Talk:Dead Men's Boots

Canonicity?

So, after seeing Detour's edits on Rack 'n Ruin's page, I wanted to bring this up. Honestly, my inclination is to treat it as de facto canon. Especially since my cynical side can't help but note that nary a word was said about Furman's canon claim at the time his Mosaic was made (even though the editor would know the claim had been made), and it was only six months later after the decision to cut him off with AHM and retcon things that the word came down that "Mosaics aren't canon".
But... I defer to wiki policy and such. --Jeysie 09:41, 19 June 2010 (EDT)

I don't think Detour is the last word here, nor does this Mosaic have any of the standard disclaimers others have. Really, the only part of this that could be written out of continuity is Rack 'n Ruin's death, and what are the odds of that?--Rosicrucian^Talk 13:58, 19 June 2010 (EDT)

You know, for whatever reason, even though I'm not a fan of authorial intent, I'm fine with seeing this Mosaic considered de facto canon, to use Jeysie's phrase. Then again, I feel the same way about Alignment and Hail & Farewell. I guess, while I consider the words of creators in isolation to be unpersuasive, I'd be willing to consider fiction from official creators to occasionally be authoritative, interesting, and informative enough to make it more-or-less canon.--Jimsorenson 14:11, 19 June 2010 (EDT)

Really, I'd say there's even a distinction between this and Hail and Farewell because the creators were smart and put it before the work they'd just released. Thus it really only serves to reaffirm that work, and doesn't prognosticate like Hail and Farewell did. That's a much safer approach, in my mind.--Rosicrucian^Talk 14:27, 19 June 2010 (EDT)

Was this approved by Hasbro? Far as I recall, our policy was "If Hasbro aproved it, it's official; if they didn't, it's fanfic".--Nevermore 14:42, 19 June 2010 (EDT)

I've seen no signs of official approval. It doesn't bear any Hasbro copyright or trademark notices, it's only appeared on DeviantArt.com, and the description just says, "This piece is presented as part of IDW Publishing's Transformers continuity, and precedes the events of Last Stand of the Wreckers." That reads to me as simple author-intent.

I think it would be helpful to give ourselves as "apocrypha" category that we can put stuff like this into. Not only could it cover things that are creator-made but unofficial, but it could also include works that declare themselves non-canon (like "Transformers Legends"... and maybe all the published Mosaics too, now that I think of it).

- Jackpot 15:48, 19 June 2010 (EDT)

I'd love to consider this completely canon, but sadly it lacks the Hasbro approval. That's pretty much why I moved the write-up from fiction to notes. --Detour 16:07, 19 June 2010 (EDT)

"Category: Deuterocanonical"? -hx 16:25, 19 June 2010 (EDT)

I approve of making creator-originated material less-than-canon without Hasbro's approval. Otherwise it seems like I'd be able to create SG Ravage canon at will. --ItsWalky 16:29, 19 June 2010 (EDT)

I like the idea of a "psuedocanon" category and/or page notice. --Jeysie 00:37, 20 June 2010 (EDT)

I second the idea of a "pseudocanon" or "apocrypha" category for stories like this. Seems like a good compromise. Perhaps that could carry with it a "warning" template of its status, similar to how we do with source material. That way, no one could really confuse the two, but we could still do a full-on fictional write-up. --Jimsorenson 04:31, 20 June 2010 (EDT)

The next question is then how we would present apocryphal info in articles. Would we put it in Notes/Trivia, like Detour's Rack'n'Ruin edit, or would we move it into the main body but separate it somehow (perhaps under a subhead like Earthforce, with a default note explaining why it's set apart)? - Jackpot 16:56, 20 June 2010 (EDT)

Also it needs to be made absolutely clear how something qualifies, why these things and not Random Fan #37,892's fanfics. --Khajidha 17:53, 20 June 2010 (EDT)

I took a first stab at an apocrypha template: Template talk:Apocrypha. Please check it out, I feel like it needs multiple eyes on it.--Jimsorenson 13:31, 21 June 2010 (EDT)

According to Josh Burcham, this'll be included in the trade. That'll canonize it, yeah? http://forum.idwpublishing.com/viewtopic.php?t=8336&start=15 --Nu-Priest 06:54, 5 August 2010 (EDT)

Not necessarily -- Mosaics have been published before, after all. It depends on whether the trade declares it unofficial work not authorized by Hasbro, like previous Mosaics have been, or presents it as a real part of the story narrative. But it definitely sounds good for DM'sB. --Xaaron 07:54, 5 August 2010 (EDT)

There's not much here to debate the canonicity of. I think we all like DMB because it's related to Last Stand, and thus give it more than its fair share of attention. In and of itself, what does it say? Nothing. There's no new story there. We already knew they had all joined the Wreckers. We already knew Impactor was leader before Springer. It's not like it asserts a new timeline or a secret origin for Whirl or whatever. --Thylacine 2000 10:21, 5 August 2010 (EDT)

Actually, it gives us the reason why Guzzle signed up, tells us Rack'n'Ruin are dead and shows us how Springer and Impactor differ. I'd say that counts as "new story". --Detour 10:29, 5 August 2010 (EDT)

Given this is being included in the trade, along with the isse 0 prose story, I honestly don't see any reason not to consider this canon. User:Eire 22.30 Aug 11 2010

See the discussion immediately above. Mosaics have been published in the past with warnings specifically announcing that they are not canon. Until the trade actually comes out, and we can see whether such a warning is attached, declaring it canon now would be jumping the gun. Yes, in all likelihood it will be canon, but there's no reason not to wait and confirm when we're sure. --Xaaron 18:46, 11 August 2010 (EDT)

Broadside and Math

Now that Broadside is confirmed as being alive should the section on the survival rate be altered to reflect this fact? This would put the Wreckers known to be alive at nine, changing the already headache inducing mathematical equation. --Barricade64 18:16, 17 August 2010 (EDT)

Huh? I thought the math problem was based solely on whether Rack'n'Ruin counted as one or two. There's a presumably more Wreckers that never appeared on page who died or left the unit who are reflected in the survival rate. - Cattleprod 21:15, 17 August 2010 (EDT)

The problem I'm referring to is that form what I've tried it's essentially unsolveable & there's a mathematical error. It would just require someone doing alot more math to move Broadside to the "living Wreckers" for the math examples in the section. --Barricade64 21:23, 17 August 2010 (EDT)

I think you're assuming we know every single Wrecker who ever existed. Until we do, we can't do the math. --ItsWalky 21:26, 17 August 2010 (EDT)

Actually, we can. The percentages cited by Springer and Ironfist are based on a single fraction (or ratio) being altered by one unit, i.e. whether Rack'n'Ruin counts as one Transformer or two. Ironfist considers Rack'n'Ruin two Transformers, and his modification reduces the percentage of living Wreckers, meaning Rack'n'Ruin is dead. Therefore if Springer's fraction for surviving Wreckers is x/y, Ironfist's is x/(y+1), adding an additional dead Wrecker (Rack AND Ruin instead of just Rack'n'Ruin).

From there, the equations are easy to fill out when we know x/y = 42% and x/(y+1) = 38%. x >= 8, given the number of Wreckers known to be alive at the publication of DMB, and a fraction of 8/19 = 42.105%. Ironfist's calculation, however, would be 8/20, or 40%, so clearly the percentage is not reducing by enough. 8/19ths is the smallest fraction possible based on available information, though, and increasing the numbers only decreases the value of a single Wrecker. For instance, now that we know Broadside is alive, it would be 9/21 to roughly equal 42% (42.857 to be exact), and recalculating for Rack and Ruin would be 9/22, or 40.9%.

Basically, the only way to make the math work is if LESS than eight Wreckers were alive at the time of DMB. --Xaaron 21:59, 17 August 2010 (EDT)

Okay, so Ironfist's bad at math! Or being Broadside is basically a living death anyway. --ItsWalky 22:12, 17 August 2010 (EDT)

Could be both. So does anyone take issue with updating the section(now that Xaaron's done a good chunk of the math) to reflect Broadside's status or would it be better to just leave it as is be since he was an unknown at the time of publication? --Barricade64 22:37, 17 August 2010 (EDT)

I checked the main article, and that reasoning assumes Scoop, Kup, and Perceptor are all counted in Ironfist's number. Whether Scoop was a Wrecker or a member of a local squad helping them out was debated. Kup and Perceptor were never officially identified as Wreckers until the start of LSotW, so counting them might be comparable to counting Ironfist and the other newbie Wreckers as well right then. - Cattleprod 23:15, 17 August 2010 (EDT)

The math actually makes no assumptions about Scoop for the survival toll, since we don't know whether he's alive or dead. And while we could concoct a scenario where Kup and Perceptor became official Wreckers between the recruitment of the four newbies and their actual arrival in LSOTW #1, and make FURTHER suppositions about whether Ironfist knew or didn't know about their membership before speaking to Springer...it ultimately wouldn't make the math work. Trust me -- I tried every variation. --Xaaron 10:11, 18 August 2010 (EDT)

Let's remember, Ironfist is the kind of guy who would have EXACTLY THIS KIND OF ARGUMENT. You have no idea what he considers an "official" Wrecker or not. -hx 07:31, 18 August 2010 (EDT)