Talk:Fandom

That IP address was me. I figured since you have this entry just dripping with snark including "Bayformers", it should include the inexplicable fan belief that early G1 had more realistic representations of extraterrestrial robots, even though the toy engineers made them to look like the human-built piloted mecha they were in their original toy lines. -Rotty 18:30, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Oooh. Your edit didn't say anything about extraterrestrials, so, I totally didn't know where you were going. I personally prefer the line more brief, without bringing that part in, but, I don't feel real strongly about it. If you put it back in I might edit the phrasing to make it more to my liking, though.  :) --Steve-o 19:07, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I know that someone from Hasbro (Whatshername, the exec who used to work for Power Rangers?) mentioned at some point that they estimate that X% of Transformers toys are bought by adult collectors- and I think it was 20. That should probably be in here.

I admit, I find the tone of this article unnecessarily harsh. I'd like to see it either moderated, or to have Fans and Fandom made two separate articles, with most of the negative aspects assigned to fandom. (Which I think is a fair division of blame- you still hear stories of hardcore transfans who run into the occasional hardcore solo-fan who has no clue about the 'net, conventions etc. The really nasty negative aspects of fans are almost all group behaviors that feed on themselves and doesn't exist in individuals if a fan is removed from fandom.)

...oh my god, I just articulated a romantacist belief in the fundamental goodness of humanity and the corrupting influence of society on individuals. KILL ME NOW! DO IT BEFORE I SPREAD PEACE AND LOVE ALL OVER THE WIKI! -Derik 20:54, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Was that Michelle Fields? --FFN 13:44, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

I also greatly dislike the tone of this article. It gives the impression that we here at this Wiki somehow stand separate and apart from the "fandom" which it sarcastically ridicules. Were it up to me, everything on this page but the short History section would be removed. --KilMichaelMcC 02:46, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I find this article totally hilarious and that it contains quite a lot of truths. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 210.49.121.202 (talk • contribs){{#if:| {{{2}}}|}}.

I'm okay with the link. --ItsWalky 03:36, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I admit to being a little surprised at the negative reactions, as this is all stuff that's already written in various places on this wiki. Still, I recognize that if my only supporter is an anonymous string of numbers, I apparently just have a weird opinion on it. I just talked to Walky about it and he said the sarcastic "accomplishments"list could maybe be preserved if it were just a small part of a large, otherwise focusing-on-the-positive article. That sounds okay to me... I'd kind of like to keep at least some of the list in there, but, again, I seemingly have no perception of how vicious what I wrote is, so maybe it should be totally scrapped. For now I'll call shenanigans on myself while we decide what to do. --Steve-o 03:54, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Keep it. I read some seriously ridiculous crap in the past week that makes this page DESERVE existence. Oh yeah, and it needs a mention of terrible fanfiction in there, since nothing is free from terrible fanfiction.--MCRG 05:35, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

This article is just full of win. Reading it totally made my day. I say keep it. Detour 06:31, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't have a problem witht he negativity of the article per-se... it just seems kinda down on fans unless there's some contrasting material to balance it out. -Derik 07:51, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Pretty much all of the snark and negativity on display in the current version is depressingly close to the truth, but I for one would certainly like to see it balanced out with stuff about the more positive aspects of TF fandom. --TVsGrady 00:17, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

It currently bears an uncanny resemblence to Encyclopedia Dramatica. -Rotty 08:02, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

It has been my observation that other fandoms, particularly the GI Joe fandom (probably owing to TF's close relationship with Joe), think TF fans are absolutely fucking insane. --FFN 13:48, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

The Sonic The Hedgehog fandom makes Transformers, G. I. Joe or basically anyone else look like rank amateurs in the insanity department. I am dead serious as hilarious as it might sound. Death threats and talk of character rape is how you say "hello" over there.--MCRG 04:52, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I am in favor of the article staying in its present state, as a reminder against such foolish behavior. It made my day reading the Fandom section, and under the management's rule that "THE FUNNY STAYS.", it should be here. Ronimus Prime 03:51, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I say keep it. It reminds fans not to take themselves too seriously. In fact, maybe even add a note on the whole "Who is Cyclonus" thing. 67.160.13.149 22:39, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

This whole page sounds like another one of Walky's idiotic rants against the fandom. Snore. Why don't people make fun of the anti-fans like Walky more often, when the things they say and do are far more ridiculous as they can't be defended by "Well, he's a crazy fan"? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 210.49.121.202 (talk • contribs){{#if:| {{{2}}}|}}.

There

Now it is fair and balanced. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 210.49.121.202 (talk • contribs){{#if:| {{{2}}}|}}.

What to do with this page?

As this page has, as was pretty much inevitable, now gotten worse and even MORE ueseless, I would like to re-iterate my previous position that everything other than the brief history section should be removed. --KilMichaelMcC 18:32, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

If we're going to keep the page at all, I think we should keep our new friend's contribution. Don't edit it or clean it up, leave it at his reading level. Chip 18:36, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

The page should never have existed anyway, and since there's no justification for removing this anonymous crybaby's sixth-grade ranting about how the smart kids don't like him without removing the part making fun of the shit-for-brains who make up the loudest part of this and every fandom, I agree that it should be minimized or removed. Any sufficiently official and important aspect of fandom (ie BotCon) has its own place on the wiki anyway. -LV 18:58, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

The Guys I'm ranting about are the "smart kids"? You're kidding, right? For a start, if they were the smarter ones, their arguments would be the more detailed ones. The fact that mine trailed on is simply down to the fact that I've spent more time on my arguments. How are the people whining about the fans any better? What's wrong with complaining? Why do you have to attach weighted terms in it? And if I'm so dumb, how did I know I'd be able to catch you out like this, as you say, you can't remove mine without removing his?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 159.134.163.42 (talk • contribs){{#if:| {{{2}}}|}}.

That you admit that it's ranting is enough. Veil your complaints in sarcasm and witty banter and we'll talk.--Carrion 18:55, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

The fact that you trailed on is a testament to how boring you are, kid. Brevity is the soul of wit. Chip 18:51, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, I for one would like to see this page actually turned into something useful. It could have information on the fandom references in Beast Wars, the fan artists and writers who have gone on to do official work, things like that. --KilMichaelMcC 18:40, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

As absolutely fucking hilarious as the page just became, I agree with the above notions. We either need to delete the whole schebang (frankly, I never found the page to really be necessary at all to begin with) or, as Kil notes, take the route of making it a "hub" page for the big fan-stuff turned "official", with a note about its GENERAL history (starting on USENET, move to messageboards, MUSHes, etc). --M Sipher 18:46, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I'd rather we leave it exactly as it is, with both arguments. However, there shouldn't be an artificial argument here. The person with the most convincing argument should be allowed to have it shine if it really is more convincing.

And I honestly believe there is just much more "shit" on the fan-haters than the fans themselves. They really are a joke.

I don't mean it to be too horribly mean since a lot of my friends do engage in some of the things I list, but considering what I was responding to, and the level of bullying in the community, I really did feel a no-holds barred rebuttal was necessary. There is already enough of this rubbish within the fandom itself, if this place is so seperate it should know better. The most ridiculous thing about the fandom is without about those within it who are bitter, horrid and vicious in their criticism of their fellow fans. No amount of complaining about Michael Bay or Bumblebee not being a VW can ever compete with that, and it's about time the fandom started realising it.

I genuinely feel that some people have gone much too far, and don't realise or don't care about the damage they're doing on the community. Boards like TFW2005 and Allspark are far too strict for there ever to be any kind of "Uprising". If there is to be any kind of opposition, or at least equal footing with these people, it needs to be here, where it's lax. I do have little reason to respect people like Walky as long as they continue to mock and spread bile about me and people who share my views directly and indirectly through their "humour" or message board posts.

I will consider removing some of the harsher ones, like the one about people liking the movie. I actually quite liked the movie but I was bothered by the scrap-heap designs and poor script and humour. It just really bothers me that something that's objectively not the greatest thing ever is pushed on people in the manner that it is throughout the fandom. I remain adamant that a lot of the support of the movie within the fanbase is down to hype and peer pressure.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 159.134.163.42 (talk • contribs){{#if:| {{{2}}}|}}.

• You're a very angry man who doesn't seem to realize that the article was intended to be one giant joke where we mock our own fanboyishness (word?). Seek help. -- SFH 18:47, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
• I love the assumption that people who pour their time and energy into the wiki aren't fans, but people whose only interest is to scream and whine until they get banned from the big message boards (and I don't know who this guy is, but COME ON) are the real fans. And it's all everyone else's fault but his. Chip 18:54, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Hold on, why is the other "joke" acceptable and not mine? Mine is much more "Jokey" in tone. You mean "seek help" because I fail to conform to your side of the supposed "humour". I've found in my experience on sites like ED that these kind of articles are often a lot more genuine than they seem, with some light tone tacked on so they can get away with it on the grounds of parody. You're not mocking yourselves - people like Walky, Sipher, while sometimes mocking themselves in different ways, set themselves out from the people they mock or "correct". There is a split between between "Fanboy" and "Anti-fan" which is very similiar to the supporters and detractors of the movie. This article is a result of that split - it's not fans making fun of themselves, it's fans making fun of other fans.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 159.134.163.42 (talk • contribs){{#if:| {{{2}}}|}}.

• That fact that you said a guy who wrote this was writting Child Pornoprophy set off a few alarms. Then there's is that fact that it came of vitriolic and with more swearing that one would expect from a series aimed toward kids. That's where you may need to seek help. -- SFH 18:53, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

• The Child Pornography thing was a joke, since "Shortpacked" sounds like a euphanism(fudge packing, children are short, whatever). It was just something I dropped in to show that what I'd written was somewhat tounge in cheek, and also to dislodge the idea that Shortpacked itself should be taken as the accurate, witty observational humour some people make it out to be.. I can always change that, but I doubt enough children use this Wiki to notice. Not that you care - your recent actions prove you're biased as hell with no respect for decent argument or opposition. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 159.134.163.42 (talk • contribs){{#if:| {{{2}}}|}}.

Okay, seriously, Walky, stop it. It isn't funny anymore to pretend to be a complete idiot who compares your comic to child porn.

Okay, maybe its a little funny, but its irritating that it needs clean up so often. -—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Chiasaur11 (talk • contribs){{#if:| {{{2}}}|}}.

Walky would never post something like this since it contains near-irrefutable points against some of his arguments. Not to mention you're using his tactics trying to discredit someone by calling them an "idiot" instead of proving their argument wrong.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 159.134.163.42 (talk • contribs){{#if:| {{{2}}}|}}.

Seriously, Willis, we get it by now.

Ha ha, fake person even thinks their arguments have merit. The joke's getting old.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Chiasaur11 (talk • contribs){{#if:| {{{2}}}|}}.

This article was definitely worth it for the BAAWWWW from Mr. 159.134.163.42 here. Interrobang 23:12, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Okay seriously, what to do with this page?

Since the above section was derailed, let's get down to it. What should this article be?

As funny as I think the venting was, I just don't think it benefits the wiki as a whole. I think we'd be better off with a more neutral opening paragraph, a link to Transformers timeline, the existing link to the Fandom category, and nothing else.

I further think that while adding/restoring the funny to this article should be encouragedn any vandalism to support a particular viewpoint (which the original article didn't even do) should be bannable. Same goes for anyone who wants to spam us about their awesome message board which is totally the hub of all TF fandom. Chip 19:18, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Okay, sounds reasonable so-far, with maybe a warning first. Still doesn't solve the central argument. chiasaur11 12:21, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Wow. Is this what the thoughts of someone with Asperger's sound like? One that really gets me is "You are the dirt beneath Aaron Archer's feat. (sic)" Have you ever been to a BotCon? I just can't imagine how a fan could have ever spoken to someone like Archer or Greg Lombardo - as a human being, not as a Santa Claus machine to request future gifts from - and have seething hatred like this. They're hard-working, creative people who go to work in the morning trying to make the most fun, highest-quality lines possible. Then anywhere from nine months to a well over a year before their upcoming work hits and has a chance to win over kids and general audiences, the fans start ripping into it with full vitriol on the basis of the earliest images and, year after year, build up snarling personal loathing for them individually. Nothing makes you look worse than heaping hatred on living, breathing people because they didn't put out the exact toys you want. -Rotty 19:22, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Rotty, you have no sense of humour. And remember, sense of humour isn't just what you find funny but also how much leeway you're willing to give other people's attempts at being so. There is no hatred directed towards Mr. Archer here. It's meant to be a parody of the way in which some people make it out like fans shouldn't matter in the least when it comes to how Hasbro(or Paramount) do things. It is pretty obvious to anyone that understands the terminology. Of course Mr. Archer does not treat people like that, it's part of the absurdity. And please do not keep reverting my contributions. It's just getting very immature.

Quite frankly I'm disgusted that some people keep trying to revert this before it's been properly discussed. It's already been established that if you remove my rot, you have to remove the original rot too. At least mine is much better planned out rot, yet it's still cast as the bad rot because it goes against the current mentality of this place. I am also not fond of Sipher calling my contribution "dumber", but since he was one of the guys I was rallying against it's not surprising he'd do that instead of defending himself properly. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 159.134.163.42 (talk • contribs){{#if:| {{{2}}}|}}.

Ya happy now? There's almos nothing. Sipher wiped out the article. It's fair. Now please leave. Oh, Sipher, good article. Thanks.-chiasaur11 12:44, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

This rubbish and rot is all a trifle walrus. -Rotty 19:45, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I just want to say that as someone who thought the original version of this article, something I had nothing to do with, was a bit much, it's really funny to see people claim this was all my doing. --ItsWalky 19:49, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Uh, except writing the comic(and posts) that most of this nonsense attitude comes from to begin with. Don't get me wrong, you're not the only guy that shits on fans for being fans, but you're certainly the one that comes to mind due to your terrible ability at counter-argument and tendency to discredit people instead of their arguments.

GOOD JOB STEVE. --M Sipher 19:54, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

It's your wiki, clearly it's all your writing. It's not like wikis are collaborative things where multiple people contribute.

I have a hard time being outraged about the Stupid int his argument... because I also thought that this article (while all true) was a bit much. There are some nice things to say about fandom. Why can't we have two columns of fandomisms, one good on bad? I expect the bad would outnumber the good, but that's... accurate. -Derik 19:57, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Remember, people think this is the wiigiipedia, and Walky alone writes every single thing on this wiki while his friends cheer him on, cheer him to VICTORY! Seriously, that's what people think. At the same time, they evidently can't be bothered to contribute themselves to what they percieve as our wiki's deficiencies. --FFN 20:04, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Remember, when you can't beat someone in argument, you just make it sound like a joke! It is the intelligent way of debating. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 210.49.121.202 (talk • contribs){{#if:| {{{2}}}|}}.

Walky is a very fast typist and earns a living just making a comic three or four days a week! So all 4,500+ articles on the Wiki are surely his doing. -Rotty 20:35, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Not all of them, he hates Comic Sans. -Derik 20:41, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

As I said above: I think this page could be useful if it provided information on such things as references to the fandom in canon, listed the fan artists and writers who went on to do official work, and things of this nature. An overview of the history of the organized fandom would be good as well. I would suggest it cover these subjects WITHOUT any ridicule of anyone, or any lists of stupid things that happen within the fandom, or stuff like that. Just make it a straightforward article. --KilMichaelMcC 20:49, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I like the idea of a history, but I see two problems. Firstly, it would overlap with the timeline we already have. Secondly, and more importantly, it would be an open invitation for everyone on the entire internet to add the complete chronology of their awesome and extremely important website. I don't want that, nor do I want us to be the arbitrators of which fans and fan-sites are and are not important. Chip 21:17, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

We don't have to NAME sites. I think it's worth noting that the fandom went from being fairly centralized to its current incarnation of being spread across a billion messageboards. --M Sipher 21:21, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

MISSION ACCOMPLISHED

Now, if I only I could do the same over at TFW2005, Seibertron, Allspark and TFans. I have my work cut out for me, here. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 210.49.121.202 (talk • contribs){{#if:| {{{2}}}|}}.

DRAMA

I thought for a minute that Leader-1 was Walky's hilarious and possibly insane stalker, but Leader-1 isn't as funny or hasn't ranted about Shortpacked! and It's Walky! anywhere near enough. --FortMax 00:05, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

BAN

Hello, I'd just like to point out that I, Anon, was banned by your lord and master, It's walky. I recieved no official warning of any rule breaking. I know a few of you will rejoice, but you're morons who get off people you don't like getting banned, so I don't care and hope you hit yourselves in the face with a frying pan very hard until you knock some sense into your whacky brains.

The few of you who actually still consider fascism to be a bad thing, however, should be suitably disgusted at Walky's immature power trip. It just justifies all the ranting I did against him - and more. The guy can't handle opposition.

Again, as far as I'm aware, I haven't done anything wrong even by the ridiculous standards most internet institutions have, except piss off a few ingrates which would be pretty ridiculous to moderate against.

Either way, even if I did, I recieved no warning. It's an unwritten rule online, even in the fascist cesspits of TFW2005, that you do not ban someone for a first strike. Otherwise, you're a Totalitarian.

Leader-1, you have had at least 3 "first strikes", including at least one personal attack and clearing two talk pages. And that's just from the stuff I bothered to read. It's also not a good idea to attack named people in the actual article, which is at least another 2 "first strikes". Were this the Allspark, you'd have passed the 4 warnings needed for a required 2-week vacation, and likely gotten the six needed for a banning. And you're ranting on an article talk page over a one week ban.

And for Primus's sake, SIGN YOUR POSTS! --FortMax 00:29, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Heh. Refusing to read the help pages linked from the main page, and then refusing to read any of the explanations crafted just for you to explain the problems with your behavior, does not give you an excuse for being "unaware" of what you've done wrong. So long. Chip 17:46, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Aaron Black/Delta Star

I'm not sure if Aaron Black should be under "fans who turned pro".

Here's part of an interview with Pop Culture Shock from 2004:

PCS: That must be quite an honor to have Hasbro come to you for assistance. Are you doing any actual designs for them or are you strictly an adviser?

AB: Not an adviser, no. They simply ask me from time to time if I have graphics for certain toys. Before Stepper came out, Takara had lost the graphics, so they asked me to furnish them. In the end, they still didn't use my graphics due to compatibility issues, but they made it clear they were grateful for my effort.

It seems that Hasbro had just asked if he had the graphics. Unless Hasbro paid him, this is closer to the people thanked in The Ark for contributing model sheets. However, if other people who contributed to official material did it for free (not counting the guys that Funana hasn't paid yet), we should give Aaron a page. --FortMax 22:26, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

The impression I got from that article was that he had helped Hasbro in the past, on works beyond just Stepper--and in any case, they did tap him and legitimize him for it.... --Thylacine 2000 14:53, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Other candidates

I'm honestly not sure what to do about the various convention organizers. As is, the category is supposed to be of online-community fan participants who go on to create official TF product in one way or another, in that order. That would (by my memory) include Jon and Karl Hartman; exclude Glen Hallit, Pete Sinclair, and Malin Huffman; and leave Raksha's status murky due to Nightracer.

And then you get into Dave Van Domelen painting some Botcon exclusive decoys, and whoever tooled up Actionmaster G2 Breakdown. These aren't strictly licensed Hasbro product but... I get the feeling most fans accept them as legit, especially Breakdown. On that note, was the Lukis Bros. Vector Sigma thingy an "official" exclusive from this year, meaning they should be here now too? And, gah, please please please don't tell me Dennis Barger was vocally and publicly part of the fandom BEFORE he made Onyx Primal...

Oh, also, if Chris McFeeley was a consultant on the UK DVDs, he should go here too.--Thylacine 2000 14:53, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Hasn't Eric W Schwartz done an official illustration or two? --ItsWalky 00:56, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Head image

Do you think it would be appropriate (and OK) to put this image of Lilformers as a head image?: http://www.lilformers.com/comic0029.php (with Mat Moylan accord, of course).

Lil' Formers is sort of a grey area, but I would prefer not to post anything from Moylan that wasn't published in the newsletter, just for the sake of sticking to our "official images only" thing. --Steve-o 01:34, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Bigbot and Bottalk

This edit reads like pro-Bottalk whitewash to me. I've incorporated some of it and changed it into this. I know we shouldn't delve too much into fandom drama, but Renaud's laughable stance of being the only Transformers-related website on the entire world wide web, with content taken from Transformers.com and images hotlinked from there (to save Renaud the precious bandwidth), deserves mention as far as I'm concerned, and serves to explain what state the site is in these days.--Nevermore 14:23, 26 August 2009 (EDT)

I think that's a fair edit. I was trying (emphasis on trying there rather than succeeding perhaps) to remain neutral on the subject, but felt the previous iteration of the paragraph was far too biased against the board. But as a user of the board, I'd like to point out that 'the existence of other sites' isn't 'ignored', it's just felt that if they're all so against the site, then there's no point talking about, linking to them or supporting them. Danja 04:10, 29 August 2009 (EDT)

And, ironically, the reason "other stoes are all so against this site" is because of its isolationist stance. It's kinda like North Korea.

Seibertron is often made fun of. And yet Ryan has no problem linking to other sites when appropriate. "They don't like us so we don't ever mention them" is kinda like a self-fullfilling prophecy, don't you think?--Nevermore 08:08, 30 August 2009 (EDT)

Mindset

I dunno. While the information there is accurate, I'm not sure what it says and thus uncertain as to whether it needs to be in the article. I mean, it basically says "the fandom's mindset is hard to pin down. They never agree on anything, except when they do. They hate change, except when they like it, and they don't enjoy being made fun of, except when they do." --Rosicrucian^Talk 19:57, 16 September 2009 (EDT)

In short, fandom is not monolithic. A few issues gain vast majority support, but otherwise, it is quite diverse, more so than most casual fans or non-fans might suspect.--Apcog 20:32, 16 September 2009 (EDT)

It's also supposed to give the uninformed reader some examples of what exactly it is these fans debate about. Saying "The fans often disagree" is one thing. Explicitly saying that there are fans who prefer X over Y makes it more accessible.--Nevermore 03:53, 17 September 2009 (EDT)

Footnotes

I know there are some (very twisted, in my opinion) people who like Kiss Players, but do we really have to mention them? --108.20.211.12 19:55, 14 June 2011 (EDT)