Talk:G.I. Joe (team)

Character articles

We're not really going to do entries for all of these Joe characters, are we? I mean, I can see a few being justified, but this seems like an awful lot of links....--G.B. Blackrock 22:57, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Eventually, why not? They've appeared in Transformers comics. I mean, we have pages for Spider-Man, US1, and that big fire-snortin' lizard... - RolonBolon 23:18, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm not opposed to it, per se. If someone really wants to do all those entries, go right ahead. Just seems unnecessary.--G.B. Blackrock 13:33, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

To some extent, I'm sure we can do the really minimal characters as part as someone's "Related characters" section. You know, ones who do very little but show up, and only show up in one of the crossovers. --ItsWalky 14:28, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Action Force

Should we also make a mention of Action Force? In Marvel UK, Action Force had several adventures involving the Transformers that G.I. Joe did not ("Ancient Relics" comes to mind), and they really do deserve at least a passing reference. If not their own page (which might be a bit much) we should at least work them into the G.I. Joe page. -- Dataraven 14:43, June 9 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, Action Force definitely needs to be on the wiki somewhere. I'm not sure exactly how to execute it, exactly. --ItsWalky 16:02, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I've been thinking about this a fair bit. Unlike the UK TF stories, the Action Force stories are much more their own continuity, separate from the American Marvel material. So, instead of inserting the UK information straight into the Marvel Continuity section of a character or the GI Joe team page itself, I think a sub-section within the Marvel header - like how the Flint page is currently being handled - is the way to go.

For the most part, I feel we can get away with "Action Force is the UK continuity version of GIJoe", and just leave it at that when it needs to be referenced in a non-AF entry (like Blades, say) - the "G.I. Joe/Action Force" team crossover stories within the Action Force title don't fall into the boundaries of the TF wiki (IIRC no "G.I. Joe" members show up in an "Action Force"/TF story), so I don't think we need to go into it. It's irrelevant.

(I had considered removing the "counterpart to the American G.I. Joe team" bit from Flint's current Action Force section, but I felt we needed to discuss this first.) --Monzo 00:04, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. From the perspective of the TFverse, all these dudes are the same guys, just operating in London. It's like, the Spider-Man Clone Saga might technically make the Spider-Man in Marvel G1 #3 a different person from the one in the Avengers crossover, but why should we care? (I don't know if the Clone Saga really does that, but the point stands regardless.) This minutiae about how the AF characters have different names and birthplaces is, as far as I know, outside of the pale of things Transformers. It's worth a trivia note, but I don't think we should let the information guide our article structure, especially to the point that we feel the need to send the reader off to Wikipedia in the middle of an article to help them understand what we're doing. That's why when I updated this entry, I followed the normal UK-comics standard. - Jackpot 15:17, 11 August 2009 (EDT)

As one of ten people who care about Action Force as a continuity - and likely the only American - I care to at least some degree. I personally don't mind going into extra details like these on G.I. Joe characters or the franchise in general, being that a) it's always been TFs' sister series and b) the GIJoe wiki frankly kind of sucks, so it's nice to have this info as a Joe fan somewhere. However, I did not add that link to wikipedia, and am not sure what purpose it served while it was there.

There aren't a whole lot of alternate names/birthplaces from AF that are relevant to the characters on the wiki, anyway - aside from Flint, I think the only guy with changed details that showed up in Ancient Relics was Wild Bill. --Monzo 23:30, 11 August 2009 (EDT)

I appreciate your desire to document this stuff, but I think our ha-ha-plug-our-ears-and-cover-our-eyes-to-outside-sources policy serves a bigger purpose than just humor. It means we don't overextend ourselves. Right now, I think that working the AF-guys-are-kind-of-different thing into our fiction writeups is just plain confusing, especially if you're saying most of the relevant characters don't even have different identites. Certain *I* was confused by it until I started editing the articles in-depth, and I'm still not totally certain on it all. Like I said, it's totally worth a trivia note, but I don't see the value in trying to work with it as TF-canon. In this case, that means I think there's no reason to treat the UK stuff any differently in structure than we normally do, with the italics and such.

Edit: Y'know, wait, I think I might be starting to understand your position. It's more than just the fact that some of the AF characters have different identities than the Joes... you're also pointing out that the AF comic series is a whole other universe. To use the Marvel example again, it's like if IDW, having already crossed over with the mainstream Avengers, went on to do an Ultimates crossover. To the TF fan, the characters might seem the same at a glance, but really, the crossover is different on a deeper, continuity-related level. Let me know if I've got that right.

- Jackpot 23:36, 11 August 2009 (EDT)

That is... hrm. Yeah, that's accurate. The Action Force characters are effectively in a separate continuity from their GIJoe (the franchise) counterparts, owing to the Marvel UK Action Force comic playing much more fast and loose with their reprints and surrounding original stories than the TF comic did. It's not just that the characters had different birthplaces or real names, which I apologize for not making entirely clear.

As I mentioned - uh, three years ago, by now - this continuity issue only really effects the nine Action Force characters who were in Ancient Relics, of whom only three have pages at the moment. Looking over those respective pages, I think we may need to devise a version of the ukonly note for them... like, "Because Action Force continuity is incompatible with US G.I. Joe continuity, this adventure is presented separately; see the main article for more info".

And regarding the main (team) article, we really should rework that note to ditch the wikipedia link. Hrm. Maybe: "Due to the publishing demands of the time, Marvel UK's Action Force series developed into a divergent continuity, incompatible with Marvel's main G.I. Joe series. The Action Force team's adventures are thus chronicled separately; see the franchise page for more info on this topic."

(Also, as an aside, I remembered wrong regarding how many characters had their personal information reworked; of the nine AF members in Ancient Relics, at least five were given different birthplaces, though only two were given different names.) --Monzo 01:51, 12 August 2009 (EDT)

No need to apologize - you made it clear up above; it just didn't sink into my brain until now. This information is very interesting... Speaking as someone who clearly didn't understand things as the articles presented them, I'm tempted to go more whole-hog with this and separate stuff out into new articles, like an "Action Force (team)" and "Action Force (comic)". Well, certainly the latter, since we document material from a few issues of it here. But yeah... I'm not sure if, say, a "Flint (Action Force)" article would be warranted (HA! rank pun), but I'm going to have to mull this over. It's reminiscent of Galvatron II - different versions of the same characters basically from parallel universes running around in (roughly) the same continuity. Hm. [strokes chin] Well, time for sleep, anyway. Thanks for the rundown! - Jackpot 02:28, 12 August 2009 (EDT)

Unfinished page?

There's a hyperlink note after "code-name" in the introduction of this article that links to "note-0", which doesn't exist. Was something originally supposed to be there, or should it just be deleted? Also, speaking of deletions, I had to delete the gibberish previously here to get past a spam filter. --Sntint 18:52, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Disambig notes

How are we doing the disambig notes for characters with the same names as Transformers? I see that this page has it (G.I. Joe) but other pages have them as {GIJoe). So officially, which is it gonna be? --DrSpengler 23:49, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I would say the full form, with periods and one space. --Steve-o 00:57, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

redirects

Shouldn't most of these be redirecting to G.I. Joe (franchise) instead of G.I. Joe (team)? --MistaTee 14:42, 19 August 2009 (EDT)

I don't know which sense of the term is more prevalent; for some reason, the Search function doesn't like "G.I. Joe" and won't give me any results. Here are all the pages that link to the redirect, but I'm not about to check a significant portion one-by-one to see which meaning they're using. If you want to do that, or you know a better method of discerning the trends, please go for it. - Jackpot 01:22, 20 August 2009 (EDT)

R&R

What's the proper spelling of Rock'n Roll? At the moment we have his name written in various articles as "Rock'N'Roll", "Rock'n'Roll", "Rock 'N' Roll", "Rock 'n' Roll", "Rock 'N Roll", and "Rock n Roll". Does it vary by fiction? The G.I. Joe wiki uses "Rock 'n Roll". --abates 05:24, 5 November 2009 (EST)

"Rock 'n Roll" is the correct spelling. Besides being on JoeWiki, it's also on the packaging and filecard of the 82/83 figure. The only other legitimate variation is from the 1989 figure which had the name spelled "Rock & Roll".--Tigerpaw28 13:17, 5 November 2009 (EST)

Ah, I figured as much. I'll amend the alternate spellings. --abates 18:34, 5 November 2009 (EST)