Talk:Dark Glass

Weasel words

"Many fans still complain about missing this possible gem." Who are "many fans"? With respect to the authors opinion, is this sort of information welcome on this wiki? It's biased information without citation. This question goes for all instances weasel words here. --Crockalley 15:14, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't know how it's even possible to cite "many fans still complain." How many google links do you want before "many" is justified? (And, well, if you want "still," you'd have to link to board posts, which are URLS that rarely last more than a few months, which seems useless to a wiki.) I didn't write the original text, but yes, Dark Glass is still brought up fairly regularly. I see absolutely nothing objectionable about the sentence. It even qualifies the episode as possibly being good, instead of declaring it outright. I am not sure how it is biased, or why it does not fit on the wiki.--ItsWalky 15:25, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

The issue at hand is: How absolutely factual should this Wiki be? Even assuming the statement about Dark Glass IS both true and inoffensive, it's still by nature unverifiable, as you pointed out. The only way an objective outside observer could fact-check it would be to spend a bunch of time on the boards and see how often the subject really comes up. And since "many" and "complain" are subjective terms, said observer would ultimately be making a judgement call him/herself. Personally, in this instance I don't really care one way or the other. But it's a valid question that could be quite relevant to genuinely controversial statements of the same vein. - Jackpot

It really needs to be repeated: this is not Wikipedia. I see no reason to not maintain having standards on what we allow for things pertaining to the actual fiction itself, since it's easy to cite sources for that; but do we really have to be so rigid for fandom related issues? There's no way to get a proper citation for what fans "often say", but it's important to the subject that it be said anyway. The reason why something like that wouldn't fly on Wikipedia is that it must not be a primary source and disallows original research. We don't need to have those same restrictions, especially when it comes to subjects where primary sources just don't exist. --Suki Brits 21:23, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Sparkcana

Even if the role of the spark were clearly defined in Transformer physiology, it's worth considering that Rampage's spark is unusual, having been subjected to processes to replicate the unusual properties of Starscream' indestuctible spark, and there's no easy way to tell what the side effects of that might have been. Dinobot's apparent resurrection is one possiblity. --82.41.82.183 11:17, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, we know.EricMarrs 17:29, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Online comic

Is it worth mentioning this? http://asylumink.net/thoughtcrimeinc/Dark%20Glass/Dark_Glass.htm Emvee 13:47, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

No. --ItsWalky 14:07, 21 April 2008 (UTC)