Talk:Goldbug (IDW)/Archive1

'87 toy

This discussion is carried over from Talk:Popular Earth vehicle alternate modes#VW Beetle. My view is that the '87 toy = Bumblebee renamed. It says so in his bio. So, at best, the toy could be said to have been repurposed into IDW Goldbug, except that IDW Goldbug is not a VW Beetle, so it is not even repurposed. - Starfield 17:05, 9 August 2009 (EDT)

The bios often vary wildly from the depiction in the fiction, yes? I'd say that this version of Goldbug is at least as close to the toy as, say, G1 Bumblebee is to Hearts of Steel Bumblebee, which co-exist on the same page. Or IDW Sunstreaker, who's a Headmaster. Maybe we should make a separate page for the non-gestalt, non-animal Predacons of IDW. I'd say that if we're willing to accept that there can be bodies for characters that aren't based on the toys, but are still associated with the toys, then it has to cut both ways. The only thing that makes Goldbug different from the other characters is that the character is sometimes the same guy as Bumblebee. Otherwise, if this toy can't live on the same page as Goldbug (IDW), then really none of the other IDW Throttlebot bodies (or any other kind of bodies) should live on the same page with their more toy-like other depictions. --Jimsorenson 17:23, 9 August 2009 (EDT)

Well, except that the other characters live on the same page because we consider them to be the same characters, just portrayed slightly differently between continuities. So the fact that the toys don't always represent every single depiction is considered low priority.

However, since we already decided that IDW Goldbug is a separate enough character to get his own page, that means that assuming the same toy as the Goldbug characters we separated him from is a "good enough for government work" match is no longer a "valid" assumption. --Jeysie 17:29, 9 August 2009 (EDT)

Ah, but we decided that he's separate enough from prior depictions of Goldbug to warrant his own page. But that's emphatically not the same as saying that he's a separate character. It's purely a wiki convention, for our own convenience. Clearly, the idea that Goldbug is a member of the team called Throttlebots is something that ultimately traces its roots to the toys. Ignoring a line on the bio, well, that's nothing new for us, or for Transformers fans, pros and everyone in between. This is not an analogous situation to, say, Galvatron II, where there were two guys running around with the same name. This is just, well, IDW's Goldbug, and in this continuity he's not Bumblebee. Just like in this continuity, Galvatron isn't Megatron. We still call them the same guy, and associate all the toys together, even though really the Galvatron G1 toy looks almost nothing like the Galvatron from IDW. And if the IDW Rodimus Prime isn't Hot Rod, which seems likely, then that toy should still be on the page too. All IMO, of course. --Jimsorenson 17:48, 9 August 2009 (EDT)

Well, I tend to take the stance that we shouldn't assume/make up things unless we need to. And if we do need to make any assumptions, we should mark them as being such (which is why we have things like the "nameless character" templates, after all).

If we consider IDW Goldbug to be separate enough to get his own page, mere wiki convention or not, then IMHO he's separate enough that we shouldn't make an unofficial assumption that the toy still applies, unless we see something from IDW themself that suggests it does (like an Earth mode that looks like the toy). Seeing as how inclusion of a toy is not important enough that it demands an assumption on our part in order to fulfill the bare basic requirements for a character page. --Jeysie 17:53, 9 August 2009 (EDT)

I agree with Jim. I don't think the visual depiction of a character needs to match the look of a toy for the toy to "apply," nor do previous personality depictions come into play at all, since bio/story-portrayal disparities have been a fact of Transformer life since the beginning. It's very odd to see the VW-Beetle Goldbug on this page, I agree, but the logic is sound. Imagine for a moment that, up until IDW, Goldbug had been a toy-only character. Then suddenly IDW uses him in "Cybertronian" form... wouldn't we still put the old toy on his page? It doesn't matter how much the bio differs; the toy of the yellowish Throttlebot named "Goldbug" in the G1 toyline was obviously the inspiration for IDW's character of a yellowish Throttlebot named "Goldbug" in their G1 comic. And, to return to the real world, it also doesn't matter that there's this other interpretation out there of Goldbug being a rebuilt Bumblebee. It doesn't affect the logic of this page's content, other than that the stories about him being Bumblebee belong on Bumblebee's page instead. The toy, being an independent entity (independent even from its own packaging bio), belongs in both places. - Jackpot 18:51, 9 August 2009 (EDT)

That is one way to go about it, but taking that logic to its logical conclusion—both Goldbugs should be on the same page. I think the only reason we are squeamish about not merging them is because it says "Bumblebee" on the top of the page. That shouldn't matter, technically, since Goldbug (G1) redirects there. - Starfield 18:59, 9 August 2009 (EDT)

You're right; it's purely for convenience's sake that we've separated them. IDW-Goldbug is an incarnation of G1 Goldbug, so if we were being completely literal, we would put IDW-Goldbug's info on the page that Goldbug (G1) redirects to. But how would that read? We'd have to break the Bumblebee section up somehow between 'Bee and Goldbug, which is unprecedented and strikes me as an awkward solution, especially since we don't know how major a character Goldbug might become - or even how intertwined their storylines might get.

Actually, I think the most logically-consistent solution would be to make a separate Goldbug (G1) page and transplant all of the Goldbug info from Bumblebee (G1) into it. It's the Galvatron (G1) approach. The only counterargument to that I see is again one of convenience: it would put the reader through an unwarranted amount of work, jumping to a different page just to see the miniscule amount of material about, say, the Marvel Goldbug before jumping BACK to the Bumblebee page when he becomes a Pretender. Especially considering that, unlike Galvatron, there's no significant difference between Bumblebee and Goldbug's identities or story-roles.

So we're left with the pages as they currently stand, not really the most logical conclusion but the most convenient one. And... well, honestly, now I'm at a loss as to how this pertains to the toy question. If we can accept separating IDW-Goldbug from the rest, he's still an incarnation of the character represented by the toy, so why wouldn't the toy go here?

- Jackpot 20:24, 9 August 2009 (EDT)

I don't find the logic sound at all. There's no official statement that toy Goldbug = IDW Goldbug, period. I really don't see why this is even an issue. The toy information is not at all important enough that it must be included, so there's no reason for us to make up a completely fanon assumption with zero canon support. If IDW ever does give us some canon info that makes assuming the toy is the same reasonable, then we can add it. But we shouldn't be putting fanon on the wiki. --Jeysie 19:09, 9 August 2009 (EDT)

Jeysie, is there any official statement that toy Goldbug == Sunbow Cartoon Goldbug? I don't remember them every saying that. The character model is pretty different. Actually, I don't know of any official statement that, say, Activators Cliffumper is the same as Cliffjumper from the animated cartoon. One is an earth mode, one isn't. Or almost any other toy for that matter. Where would such a statement be made? Under what circumstances? --Jimsorenson 19:15, 9 August 2009 (EDT)

The fact that we consider them enough the same character to put them all on the same page is "good enough" there. But, if we consider a character incarnation separate enough to warrant its own page, then I fail to see any logic at all in assuming that the toy that belongs to the other incarnations we just declared as different still applies.

Now, if you wanted to argue that either this incarnation of Goldbug isn't different enough to separate out, or that we should separate out more (or all) different incarnations, those points would have some logic and consistency to it. But "we consider this character separate for its own page by fiction yet it's somehow still the same toy as the characters we just separated it from" just seems doofy to me unless there's some sort of actual canon support for the assumption.

Especially since we don't need to include toy info to fulfill the basic requirements of a character page, so there's nothing forcing us to add it, as opposed to leaving it off until we're sure we're being factual instead of fanon. This isn't like the "nameless character" situation, for instance, where we're forced to make something up just so we can create the page. --Jeysie 19:47, 9 August 2009 (EDT)

I see no difference between Goldbug (IDW) and Goldbug (G1), vis a vis the state of his toy. If you think we need an 'official declaration' that the Goldbug (IDW) character belongs to the 1987 Goldbug toy to be valid, then that requirement should apply to the Goldbug (G1) toy. You've made a moderately compelling (but flawed, IMO) case that the toy might not apply to both characters, but you haven't even come close to coming up with an argument as to why the toy belongs with one more than the other. --Jimsorenson 19:52, 9 August 2009 (EDT)

I had an edit-conflict with Jim there, but I was going to say basically the same thing in a single sentence: What are your standards for figuring out if a toy "applies" to a character? - Jackpot 20:24, 9 August 2009 (EDT)

Basically, if we declare various incarnations of a character concept to be similar enough to belong on the same page, then that means the various toys that belong to that singular character concept are also similar enough to belong to those various character incarnations.

Conversely, if we feel that a character incarnation is different enough to warrant its own page, then that logically means that it should be considered also separate from the toys that belong to the characters it's not the same as.

But, saying that fictionally they're different but toy-wise the same is inconsistent and illogical to me unless there's fictional support that says the toy is still the same. And there is no such support, in this instance.

If you feel that IDW Goldbug isn't different enough to warrant excluding his toy even though we have no fictional support that it's the same, then IMHO that's an argument from you that IDW Goldbug isn't different enough to be split off from the other Goldbugs to begin with, not an argument to put the toy on this separate page.

I'm all about being consistent unless there's actual evidence of inconsistency, not just mere assumption.

(Ironically, I think that toy Goldbug probably is IDW Goldbug as a pure fanon thing. I just think there's no outright canon evidence yet, and thus it's inappropriate to put it on the wiki.) --Jeysie 20:31, 9 August 2009 (EDT)

We're going in circles here. Even IF we grant the argument that separating out the character works, for whatever reason, where's your canon evidence that the toy belongs over on the Goldbug (G1) side of things? All your arguments are reciprocal, applying equally well to both articles. I can say that it's just your 'fanon' that the Goldbug 1987 toy belongs with the Goldbug (G1) article.--Jimsorenson 20:39, 9 August 2009 (EDT)

I'm sorry, but I'm still not hearing a definition from you as to how you figure out if a toy "belongs" to a character. All I'm hearing is that you think it's logically dissonant to break IDW-Goldbug off from the older incarnations while accepting the toy contemporary to those incarnations as representative of the new guy. Is it the time factor that you think defines it? I'm at a loss.

But maybe part the problem you're seeing here is that, as I described above, there is an essential irrationality to how we've separated these pages. If we were being totally logical, either IDW-Goldbug would be on Bumblebee (G1) (like IDW-Galvy is on the same page with previous, Megatronny incarnations), or all the Goldbug info would be on a single Goldbug (G1) page separate from Bumblebee (like how Megatron (G1) has no Galvatron info on it). But both of those options, while logical, are unduly inconvenient. So we have this middle-ground setup that satisfies convenience but isn't fully consistent with policy. And, in trying to apply policy arguments to the toy question, I think you're correctly seeing that something is illogical, but the toy is kind of caught in your crossfire when the central issue is elsewhere. Once one accepts the central illogic...ity of the setup, I think the toy question resolves itself in favor of inclusion.

- Jackpot 20:54, 9 August 2009 (EDT)

Er... my definition of "how a toy belongs to a character" is that it was officially stated to belong to a certain character concept, and we consider a given fictional character incarnation to also belong to that concept.

So, if Hasbro officially declares a toy to be some form of "G1 Bumblebee", and we consider various fictional character incarnations to be G1 Bumblebee, therefore, by our existing wiki structuring, the toys and the characters go together.

But if we say that one Bumblebee incarnation isn't the same as the other ones, then we must also say that it is not the same as the toys that belong to the other ones either, unless the same fiction that caused us to separate the characters says the toy is the same anyway.

So I repeatedly made my argument of how I'd match up toys; you just didn't pay attention to what I said.

And, I agree there is sort of an inconsistency there, but the bulk of the problem is solved by stating that, if this incarnation of Goldbug is different enough for its own page, it therefore is well and truly separate in all aspects unless the canon gives a reason to think otherwise. There's zero logic to me in separating out the fiction but not the toys without some canon evidence we should be doing it differently. --Jeysie 21:14, 9 August 2009 (EDT)

Edit: So it may be "fanon" that 1987 Goldbug goes with Goldbug (G1), but if so, it's the wiki's fanon, not mine. --Jeysie 21:17, 9 August 2009 (EDT)

Well, then, it's simple. Hasbro officially declared the 1987 Throttlebot toy to be Goldbug, and so has IDW declared the character in Spotlight: Metroplex to be Goldbug. The parentheticals, it's been repeatedly stated, are NOT a part of the character's name or identity, merely a convenience so that we can have different articles about different concepts sharing a name. We could just as easily call the IDW Goldbug article name Goldbug (G1) and call the other one Goldbug (Bumblebee). It wouldn't, and shouldn't, make any difference to the article itself. --Jimsorenson 21:33, 9 August 2009 (EDT)

It makes sense insofar that we've considered this Goldbug to be different from every other Goldbug. So the toys either belong to the other Goldbugs or to this Goldbug, but not to both, unless the fiction that caused us to declare them separate them says otherwise. Otherwise, your argument is that we shouldn't have separated them out to begin with.

My argument basically boils down to: either they're separate or they're not, so make up your mind please, unless official say-so forces us to be betwixt-and-between. --Jeysie 22:08, 9 August 2009 (EDT)

If it had to come down to just one, I'd vote IDW Goldbug. He has no claim to any other toys, but a legitimate claim to this one. Fortunately, that's a false dichotomy. One COULD put IDW Goldbug with the rest of the Goldbug stuff. Or, one could make Goldbug its own page, separate from Bumblebee. Either way, the toy issue goes away. It just so happens that it's fairly convenient to do it this way, on a number of levels. But the wiki is an artificial construct, a collection of knowledge and organizational principles that doesn't actually bind the fiction at all. In this case, the underlying organizational principles make it smarter and more convenient to put the fiction in two different places. But the fact is that, should we (and we easily could) choose to separate Goldbug from Bumblebee we would include the Goldbug toy on that page. Should we choose to put IDW Goldbug on the Bumblebee page, and we easily could, we'd include the toy on that page. Choosing to split the difference to make everyone's life easier doesn't require us to throw common sense out the window and make a false choice for the one place a toy has to go. --Jimsorenson 23:04, 9 August 2009 (EDT)

See, that makes sense. If all the Goldbugs belong on a separate page, then the Goldbug toys logically belong there too. And if IDW Goldbug is actually not different enough to be separate from Bee's page, that means he's not separate enough from the toys either. Now you're getting it. There's zero that's common sense to me about "Well, he's totally separate except for the bits that he's arbitrarily not based on our non-canon assumptions."

And, I dunno, to me, just leaving the toy info off is a perfectly easy way to do things. Why is having it on the page remotely a big deal? --Jeysie 23:40, 9 August 2009 (EDT)

This whole page makes my brain hurt. Of course a single toy can belong to two characters, or even to two different iterations of the same character. Jesus Christ. What is this bullshit, and why are we wasting our time with it? --ItsWalky 23:24, 9 August 2009 (EDT)

Well, yeah, there's stuff that gets officially repurposed all the time that we list on the wiki. We don't list fanon repurposing, though, AFAIK.

So it's not the mere idea of repurposing that's the issue, it's whether in this instance it's canon repurposing or not. --Jeysie 23:40, 9 August 2009 (EDT)

How EXACTLY are the IDW comics "unofficial"? Jesus Fucking Shitty Christ, why is EVERY stupid and retarded and horrible super-ass-long-fucking pointless argument on this wiki involving YOU? JESUS CHRIST. Can I just delete this damn page? Can I delete HER? --ItsWalky 15:48, 10 August 2009 (EDT)

"But, saying that fictionally they're different but toy-wise the same is inconsistent and illogical to me..." Just to throw a wrench into this argument, the idea that the same toy can have two characters is a pretty big part of why nearly every single Japan-only G1 character has two pages. Personally, I'd favor the Galvatron approach: move all Goldbug stuff to a Goldbug (G1) page and reference to/from Bumblebee (G1). Since that doesn't seem likely to happen, I think leaving the page as-is is the next best thing. You're right, if you want to get REALLY technical, there's nothing officially stating that the Goldbug in IDW is the same as the original toy. Conversely, however, there's nothing stating he ISN'T, either, and I personally think that would be the bigger assumption to make. -- Dark T Zeratul 02:33, 10 August 2009 (EDT)

I'd call the assumption with no official support the bigger assumption, personally.

And again, I have no problem with the idea of one toy being two different characters if it's got canon support somewhere. It's the latter thing that's my grumbling issue, not the former.

I guess it's that I tend to be a literal "if it ain't on the page, it ain't on the stage" sort of person when it comes to reading canon. I got my own fanon theories same as anyone, but we're not here to catalog that. --Jeysie 02:54, 10 August 2009 (EDT)

*bangs head on wall*

IF THE TOY WAS RE-PURPOSED TO REPRESENT A SECOND CHARACTER IT MEANS IT'S TECH-SPEC WOULD NOT COUNT TOWARD THE SECOND CHARACTER.

THIS IS EXACTLY WHAT YOU WANT, AND YOU ARE ARGUING AGAINST IT. -Derik 04:48, 13 August 2009 (EDT)

(resetting the quote indents 'cause it's getting unwieldy) How EXACTLY are the IDW comics "unofficial"?

Whoa there, cowboy. Nobody's calling IDW unofficial. They're saying that equating the alien bodyform IDW Goldbug, who is definitely not Bumblebee, with the Earthen bodyform Goldbug toy, which definitely IS Bumblebee, is of questionable canonicity -- IDW Goldbug to date has not looked like that toy. No one official has made that leap of repurposing explicit thus far.

As for me, I'd rather just see a "see main article" link to the Goldbug section of "Bumblebee (G1)/toys" or whatever it is, but that's mostly because I strenuously oppose copy-paste repeats of identical text on different pages. -- Repowers 16:13, 10 August 2009 (EDT)

I feel pretty comfortable assuming the other Throttlebots' bios apply to them unless something were to conflict with them. IDW Goldbug? I don't know who he is. I considered putting the Category:Spies tag on the page, but I don't know if he is a spy. He doesn't appear to be an "espionage director." HOS Bumblebee was pretty close to G1 Bumblebee, actually. There wasn't anything that jumped out at me that would make me say, "Bumblebee wouldn't act like that." IDW Sunstreaker was very Sunstreaker-esque, so I don't know what you mean. He became a Headmaster? Well that is just imagining what would happen if G1 Sunstreaker became a Headmaster. Many Headmasters aren't Headmasters in IDW but have the same personality. - Starfield 18:36, 9 August 2009 (EDT)

No offense, Jeysie, because I respect your judgments and opinions, but I think we're locked in a static argument here. For whatever reason, you think putting Goldbug's toy on Goldbug's page is fanon, while Jackpot and I strongly disagree. (I think that ItsWalkey and Dark T Zeratu agree with Jackpot and I, but I'm less comfortable definitively saying so.) I think that at this point, barring some new viewpoints, we're going to have to agree to disagree. I feel I've answered your arguments, I'm sure you feel you've answered mine. I'm going to bow out the discussion until and unless it goes in a new direction and I'm able to contribute constructively, trusting that my position is clear. --Jimsorenson 09:34, 10 August 2009 (EDT)

Well, I think Walky and Zeratul mistakenly think it's a matter of being against putting repurposing on the wiki, when I'm just against putting non-canon repurposing on the wiki. I just feel something should either be completely separate or not when we have only our judgement to go on... Hasbro's the only folks who get to have their cake and eat it too, so to speak.

You guys have zero canon evidence that Goldbug's toy represents IDW Goldbug, therefore the appropriate thing is to simply leave it off until we're sure, as it's not required for the basic needs of a character page. I'd rather leave info out than put up info we don't absolutely need and don't know is accurate or not. Him being a "comic-only character" is perfectly fine. --Jeysie 10:52, 10 August 2009 (EDT)

Jim, I think the issue is that so far, Goldbug's only had one body. If he comes to earth, I'd expect him to be the toy body, but until he fictionally appears in this body in an issue of the comics, I don't think it's time to add the toy. A note referencing the toy, and the fact his body doesn't match is something more accurate, I think User:Eire 22.34 Aug 10 09 (UTC)

But based on that logic, shouldn't all the Throttlebots be given separate IDW pages that don't include the toys, since non of them have appeared in bodies identical to the toys? I'm sure there's characters whose sole fictional appearances feature non-toy Cycbertronian modes. I don't see how this character could be interpreted as anything BUT IDW's representation of the 1987 toy of the same name. - Cattleprod 19:36, 10 August 2009 (EDT)

To defend the opposing viewpoint, none of the other Throttlebots were rebuilt versions of other characters. Antimatter 19:44, 10 August 2009 (EDT)

Except there's no case of what is usually another version of them existing in this universe. So it's just a new version of the characters (by that logic, we'd have an individual article for War Within characters that didn't show up in later issues). Goldbug, whole other situation User:Eire 01,0 Aug 11 09 (UTC)

Move to "Goldbug (G1)"?

In the discussion above, it occurred to me that the reason this page seems awkward and counterintuitive is that it breaks policy for the sake of convenience. IDW-Goldbug is a G1-franchise Goldbug, so he should go on Goldbug (G1). Unfortunately, that happens to redirect to Bumblebee (G1), who is a separate individual in the IDW-verse, so we'd have to have two different write-ups in the same series-section. And if we pulled all the Goldbug info out of Bumblebee (G1) and put it in Goldbug (G1), just reading Bumblebee's story would require bouncing back and forth between articles with little benefit. So we've arrived at the current situation, which I think is the most expedient but certainly feels "off," especially when you bring the toy into the equation. Jeysie has been the most vocal about it, but she wasn't the only one who objected.

So I've made a sandbox to test a new proposal: Make Goldbug (G1) its own page, but just put links back to Bumblebee (G1) in the relevant sections. Goldbug (IDW) would redirect to Goldbug (G1), where the Goldbug toy can exist with no objections. Bumblebee (G1) can remain unchanged, other than adding a link to Goldbug (G1) for propriety. We may or may not remove the Goldbug toy from Bumblebee (G1)/toys; I don't really care one way or t'other.

The only disadvantage I see to this proposal is that someone searching for the Goldbug-who-is-Bumblebee will get a single extra click added to their path. But, hey, maybe they didn't know Goldbug was a separate individual in one continuity, and they'll learn something! It seems a small price to pay to make this page a little less counterintuitive and controversial, and more in-line with policy.

- Jackpot 13:06, 10 August 2009 (EDT)

That makes a lot of sense. - Starfield 13:12, 10 August 2009 (EDT)

To me, it makes no sense at all. Goldbug is only a separate guy in IDW. The current article title makes perfect sense. --KilMichaelMcC 13:14, 10 August 2009 (EDT)

Then, by your logic, we should have a separate "Galvatron (IDW)" article. Maybe you agree with that, but until that happens, precedent is against your position. - Jackpot 13:17, 10 August 2009 (EDT)

We are starting to trip over some of our own past rationalizations. Galvatron (G1) includes vintage G1 Galvatron who was rebuilt from Megatron, IDW Galvatron who had nothing to do with Megatron, and Henkei Galvatron who was just a temporarily-on-drugs Megatron. Cheetor (BW) includes Henkei Cheetor who is the size of a G1 character living in a G1-ish era on modern Earth when the entire Beast era never happened. Airazor (BW) for some reason includes TransTech Airazor, who came from a whole different dimension where, again, probably the Beast era never happened. If era and even identity of origin no longer matters so much, then sure as heck IDW Goldbug ought to be acknowledged as being G1 Goldbug. They look the same and do basically the same thing in basically the same story--that's been good enough for us in the past. (Note that even by that standard I still don't think H-Cheetor and TT-Airazor "work", but, whatever, let's just pick one way and be consistent with it). --Thylacine 2000 14:06, 10 August 2009 (EDT)

"...Henkei Galvatron who was just a temporarily-on-drugs Megatron" just has me in snicker fits.

Ahem. That aside, Thy brings up a good couple points on IDW Galvie and H-Cheets (we could also toss in H-Dinobot for additional measure). --Lonegamer78 14:32, 10 August 2009 (EDT)

I'd just like to point out that "TransTech" Airazor is not a Transcendent Technomorph. So far, there isn't one of those. The "TransTech" Airazor is a Maximal from some other "low-tech" universe... where the Beast Era very likely DID happen since she's a Maximal. --M Sipher 18:19, 10 August 2009 (EDT)

OH MY GOOD GOD JESUS, GUYS. Are you LOOKING for things to complicate this decidedly non-complicated article with? I want to punch you all in the kidneys!! - Chris McFeely 14:23, 10 August 2009 (EDT)

I will sooner eat a live rat than support this move. ---Blackout- 14:24, 10 August 2009 (EDT)

Is there really that much difference between the proposal and the current article? It's just enough additional content to make it kosher with policy, but doesn't make the reading experience fundamentally different. I don't understand the hostility. - Jackpot 14:30, 10 August 2009 (EDT)

Here is what I say. We do a vote. Let the people decide what to do. ---Blackout- 14:35, 10 August 2009 (EDT)

One more thing to think about—linking to Goldbug. If an article is linking to something Goldbug did in the Marvel comics or cartoon, would it link to "Goldbug (G1)" or "Bumblebee (G1)|Goldbug"? - Starfield 16:55, 10 August 2009 (EDT)

I would think wherever the information is. So, if my proposal were enacted, the latter. (Which means that nothing would change from the current state, in that regard.) - Jackpot 17:01, 10 August 2009 (EDT)

Chris is right. This is vastly over-complicating a very simple issue. Bumblebee is in every other continuity Goldbug. The two were never fictionally portrayed as separate characters. Galvatron is separate because he IS a separate character in most fictions (he sees himself as a new person unlike Goldbug). Which is why keeping IDW Galvatron in the main article works, although as I said, I'd prefer IDW Galv got his own article but I get why he was put in the first one (new continuity I get it). IDW Goldbug is exactly the same as Galvatron II. A version of the character wholly separate from the original. So give him his own article (I wouldn't leave in the toy, not until/if he gets an earth mode), keep his fiction separate and leave all the fiction relating to the Goldbug who used to be 'Bee alone. You're overly, overly complicating this. Just put a note in Bee's idw section to check here for IDW GoldbugUSer:Eire 22.27 10 Aug 09 (UTC)

It's funny - there have been lots of suggestions thrown around in the vote-tally remarks, and I'm sure everyone considers his or her own choice the "simple" one while everyone else is making it "complicated." I understand why you and some other people think the current setup is "simple," but I think its supposed simplicity is making the top-level policy questions MORE complicated. That's what I'm ultimately trying to manage here. For what it's worth, I actually agree with you about Galvatron, in that if this debate ends in favor of Goldbug (IDW), then I think the same logic demands a "Galvatron (IDW)" too. There's even a debate over on Talk:Nemesis Prime (G1) that I think would be affected, settling that question in favor of separate "Nemesis Prime (Alternators)" and "Nemesis Prime (Universe 2008)" articles. But, ah, let's not get ahead of ourselves... - Jackpot 17:44, 10 August 2009 (EDT)

I view it more like Hot Rod / Rodimus Prime. In many continuities Hot Rod is Rodimus Prime, and in fact goes back-and-forth between that identity. it makes no sense to make them separate articles.

But if IDW were to introduce a version of Rodimus Prime who was a separate character from Hot Rod, we'd give him an article at "Rodimus Prime (G1)".

And frankly, Galvatron is not an example that de-complicates things. The "Galvatron (G1)" article covers the Marvel UK Galvatron (who was made from Straxus) but not Galvatron II (Marvel US) who was made from Megatron. That's a mind-boggling bit of insanity... OTOH, like Cyclonus... in a certain sense it doesn't seem to really matter, that much, who became Galatron. Galvatron is Galvatron. -Derik 18:26, 10 August 2009 (EDT)

I think Derik has hit the nail on the head here. The Bumblebee/Goldbug relationship is identical to the Hot Rod/Rodimus Prime relationship. They both are cases of the same character having two different bodies and ranks commensurate with those bodies. This is exactly the way we should be looking at it. --Tigerpaw28 20:04, 10 August 2009 (EDT)

Also like Wing Dagger / Wing Saber and Tidal Wave / Mirage and Cyclonus / Snow Cat.... but unfortunately none of those examples are much help because none of them have the identity-inconsistency that Goldbug now has. This is new ground we're treading here, a new precedent to set. If there was suddenly a non-Hot-Rod Rodimus Prime or a non-Tidal-Wave Mirage or whatever, we would be faced with the exact same question and the exact same debate. What I'm trying to do in my proposal is strike a middle ground that doesn't conflict with the Galvatron precedent or the meaning of our parentheticals, while also acknowledging that the Bumblebee/Goldbug relationship is way tighter than with Megatron/Galvatron. - Jackpot 20:19, 10 August 2009 (EDT)

Vote Tally

• -Blackout- opposes the move, as Goldbug is only a different person in IDW, and he is Bumblebee in all other continuities, thus, we would just be overcomplicating this.
• Jackpot votes to move to "Goldbug (G1)" according to this model, which is basically the same content with some links to Bumblebee (G1), but doesn't throw a wrench into existing policy as the current page does.
• KilMichaelMcC, who is a bit unsure about calling for a vote on this at this stage of discussion, votes no to moving. It ain't broke, so let's not go fixing it.
• Chris McFeely will murder you all. Also, no on the move.
• Antimatter, knowing full well his opinion means jack squat, votes move to Goldbug (G1), keep the toy on the page, and add his information from the comics and the cartoon to the page.
• Emvee quite likes Jackpot's page and throws his vote behind that.
• Cattleprod, who feels passionate about this issue for some reason, votes to keep IDW Goldbug separate and to keep the toy info on his page. Links to the relevant sections of Bumblebee's story info are okay though. Jackpot's suggestion is definitely preferable to moving Goldbug's Sunbow and Marvel info OFF of Bumblebee's page.
• Dark_T_Zeratul wants to move all Goldbug information to Goldbug (G1), but wants to see the toy on this page if it doesn't get moved
• Eire thinks a move is entirely pointless. Just add a note to the Bumblebee IDW section at the top "For IDW's version of Goldbug, see Goldbug (IDW)", and would support the same for IDW Galvatron, since we've got Galvatron II
• User:Mazenoise opposes the move and also wonders if making IDW Goldbug a separate character is a deliberate choice or if the writer didn't know Goldbug = Bumblebee, considering how bad these comics have been lately..
• Detour votes no on the move.
• User:Derik votes we move this to "Goldbug (G1)" with a top-level link under the bio- "In some continuities Goldbug is a new form of Bumblebee. For those version of Goldbug, See Bumblebee (G1)"
• Jimsorenson likes Derik's proposal, though mostly just wants to see the toy remain on wherever the IDW Goldbug info ends up. (Slight change of position from before.)
• User:Metal Gear NOIZE agrees with Eire.
• Dead Metal opposes the move and face-palms himself over how ridicules this is and likes Eire's idea is awesome and should be made, same should be made for the Insecticon Swarm. Dead Metal 16:53, 10 August 2009 (EDT)
• User:Starfield votes "yes" on the move.
• M Sipher wants to take a pillowcase full of bar soap to you all. No on the move, yes to adding Erie's note in the IDW section of Bee's page, and no on the G1 toy being on IDW Goldbug's page until IDW Goldbug actually shows up as a goddamn VW.
• Jeysie agrees with everything Sipher said. Including the pillowcase full of bar soap.
• Rosicrucian thinks this should stay at its current namespace, and thinks with the upcoming Coda story that IDW Galvatron deserves similar treatment.--Rosicrucian^Talk 16:26, 11 August 2009 (EDT)

Vote Results

Oi, what a mess. Since the voting has been up for a day, and we've had no new votes for over 12 hours, I'm tallying this badboy. 12 votes for no on the move, 6 votes for yes (in some form or other). Additionally, there are 3 votes to keep the toy on the page, 2 to remove it. Long story short, the consensus seems to be ... leave the page exactly as it is right now. This was a giant debate and the result is, no change at all. Joy!

The only non-Goldbug idea that came up in the voting was separating out IDW Galvatron from regular Galvatron. IMO, that'd need it's own consensus over on Galvatron's page. --Jimsorenson 16:06, 11 August 2009 (EDT)

I'm not a fan of calling for up-and-down-votes without discussion. There needs to be a serious discussion about what to do about Galvatron, not just a vote. -Derik 16:15, 11 August 2009 (EDT)

Let me clarify. I wasn't calling for a vote at all. I was saying that, IMO, the above discussion / vote is NOT directly applicable to Galvatron, so he should have his own discussion before any action is taken. --Jimsorenson 16:18, 11 August 2009 (EDT)

Agreed. We're to a point where having the Galvatron discussion for the umpteenth time probably won't get shouted down by the usual suspects.--Rosicrucian^Talk 16:28, 11 August 2009 (EDT)

How do you get 6, Jim? I count 7 in favor of moving and 11 12 (with Rosicrucian's new vote) in favor of staying. With individual opinions about details all across the freaking map. I definitely think inertia wins the day here, but it's nowhere near consensus. I hope everyone who yelled and cussed at me for making it "complicated" can see that obviously this is a deeper issue than they want it to be, given the diversity of opinions. I also agree with Derik that calling early votes just means things will be decided by the bigger mob, not by reason.

THIS IS WHY POLICY MATTERS. If we take everything as a unique case and never look for consistent principles, every debate is going to be a slugfest about what "feels" right by each person's intuition with no way to find a common-ground conclusion. I'm glad that at least a few people are looking at the big picture and considering how to make our choice here jibe with other cases. In the end, I'd love to see some policy-refinement come out of this, and I even have some thoughts on how, but I'm going to hold off for a while and let the dust settle. Hopefully most folks will be in a more reasonable mood later.

- Jackpot 16:43, 11 August 2009 (EDT)