Talk:Arcee (SG)

I don't want to make this edit myself and remove information, but does it really make sense to have a pic of an Elita-1 toy on an Arcee page? And then on Elita-1's page (http://tfwiki.net/wiki/Elita-One_%28SG%29) the toy isn't even listed, and instead we have a toy for a completely different character listed? (Override GTS) ? --Mathius 02:06, 6 June 2010 (EDT)

Learn about repurposing. --Detour 02:12, 6 June 2010 (EDT)

I know what repurposing is, but when you have an official Elita-1 toy, why isn't it under the Elita-1 character page? Makes zero sense at all. --Mathius 02:36, 6 June 2010 (EDT)

Because the goddamn toy is a goddamn repaint of a goddamn Arcee toy so it was goddamn repurposed as goddamn Arcee. --Detour 02:38, 6 June 2010 (EDT)

Responding like this is why you are going to take a short vacation, Detour. --ItsWalky 22:40, 6 June 2010 (EDT)

Are you like 2 or something that you have to act like that? Shattered glass isn't even official except for a few botcon exclusives, right? It's a "virtual" toyline. It doesn't even exist. I can repurpose characters all day long, that doesn't make them canon. --Mathius 02:44, 6 June 2010 (EDT)

You repurposing toys doesn't make it canon, but the authors of the official prose stories repurposing toys as various characters does. --Jeysie 02:47, 6 June 2010 (EDT)

Shattered Glass is official. Hasbro stamp of approval and everything. Just because you're too cheap to shell out the dough for membership doesn't make it fanfiction. --Detour 02:48, 6 June 2010 (EDT)

Shattered glass the franchise, prose, etc. IS, the toy isn't. Period. By that logic if Furman came around and propose RID ultra magnus as a repaint of Furman Prime it would be official. When they do an official repaint of the toy and offer it for sale or as an exclusive, then it's official. Until then it's just a digibash or an idea in someone's head. But I'm not arguing logic anymore with someone who just cusses and throws out insults. If you say an official Elita-One toy belongs on an Arcee page, who am I to argue that logic. --Mathius 02:52, 6 June 2010 (EDT)

It is official, actually, whether you find it silly or not. Especially when you consider that the repurposed characters either have descriptions or illustrations showing they're the toy in question. (Meanwhile, Furman's Primes don't.) --Jeysie 02:55, 6 June 2010 (EDT)

Hence why the Toy section mentions it's a repurposing. And yes, if Furman had RID Ultra Magnus show up in fiction under the moniker Furman Prime, and it happened in an official Hasbro-approved story (like what Shattered Glass happens to be), it would count. --Detour 02:58, 6 June 2010 (EDT)

The very definition of repurposing which you guys linked to points out that it's unofficial "The repurposed character has no official toy release of his own" http://tfwiki.net/wiki/Repurpose Now I suggest you look up the word Rhetoric. --Mathius 03:00, 6 June 2010 (EDT)

And I suggest you look up the term Arguing For Argument's Sake and then finish the quote from the article: "but the toy can take on double-duty representing both the character he was originally released as (the character on the box) and the repurposed character established later on in fiction." --Detour 03:03, 6 June 2010 (EDT)

"Rhetoric: The art or study of using language effectively and persuasively" (according to www.thefreedictionary.com). Aaaand how was that relevant to your argument, weak as it was? Bobpiecheese 03:12, 6 June 2010 (EDT)

I'm confused. Why are you saying the Elita 1 toy is not on the Elita 1 page when it clearly is? --abates 03:28, 6 June 2010 (EDT)

He was talking about the toy not appearing on Elita-1's SG page (which wouldn't make sense anyway, since SG Elita-1 doesn't look like that) --89.138.184.102 09:20, 6 June 2010 (EDT)

I'm acting like a dick? I'm not the one cussing and whining like a 2 year old throwing a tantrum. And if I was a dick I'd have just made the edit instead of discussing it first. I don't expect you guys to understand what the difference between a fanboy and a normal person is. It's built into the definition of a fanboy that you are incapable of understanding when you're in the wrong. You guys are like little kids sitting in the sandbox with your "repurposing" nonsense saying "Let's pretend that Hot Rod is bumblee because Hasbro didn't make one." Seriously? You claim there's no "cliche", but then you throw around the words "our" and "we" etc. etc. and talk about your "system" that "I don't understand." If your system works so well then what's with the glaring inconsistencies? (YOUR repurposing page says they're unofficial, but you argue here that they are official. Whatever) If people are continually trying to edit pages and you're locking them so they can't be editted, OBVIOUSLY they want the information there. But you don't want it there so it can't be. But there's no cliche. Whatever. --Mathius 14:25, 6 June 2010 (EDT)

The problem here isn't that we don't understand how we're in the wrong. The problem is that you only think we're wrong because you don't understand how things work and won't pay attention to our explanations trying to show you how they work.

As for the repurposing, Detour already explained that you didn't pay attention to the whole quote: "The repurposed character has no official toy release of his own, but the toy can take on double-duty representing both the character he was originally released as (the character on the box) and the repurposed character established later on in fiction."

On top of that, the descriptions in the prose and/or illustrations for the prose or comic clearly describe/show the character as being represented by that toy (since that's what the author/artist had in mind as being the official representation while doing their art/description).

So if you want to actually understand how things work and then see if something genuinely doesn't make sense, then drop the attitude and listen and then comment. --Jeysie 14:42, 6 June 2010 (EDT)

I read what Detour wrote. You fail to recognize that the rest of the quote doesn't change anything as far as logic is concern. And I read the 'prose' stories (with the exception of reunification), they have few illustrations in them. Again you fail to see your system doesn't work and your logic is distorted. You're arguing to me that this toy looks like this character, but your own wiki page says there is no official image of this person. In other words, you justified whatthis person should look like based on a textual description and are trying to argue with me the accuracy of what is essentially someone's interpretation of the text.

Does this phrase look familiar? "This character has no official visual representation whatsoever... yet, at least."

Another point to make is that part of the "guidelines" for this is to provide sources. Where are the sources for your "repurposed" pretend figures if they're "official" ?--Mathius 14:51, 6 June 2010 (EDT)

"In other words, you justified whatthis person should look like based on a textual description and are trying to argue with me the accuracy of what is essentially someone's interpretation of the text."

Well, yes, seeing as how the interpretation we're basing it on is the author's interpretation. Seeing as how both authors are active on the message boards and actively edit this wiki, so they can say, "Yes, that was the toy we were describing."

And, that phrase refers to characters who don't have an official illustration yet. They can still have an official textual description (and thus an official repurposed toy said description was based on). --Jeysie 15:08, 6 June 2010 (EDT)

Then where is the link, hm? Where is the source?

"What's important is that this information should have been cleared through official channels. Hasbro's website is a valid source, as is IDW's. Preorder and inventory listings from established retailers, such as Toys "R" Us or Amazon, are also fair game. Information revealed by individuals involved in the production of Transformers, if it's revealed in an "official" venue (such as a printed article or a convention panel) counts, but your behind-the-scenes talk with Aaron Archer at BotCon does not count. "http://tfwiki.net/wiki/Help:Official_info--Mathius 15:19, 6 June 2010 (EDT)

[1] How's this? --NCZ 15:21, 6 June 2010 (EDT)

Yes, what's being emphasized here is that the source needs to be something that other users can verify. In this case, Troop and Sepelak are on hand to clarify very easily.--Rosicrucian^Talk 15:25, 6 June 2010 (EDT)

And I'm sorry, I missed the point where the allspark forums became official hasbro media. Can someone give me THAT link?--Mathius 15:27, 6 June 2010 (EDT

Just for the sake of putting this down for anyone else who wonders about this (and please someone stop me if I got this wrong):

Like Rosicrucian said, the true point is verifiability. The reason the behind-the-scenes talk with Archer doesn't count isn't because it's at BotCon, per se, it's because you have no proof that you talked to him or exactly what he said, or that it's necessarily even applicable to what you're talking about.

Whereas something that's written down (or recorded and uploaded, in some cases) as definitely being from the official person in question, and showing exactly what they said, and that they're talking about something definitely related to what they worked on (and it doesn't contradict the fiction itself), is usually acceptable because it's tangible proof we can point at, and anyone who wants to verify for themselves can go read or watch.

I do think our help files could use an update, though, just to make things clearer on that point. --Jeysie 15:39, 6 June 2010 (EDT)

Mathius, if you don't settle down, I am going to excise you from here and spare us all this overbearing nonsense. --ItsWalky 15:23, 6 June 2010 (EDT)

I don't care. It's obvious I don't want anything to do with you people anyways. Wiki pages are supposed to be a reference tool, not your pulpit. At what point do you guys plan on following the criteria set by your own web page? It seems to me you make up the rules as you go along since every point that's been made has completely contradicted what is set down on the wiki pages for the characters and rules we're discussing.--Mathius 15:27, 6 June 2010 (EDT)

Well then, I was going to give you a chance to calm down but if your stated purpose here is just to heckle then I'll block you.--Rosicrucian^Talk 15:28, 6 June 2010 (EDT)

It isn't really immediately clear when a toy in the toys section is repurposed. There is just a line at the end that sounds like it is talking about some other character. I have asked before if it would be a good idea to call more attention to the toy being a repurpose. Perhaps put it in a "==Repurposed toys==" section. There was no response last time so I don't know if it is a good or bad idea. - Starfield 16:40, 6 June 2010 (EDT)

I think that is a good idea, personally. I've always felt that putting nothing but the toy's original designation as the whole heading felt kind of... weird somehow. There really should be some indication in the toy heading that the toy is repurposed, so it doesn't look like a mistake before you see the categories. --Jeysie 16:55, 6 June 2010 (EDT)

I'm fine with that. --ItsWalky 17:03, 6 June 2010 (EDT)

I think it's really as simple as making the first sentence of the toy description being "[This toy] was repurposing|repurposed to be [the character]". And then carry on as normal. - Chris McFeely 14:15, 7 June 2010 (EDT)

Toy for mainpic?

Just a thought, can the toy picture be used for the mainpic? It seems to be the character's official representation. - Starfield 16:49, 6 June 2010 (EDT)

Well that's again falling into the "repurposed toy" thing. Since it's only her in technicality... --Detour 16:51, 6 June 2010 (EDT)

What Detour said. It's not technically a picture of her. --ItsWalky 16:52, 6 June 2010 (EDT)

No. I fell into that trap with SG Dreadwind. ---Blackout- 07:48, 9 June 2010 (EDT)

Does she really have "no official visual representation whatsoever"?

The article clearly states that she appeared in "Dungeons and Dinobots" & it being a comic book, wouldn't she have "official visual representation" in any of the pages she was in? I've also noticed this in other Shattered Glass or comics-only characters: being featured in comics, yet mainpics saying there's no official visual of them. Can someone explain this to me? Abejorro97 21:20, 20 October 2013 (EDT)

"Dungeons and Dinobots" isn't a comic book, it's a text story. With a very limited amount of pictures (in none of which does Arcee appear), as text comprises the majority of it. Same applies for characters who only appeared in other text stories such as "Do Over", "Eye in the Sky", "Blitzwing Bop", "Transhuman", etc. --Sabrblade 21:25, 20 October 2013 (EDT)

Oh... Thank you, I had no idea. Maybe we could try to clear that up by adding a section in the mainpic box saying what kind of fiction it is, because until now I thought they were all comic books, not sure if anyone else did. Abejorro97 21:38, 20 October 2013 (EDT)

But... the pages DO say what they are. There's a whole category for them linked at the bottom of the page for each and every one of them. And the Transformers Timelines (fiction) page also already notes what's what. Further indication would be redundant. Why, there's even a link to the PDF file of "Dungeons & Dinobots" right there on its page. --Sabrblade 21:49, 20 October 2013 (EDT)