Talk:Booster Gold

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Untitled[edit]

Wow, wikipedia is becoming pretty comprehensive! I can't believe there is an article on BG ike9898 16:24, Oct 28, 2004 (UTC)

I'll have you know booster's a popular guy. Get's all the chicks on JLU and such. Well, maybe not Wonder Woman and Supergirl. You know... gotta throw the nerds and geeks a bone or two. Ace Class Shadow 20:54, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So you're saying that Booster was the Shaft of the JLU? ;) RahadyanS 15:08, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Timeline[edit]

- I've a doubt about the "going home" concept I've cited at the end of the edit, without talkig more specifically about it. Whe know the 30th century in the DCU has rebooted a lot of times, and in the Booster Gold issues whe had an encouter from the Legion and Booster. But the Weid new Legion of Super-Heroes hasn't retconned away the future Booster knew? DrTofu83

One Year Later[edit]

His father did not die as mentioned here. He just lost his ear and passed out. Skeets reassures Booster of this just before Ted jumped back in time.

Equipment[edit]

How were a Legion of Super-Heroes ring and Brianiac 5's belt in a 25th century museum, when they won't be invented until the 31st century? 71.236.33.191 23:08, 14 May 2006 (UTC) Good Question. ACS (Wikipedian) 00:59, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There was an origin story in Booster Gold #8-10. 30th Century Historians discovered that there was an assassination attempt on the President in 1985, and a Legion Flight Ring and Brainiac 5's Force Shield Belt were involved, as was Booster Gold. Brainiac 5, Ultra Boy and Chameleon Lad traveled back in time to investigate this. They originally assumed that Booster was behind the assassination plot, but eventually learned the truth, and assisted Booster in foiling the assassination plot. During this, Brainiac 5 gave his flight ring and force shield belt to the president to protect him. When the assassin was foiled, Brainiac 5 realized that he had to leave them behind, because these would in fact be the models that Booster would steal 500 years in the future.
Where this storyline was left given that there were multiple Legion reboots after it was never addressed.

Religion (or lack thereof)[edit]

Is Booster really an atheist? There's nothing about it in the article.

--I wasn't aware Booster was an atheist either, but some quick research has turned up that this was established in JLI Annual #2. Seems to me it would be really difficult to be an atheist in the DCU what with the demons, fallen angels and whatnot everywhere you turn... Frelghra 22:56, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Atheisism isn't neccesarily a dub-kaiba-esq disbelief in the supernatural. More a realistic take on life and, of course, a disbelief in god. Ace Class Shadow 20:54, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Only an atheist would dub atheism as "realistic" compared to other religions. Everyone thinks their religions is realistic, or they wouldn't have it. So really, that's not all that useful a comment to make, no offense. Back to the topic at hand, if Booster IS an atheist, it should be documented in the article itself. I'd recommend removal of the category as it's far from an essential part of the character.
Whoever made that last comment may have said the most intelligent thing I've ever heard when it comes to discussing different religions. No one adheres to a faith they don't believe in. By the way, what was it that Booster said? Evernut 15:58, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
JLI Annual #2, page 21. Ted tells him to "have faith" and Booster's response is simply, "I'm an atheist." 24.127.83.4 23:13, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! Evernut 15:35, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to point out that the comment could've been a joke. I'm not saying that Booster isn't an atheist, in fact it fits the character, but I'd like to see more evidence of it first. Oh, and knowing that God exists and worshiping him are two different things. -Wilfredo Martinez 05:42, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

cleanup?[edit]

Is the cleanup tag really necessary here? I've read through and everything seems pretty comprehensive. I'm only saying this because the cleanup backlog is getting really frightful, and the reason seems to be that cleanup tags are being plastered on articles indiscriminantly, often with no reasoning on talk pages/edit summaries. It's incredibly frustrating--over 1000 articles have been tagged in one week!--and I'll stop venting to empty cyberspace now. Sorry. Tamarkot 03:36, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No. You're right. Blame the dumbot. ...And ChrisGriswold. >.> ACS (Wikipedian) 19:24, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Picture[edit]

Can there be a better, less busy pic of Booster in the main box thing? The current one makes it difficult to distinguish booster by him self.

Merge[edit]

Survey[edit]

Merge --Exvicious (talk • contribs) @ 16:24, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delay Wait till 52 is over -- Ipstenu (talk|contribs) 18:33, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delay I agree, we should wait until the story is complete before we decide what to do. DavetheAvatar 12:22, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delay I agree too, we can decide after 52 ends with more elements about both identities, and whenether the Supernova one will get "retired" or "recycled" or similar stuff. DrTofu83 13:22, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delay The Supernova identity may be a throwaway bit, or it may be the basis of a new character later on, the way Strange Visitor was spun off of Superman Red/Superman Blue. (DC and Marvel tend to be overprotective of their trademarks, to the point of inventing new characters just to avoid losing to the competition. Speaking of which, Marvel also had a Supernova character years ago. -Wilfredo Martinez 15:13, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delay Wait till 52 is over 24.15.84.230 20:53, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. — Supernova is just an aspect of Booster Gold. I'm not entirely sure what all this "delay" biz is about. Why should we wait until after 52 is over? It has been established that this has been Booster the entire time. If the identity is picked up by another character, then we can split it off again. "Wait and see" responses are inappropriate for these discussions; we are supposed to be judging based on what we have now. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 21:00, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge: They're the same without a doubt. No need to delay, only perhaps consider renaming depending on charcter name OYL.66.109.248.114 21:12, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge: It was fun while it lasted but they are the same character. When pro wrestlers put on masks for whatever reason, all their different character names don't get seperate articles, and I think this is the same kind of thing. BoosterBronze 04:36, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delay: Wait 'til 52 is over. RahadyanS 04:36, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge--Isocyanide 08:18, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delay... I'd like to suggest that we wait until 52 is over, and that we provide spoiler notices on the merge request. Not everyone has had a chance to read it yet. ifwagba 17:34, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge RyuKlinge 03:45, 22 January 2007 (UTC) They are the same character so the Supernova part should be connected to Booster since it is about him, unless we make the mage for Michael Jon Carter and have both identities for him.[reply]

Delay Wait until the story is over. --Basique 17:10, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what everyone expects to happen, now that his cover is blown. Do you think he would forgo the "Booster" identity in favor of "Supernova." All this leaves us with is two articles with the same info. I agree with Chris, "delay" isn't an adequate choice. Give a reason why or why not it should be merged. --Exvicious // + @ 04:34, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with a caveat: The article gets revisted after 52 ends to determine if the name needs to change. IIRC, there we rumblings that Supernova would see continued use after the series ended. That could be 1 of 3 options: 1) Carter as Booster, no one as Supernova; 2) Carter sa Supernova, no one as Booster; or 3) Carter as Booster, someone else as Supernova. Cases 2 and 3 we'd need to look at standing precidents on vharacters with multiple codenames and "shared" codenames. — J Greb 04:31, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delay The possibility has been thrown out by the editors that there is more than one Supernova. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 198.169.188.225 (talk) 19:21, 30 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Delay. Do not merge yet. The merger itself would act as a spoiler. I just got the comic in the mail today. Wait until 52 is over. When the merge does occur, merge as Booster Gold because that is apparently the name he is returning to. If Superman secretly operated as Boy Scout Man for a few months, we wouldn't rename his article Kal-El. Doczilla 20:18, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments[edit]

I think it should be merged because they are the same character, and the article is relatively small. "Supernova" seems like it's part of Booster's bigger story. --Exvicious (talk • contribs) @ 16:24, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That depends on the end of 52. If he stays Sueprnova, maybe he should be moved to the Supernova page. Or ... ugh, maybe we should default it to his 'real name.' I hate when Superheros change aliases. -- Ipstenu (talk|contribs) 18:33, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Me too. I don't think I'd like a John Michael Carter page. --Exvicious (talk • contribs) @ 23:13, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't like a John Michael Carter page either, especially since his name is actually Michael Jon Carter... DavetheAvatar 12:26, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Exvicious, please don't put spoilers in section heads. I haven't had a chance to get my comics today, and you have spoiled something I was looking forward to. Take it easy on this stuff. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 19:58, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry man, people were posting this stuff on Monday. I'm surprised you only found out today. If you don't want to see spoilers, you probably shouldn't go to Wikipedia before you read, but next time, I'll make sure to ask you if you read your comics yet. I wouldn't want to spoil new comic day. --Exvicious (talk • contribs) @ 23:13, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless, don't put spoilers in the section heads. I should be able to look at my Watchlist without getting spoiled. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 23:17, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
At least it was spoiled accurately --Exvicious (talk • contribs) @ 00:00, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should change the page to his real name to make it easier than just Booster Gold or Supernova. RyuKlinge 22:12, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that a character that has only been in a handful of issues is nearly on the same level as one that has been around for 20 years and is the first post-Crisis superhero. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 23:17, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree --Exvicious (talk • contribs) @ 00:00, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Plus we can always throw in a "See also" template after a spoiler tag. WesleyDodds 09:45, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Finalizing the merge discussion[edit]

Ending this: OK, this has gone on long enough. Wikipedia is not a Crystal Ball, and so we have to operate based on what we know now. What we know now is that Booster Gold has been using the name Supernova. The consensus seems to be to merge, with the merge to be revisited once the series is over. I'm not quite clear on the consensus for merging to Michael Carter or Booster Gold. Because the editors are being fancy, etc, it seems that Carter very possibly will continue to be Booster Gold and not Supernova, so perhaps this is just a facet of the Supernova article. Thoughts? --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 21:51, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What consensus? Count those merge and delay votes. I don't see a consensus to merge. Wikipedia also has guidelines against blatant spoilers. The merge itself would be a spoiler. Doczilla 04:47, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Doc, where exactly is the guideline about spoilers. I can't find anything on the Project guidelines specifically barring spoilers. Treating promotional stuff with a block of salt yes, including, or excluding, spoiler information, no. — J Greb 08:15, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, they're not flatly barred, but guidelines do exist clearly encouraging editors to avoid spoilers. See WP:SPOILER in particular. While it stresses the need to be encyclopedic, it also recommends to avoid spoilers in edit summaries, headings, etc. Merging these spoils at the level of the topmost heading: the article title the second the reader goes to it. And what is the dang hurry? Give people a couple of months to buy the comics. We haven't refrained from adding the up-to-date information to the articles, but like the quote at WP:SPOILER says: Once you read a spoiler, you can't un-read it. Doczilla 08:27, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The quote it, and you, reference urges the use of spoiler warnings, not the avoidance of including spoiler information in the article text. The same goes for the guideline.
It also lays out unacceptable alternatives to the spoiler tags. One of them, "Making 'spoiler free' parallel versions", seems uncomfortably close to what has happened to these two articles. To maintain both is doing just that. — J Greb 09:05, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I knew when I wrote it that it would be easy to pick out the points that don't fit what I'm saying. I'm addressing the intent of things like "It is also recommended that editors avoid placing spoilers in edit summaries or section headers (unless the spoiler warning is before the table of contents) and avoid linking from another article to a section inside the spoiler area." The biggest section header is the title itself. When you redirect, you've spoiled via title before anybody has any opportunity to see if they want to keep reading. Redirecting would certainly link from the Supernova article and into the spoiler. Doczilla 09:17, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ah... ok. I see where you're coming from. Even the the internal heading and the wikied text can be "clean", the fact that the article title comes up is the spoiler point. Unfortunately that's going to be a sticking point for a fair chunk of time. Especially given the logical follow-up question: how long should a spoiler tag or work around be in place? X number of issues? months? indefinitely? Does it relate to the importance of the spoiler to the topic(s) involved? The reason I bring this up is that, based on some of the tags still in place in other articles, it could be years before this plot element is not considered important enough to warrant a tag. This is one of the fundamentally important twists, both to the character and the story, that would warrant a long standing tag.
If that required tag is the foundation of delaying that merge, then the merge will be put off indefinitely. — J Greb 09:40, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think it is important to note that the merge was proposed to this article. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 22:00, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article name is what I was referring to needing to revisit in 3 - 3½ months time. Right now leaving it as Booster Gold with Supernova redirecting to the appropriate section of the article makes the most sense to me. — J Greb 22:02, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Back to that "consensus" issue, though: I count more delay than merge votes in the survey section (10 vs. 7 at the moment). That's simply not a consensus to merge. Doczilla 08:47, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Delay" is not an appropriate response to this discussion. We are discussing the current situation. This type of thing has been discussed on WT:CMC, and the consensus was to disallow such responses. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 10:03, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I remember the Ultimate Spider-Woman discussion. That's not the same thing. (If we're comparing Ultimate Spider-Woman to the current situation, then Supernova should never have had his own article in the first place. But like you said, we are discussing the current situation.) This is about the spoiler issue. Neither creating nor merging Ultimate Spider-Woman gave a big secret away. And not nearly as many people contributed to that consensus at WT:CMC as voted in the survey above. In the section you cite, it looks like it was 4 to 2. I realize other discussions had occured elsewhere, but you only brought up the consensus at WT:CMC (which was a majority, but not an overwhelming consensus at that).
I personally am not making any kind of "wait and see" argument, although I realize somebody has. Based on what we have now, I fully expect a merger. We already know Booster has been Supernova. One interviewee's insinuation that several people might be Booster is meaningless because we were also told in interviews that Booster was absolutely, positively dead. But the redirect itself will be an unfair spoiler at this time. For now, despite your remark that we have a consensus to merge, we certainly do not. The majority of people surveyed said we should delay. Just as one user should never have posted the Booster/Supernova spoiler in an edit summary, we shouldn't spoil via the redirect right now.
The only harm it might possibly do does not relate to Wikipedia's role as an encyclopedia. If people do not want to be spoiled on something, they shouldn't come to Wikipedia to read about it. I, as an experienced user, feel capable of coming to the site with minor spoiling, but I understand the risk I am taking. But seriously: The harm in your instance is someone being informed of something, and that is Wikipedia's goal. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 01:20, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You know the essay on arguments to avoid during AfD, CfD, etc. It recommends avoiding "It does no harm." A lot of us are saying the opposite of that, though. We're saying that the merge at this time would do some harm (well, to people's enjoyment, that is). Physician's first rule: Do no harm. Doczilla 10:25, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

2 Cents---- DC has said Booster is 'gone'... I think that they'll keep the Supernova character and toss Booster persona. So, there.Notadot 00:06, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should merge the article but redirect Supernova (comics) to 52. That way if you don't know, you go to 52. And if you go to 52, you know there will be spoilers and if you get spoiled you want more info and you go to Booster Gold.

If you want to avoid spoilers in booster gold don't name the section 'supernova' name it 52 with the spoilers tag. --EXV // + @ 08:45, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hasn't it been said by Geoff Johns that he plans on starting a new Booster Gold series? This could mean they're going to keep Carter as Booster and it has been said by the editors that there's more then one Supernova anyway hasn't it?

  1. The purported new series is mentioned, with cites and "crystal ball" tags, in the article.
  2. Is there a recent cite about the likelihood of additional Supernova characters? Old ones are just as valid as 52's editors proclaiming that Ralph wasn't drinking Gingold during the series.
  3. Without #2 the existence of other characters using the Supernova ID is just fan spec and should not be in the article.
— J Greb 21:48, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

–Just a note for the editors, in tomorrow's released edition of 52, the new Supernova will be revealed. I'm not sure how hard it is to restore the seperate page, but it seems like the new Supernova will remain Supernova after 52 and Booster will go back to being Booster.

Booster Gold's Legion Flight Ring & Force Field Belt[edit]

Last night, I added a subsection to the Powers section on just how Booster possesses these two technologies dating from 500 years in the future from when he stole his tech, and another user deleted the entire section without comment. I've readded the section, as I feel it IS encyclopedic (someone even asked about it earlier in this talk page), and would like to discuss it if anyone else has issues with it. - 66.93.144.171 00:24, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the origins of his Legion flight ring and force field belt are important to the character's own history. Regarding your more recent edits, however: Talk about "hints" inserts your own point of view in violation of WP:NPOV. Avoid speculation and unconfirmed interpretation (both POV and OR). Doczilla 08:31, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm really not sure as to what you are referring. Can you give me some examples, and are you sure you don't have me confused with another editor? (Yes, I'm the same as the anon above.) - Boffo97 08:59, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Article name change[edit]

I think we should move this article to one called "Michael Jon Carter", because other characters that have had more than one identity have been moved to pages with their real names (e.g. Speedball (comics) to Robbie Baldwin). I shall be moving it today. Does anyone have a say in this? Themeparkfanatic 08:42, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Superman's article is titled Superman even though he has gone by names like Nightwing. Booster was Supernova only briefly. In fact, temporally, he was both Supernova and Booster Gold at the same time through most of Supernova's appearances. He has an upcoming series as Booster Gold. "Supernova" was never a name change. It was a disguise. So no, this doesn't work.

You posted your comment saying you "think" we should move this article and you moved it in the same day. That's premature. Your enthusiasm is useful, but when you go to the trouble of posting a topic for discussion, please give people time to respond. Doczilla 17:01, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Themeparkfanatic, please don't start moving the article without consensus. All you're doing right now is making a dozen links to a redirect. To complete the move as you want, you'll need to go through WP:RM. --waffle iron talk 20:34, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[SPOILER] 52 week 52[edit]

um, yeah, looks like daniel carter is the "new" supernova. i think we're gonna have to split the supernova page and this page again.--EXV // + @ 19:38, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel may keep the suit, but there's no indications as to whether he will stay active as Supernova. I'd say we'll have to wait for Booster Gold v2 #1 first. - Boffo97 00:40, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Supernova was, for all practical purposes, a separate character: first because he seemed to be one for most of the storyline, and second because bringing back Carter was done just so he could BE the new Supernova from now on. Not to mention that DC (and Marvel) don't like to lose their trademarks and will go as far as to create new characters unrelated to the originals just to avoid losing them (see Spider-Woman for several examples of this.) It's pretty safe to say that Daniel will remain Supernova for now even if he is rarely used. Thus I vote for Supernova to be given his own page, with the bulk of the data on him from this article moved there, and only a paragraph and a link to it left here. -Wilfredo Martinez 15:37, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Booster's new role in the DC Multiverse[edit]

I put his new traits because it's important. Geoff Johns has completely changed the character and his importance in the DC Multiverse and it shows, in 52, his ongoing and Death of New Gods. The fact that Booster is no longer just the ego driven hero but an important part of the DCM should be acknowledged at the beginning of this article. Albeit objective. Superboy Prime's article acknowledges he is a superhero turned supervillain. this should be the same. --Killingthedream (talk) 20:44, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, Booster is still an ego driven hero, there has just been character development put in place to check it, a little.
As for "important part of the DCM" (when the heck was that acronym coined any way?), that should get covered in the body of the article. And that' is it's borne out as fact, for all we know it could be shown that Hunter is using Booster ego to get him to do the grunt work anyone could do. - J Greb (talk) 20:54, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with the above statement. Booster now is shown not be driven by ego in his new series. His two main focus points are 1) Saving those he cares about (Skeets in 52, Ted Kord in his new series 2) Earning the respect of his peers. He does not seek out riches like in the past (After 52, he is no longer seeking corporate sponsors, shows he can be a hero without an agent in issue one) and the only time he does mention money is to ask Rip for a paycheck...he isn't demanding millions like he did in the past.
Hunter isn't using Booster's ego, nor did he pick him to do a job anyone can do. Rip selected Booster because Booster, due to his past, is the last person some one would believe to be a great hero, thus protecting Booster from the dangers of time traveling villians. Rip did this before: In 52, Booster was selected to be Supernova, Rip's right hand man, because who would ever expect Booster Gold to be the humble, noble Supernova? And Booster isn't doing this for glory...where you got that idea, I have no clue. Booster is doing this work to save his friends, both those that died and thoseon the League.
The first poster is correct: Booster has evolved from an ego-driven hero to a man trying to prove himself to the world even as he is forced to play the fool. It is tragic and noble.-User:Mr. Chaos

Booster's Legacy[edit]

Should there be included in this article something about Booster's legacy? Several times throughout his run in the DC Universe, characters have mentioned that Booster is more important than people realize.

In Booster Gold #25 (the original series), Harbringer and Martian Manhunter have a discussion, where it is revealed that Booster is descended from The Chosen (see the Millenium Event), and that he must be protected for some undisclosed reason (it is stated that Booster coming to the future was destined to protect him from one event in his original time).

In 52, Issue 52, Rip Hunter and Booster's anscestor, Daniel, discuss Booster. Rip states that the moment Booster helped save the multiverse from Mr. Mind would be remembered in the future as the start of Booster Gold's "glory years".

These two statements seem to go against the idea Rip pitched Booster, that Booster would go down as a failure and a fool. Especially since Rip is the one that told Daniel that Booster would be remembered well.

Do you believe thatthis should be mentioned within the article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.112.51.198 (talk) 00:58, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's cruft, in fact there is a lot of cruft that needs to be trimmed from this article. --192.154.91.225 (talk) 14:55, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rip Hunter[edit]

So Rip Hunter is Booster Golds son , so we should add it now ? Retroqqq (talk) 13:53, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Comics B-Class Assesment required[edit]

This article needs the B-Class checklist filled in to remain a B-Class article for the Comics WikiProject. If the checklist is not filled in by 7th August this article will be re-assessed as C-Class. The checklist should be filled out referencing the guidance given at Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Assessment/B-Class criteria. For further details please contact the Comics WikiProject. Comics-awb (talk) 15:53, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

C-Class rated for Comics Project[edit]

As this B-Class article has yet to receive a review, it has been rated as C-Class. If you disagree and would like to request an assesment, please visit Wikipedia:WikiProject_Comics/Assessment#Requesting_an_assessment and list the article. Hiding T 14:58, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

New article[edit]

Someone has created a new article for the latest Booster series (Booster Gold (2007-)) and I was hoping someone more familiar could decide if this is an appropriate spin-off article or something redundant/needing to be merged back in. Thanks.— TAnthonyTalk 08:00, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Carter[edit]

I removed the boldface from the actual name that was down in the article. It doesn't seem like it should be there. If it is important to mention, then maybe someone could integrate it into the lead and bold it there. Leefkrust22 (talk) 04:48, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Smallville versionof Skeets…?[edit]

In the section on the appearance of Booster in Smallville, two possible descriptions of how Skeets is depicted, but one is given in parenthesis, as if it is of lesser value, or less likely. I’m not sure what the show intended (I think that they actually did want Skeets to be the ear-piece, but it isn’t clear), but as written the article is un-necessaily biased. It would be possible just to say that “Skeets is Booster’s history computer, communicating with him through an ear-piece”? Jock123 (talk) 09:04, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Booster Gold. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:24, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Justice League 3000[edit]

In Justice League 3000 #12 Blue Beetle and Booster Gold talk about being in the 31 century and Blue Beetle asks how did the Earth wind up like this and Booster responds "How should I know?' Blue Beetle responds "You're a time traveler from a future beyond this one! You should know all about this stuff!" Is this enough to say the New 52 Booster Gold (or at least the (Justice League 3000 one) comes from somewhen beyond the 31 century?--2606:A000:7D44:100:986D:48F9:7B70:9A02 (talk) 01:04, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Booster Gold. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:53, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Booster Gold. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:13, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Booster Gold. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:22, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Booster_Gold&oldid=1200262685"