Result 20 March 2006 Article status not specified Success 2 April 2006 Featured article 18 March 2007 Featured article review Removed 1 April 2007 Former Featured article
Current status: Former Featured article

In use

It's too soon to actually put an in use tag up, but just in case, I thought I'd mention that I'm gonna start working on this in the next couple weeks, so no one do anything huge. =) CooperTFN 05:36, 9 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Aaaaaand done.

http://media.ign.com/boardfaces/31.gif CooperTFN 09:42, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Nitpick

Excellent article, but did he really run Errant Venture single-handedly?JustinGann 22:03, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

• First, it says "owned and operated", not "ran". Second, running something single-handedly doesn't mean you don't have staff, just that you're the only one in charge. Palpatine ran the galaxy single-handedly, but that doesn't mean he delivered the mail on Commenor. CooperTFN 23:40, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Hierarchy of Hatred

My favorite Booster moment is when he creates Isard's hierarchy of hatred. Could that section be expanded, especially that term, which is so awesome.JustinGann 22:38, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

• He doesn't really create anything, it's just clever naming; along with her "history of atrocities" and "dream ladder". I liked it too, but it was too much specific detail to work into that part smoothly. CooperTFN 23:40, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
• Do you mean Booster's ladder logic thing? It's basically goes from what Isard's main goal (rule Galaxy) and working back the steps needed to get there. -Fnlayson 22:18, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Input

By the way, I submitted the article to Peer Review, so if anyone has any suggestions like Justin's, I'd appreciate it if they put them there for the time being. CooperTFN 23:48, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Style

I printed off a copy of this article today and took at it with a red pen. It features an abundance of run on sents., over use of the em dash and a style that skews a bit more conversational that I think we should be aiming for. Would anyone be offended if I took a stab at correcting that? I only ask because this has already made it through our illustrious FA process, and I don't like stepping on toes. --SparqMan 04:59, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

• If you can make it better, than by all means do so. jSarek 07:50, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • I'll have a go. He's not even a character with which I am very familiar, but the placement of over 90 em dashes is just unbearable. --SparqMan 07:47, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
    • I won't pretend that I don't use a fair amount of what could technically be called run-on sentences, but that's just the way it comes out of my brain. The vast majority of the mdashes are interjections, and thus can only be done between two hyphens. If that style of writing is inappropriate for this site, I'm not going to be of much use here for anything of length. CooperTFN 03:38, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
      • I've opted to take the issue here, as it's kind of a big deal for me. CooperTFN 04:04, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Opening

Back when this was on FA discussion I found it hard to accept the overly poetic opening, but I was ignored and the article went on to become featured. Now, all of that would have been fine except that now that the article is featured on the main page someone found it (once again) overly poetic and so it was changed but only on the main page. Don't you think that if it is not suited for the main page it shouldn't be suited for any article? (Especially featured ones) --UVnet 13:18, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

• Since you mention it, I absolutely despised the version that appeared on the main page, but I didn't feel it was worth making a fuss over. I'm aware that this article isn't my property, but if that text was put here in place of the current intro, I would be very unhappy about it. And for the record, you and I discussed the matter at length when you first brought it up; being ignored and being opposed are two different things. CooperTFN 03:32, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
  • I've opted to take the issue here, as it's kind of a big deal for me. CooperTFN 04:04, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
    • What I meant about being ignored has something to do with the fact that the FA discussion isn't archived. We need something like in wikipedia that the word "identified" is a link to the FA discussion. --UVnet 07:38, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
      • It's archived inasmuch as it's still in the history. I don't think we need to manually archive every discussion when they're all being saved anyway. CooperTFN 18:01, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Venture information

The information provided on the Venture is top notch, but am I the only one that thinks it belongs in on the page? Go to it Errant Venture and see for yourself. Once this is down off of FA, I'd be happy to work on transferring it over.

• Venture's page should definitely have the info, but I think the ship's a large enough part of Booster's life that it should be here as well. CooperTFN 15:20, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
• But do we want copies? I mean obviously the Venture's a huge part of Booster, but I say we copy the stuff that's on here that's about the ship, integrate that into its respective page, then shorten/condense it on here. Fenris447 21:14, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
  • I don't mean to duplicate it there. Nor do I want it all just slapped onto a different page. What info is here on the Venture is minimal, and could be expanded upon, and should be rewritten for inclusion on any other page, regardless, since the context would be different. CooperTFN 03:26, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Where are the sections?

This article needs to be broken up into sections .... 12:11, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Affiliation

It says over there that one of his affiliations was "Himself". Is that correct? Isn't it kinda silly? I have to admit that it made me chuckle, but I am not sure if that should really be there. Carlitos Moff 00:04, 30 August 2007 (UTC)