Talk:K-3PO
Back to page
| ||||||||||||
| Current status: Featured article | ||||||||||||
Rank?
Edit
Is K-3PO's rank official? It would be an interesting case of humans and their prejudices towards droids taking orders from a 'ranking' droid.Tocneppil 20:56, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
Date CreatedEdit
Do we have any record of a creation date for K-3P0? T-888 16:29, January 11, 2010 (UTC)
- "had been in operation since the days of the Old Republic" Toprawa and Ralltiir 16:33, January 11, 2010 (UTC)
- Can we place an apprximate date in the infobox? T-888 16:43, January 11, 2010 (UTC)
- How can you place an approximate date on "the days of the Old Republic?" For an older-model protocol droid, K-3PO could legitimately be a century or more old. Toprawa and Ralltiir 16:46, January 11, 2010 (UTC)
- Well, HK-47 is over 3,000 when he was finaly destroyed but, this about Kay could be maybe one hundred or more. I say put on there after 3,956 BBY. T-888 16:53, January 11, 2010 (UTC)
- That's called fanon. Toprawa and Ralltiir 16:54, January 11, 2010 (UTC)
- So, it's fanaon if we put an aproximate date, not an exact date, for Kay? I am not saying lets just make stuff up about the droid, lets just say after that date because Old Republic can mean any date for 4,000 years. T-888 16:57, January 11, 2010 (UTC)
- That's pretty generically inane and quite unnecessary. Toprawa and Ralltiir 16:59, January 11, 2010 (UTC)
- So, It is unnecessary to add a date of creation for a poor old droid? T-888 17:01, January 11, 2010 (UTC)
- It is if the date doesn't exist for us to add. Toprawa and Ralltiir 17:02, January 11, 2010 (UTC)
- There are other articles without an exact birth/creation date but they have an aproximate date, that I am pretty sure have not been said to be fanon or canon yet. T-888 17:04, January 11, 2010 (UTC)
- The problem here is that since we have no date for the creation of the first 3PO droid, the vague "Old Republic" reference would make the approximate date "25,000 to 19 BBY". That big a range makes it almost pointless, doesn't it? --JMM 17:46, January 11, 2010 (UTC)
- There are other articles without an exact birth/creation date but they have an aproximate date, that I am pretty sure have not been said to be fanon or canon yet. T-888 17:04, January 11, 2010 (UTC)
- It is if the date doesn't exist for us to add. Toprawa and Ralltiir 17:02, January 11, 2010 (UTC)
- So, It is unnecessary to add a date of creation for a poor old droid? T-888 17:01, January 11, 2010 (UTC)
- That's pretty generically inane and quite unnecessary. Toprawa and Ralltiir 16:59, January 11, 2010 (UTC)
- So, it's fanaon if we put an aproximate date, not an exact date, for Kay? I am not saying lets just make stuff up about the droid, lets just say after that date because Old Republic can mean any date for 4,000 years. T-888 16:57, January 11, 2010 (UTC)
- That's called fanon. Toprawa and Ralltiir 16:54, January 11, 2010 (UTC)
- Well, HK-47 is over 3,000 when he was finaly destroyed but, this about Kay could be maybe one hundred or more. I say put on there after 3,956 BBY. T-888 16:53, January 11, 2010 (UTC)
- How can you place an approximate date on "the days of the Old Republic?" For an older-model protocol droid, K-3PO could legitimately be a century or more old. Toprawa and Ralltiir 16:46, January 11, 2010 (UTC)
- Can we place an apprximate date in the infobox? T-888 16:43, January 11, 2010 (UTC)
