Talk:Goldbug (IDW)/Archive2

A Generalized IDW Character Split?

I think a lot of our recent big discussions have had a common theme: that we're finding the gaps in our "every character from a G1 continuity family gets lumped together" policy. It doesn't work when it lumps Alternators Nemesis Prime with Classicsverse Nemesis Prime, it doesn't work especially well for Goldbug, and it probably doesn't work overly well in our current treatment of IDW Galvatron. So yes, I do think we'll have some foundations for policy here when the dust finally settles.--Rosicrucian^Talk 16:46, 11 August 2009 (EDT)

Yeah, I definitely think you're on the right track. I'd also like to throw Scorponok (G1) in the mix, since I personally think his North American and Japanese portrayals are different enough to warrant separation. (Probably Fortress Maximus (G1) too.) If we're going to start splitting more hairs than we have in the past, we need to consider as many borderline cases as we can to find common principles. - Jackpot 16:55, 11 August 2009 (EDT)

Hearts of Steel characters are almost definitely applicable. Heck, even though we had that discussion before I'd say they're an easier decision to split off.--Rosicrucian^Talk 17:05, 11 August 2009 (EDT)

I really do think we should split articles for characters that are basically the same but very different from the original or oversees incarnation. And I kinda vote for the idw incarnations being split off and carry the HOS stuff on them too. Dead Metal 17:10, 11 August 2009 (EDT)

I mentioned it on the Galvatron page, but I figure it's applicable in this discussion too (perhaps moreso, given the direction it's taking): completely alternate universe takes like Hearts of Steel notwithstanding, either we move all of the IDW characters to their own pages, or we keep them all on G1. Stop with this bullshit of picking and choosing based on arbitrary reasoning (and really, it IS pretty arbitrary - many of the arguments made for removing the toy information from this page can be made about dozens of characters in just about every continuity). It doesn't follow policy, it doesn't follow standards, and it's confusing as hell. -- Dark T Zeratul 18:12, 11 August 2009 (EDT)

"either we move all of the IDW characters to their own pages"

This had better be a joke. Also, the idea of giving characters who appear in HOS individual pages? NO. And shame on you for even thinking it. Splitting every character to appear in an IDW book is possibly the most fucking stupid idea I've ever heard proposed on this wiki. --M Sipher 18:23, 11 August 2009 (EDT)

What Sipher said. --ItsWalky 18:25, 11 August 2009 (EDT)

I've heard stupider ideas... I'm just blanking on them now.

Here's my problem-- "Goldbug (IDW)" means that if any future fiction writes a non-Bumblebee Goldbug, we end up with another article named "Goldbug (Image)" or "Goldbug (Devils Due)." Normally those would just be sections on a Goldbug character page.

This is basically splitting out a character section in a publisher-specific way, which is why I think it should be "(G1)". -Derik 18:33, 11 August 2009 (EDT)

I agree, it's ridiculous. But picking and choosing certain IDW characters for their own pages just because one or two people think they're a little TOO different is even more ridiculous. I mean, come on. We were seriously arguing about whether or not Goldbug's toy should be on Goldbug's page just because he happens to not be Bumblebee for once (a trend IDW has been showing since Spotlight: Galvatron) and because his single appearance just so happened to have a different vehicle mode because he wasn't on Earth. And NOW we're debating on whether or not Galvatron gets his own page because he just happens to not be Megatron in this continuity. As I and others have said, it's all about consistency. So either we CONSISTENTLY put all the IDW characters on (IDW) pages, or we CONSISTENTLY put them all on (G1) pages. Trying to go halfsies and put some on G1 and some on IDW based on personal preference and interpretation is absurd. -- Dark T Zeratul 18:39, 11 August 2009 (EDT)

Actually, I was arguing that, if a character is separate enough to get his own page, he's also separate enough that we can't assume the toys for the character(s) we just separated from automatically still apply. Whether a character is separate enough to get his own page or not is an entirely different question. --Jeysie 19:07, 11 August 2009 (EDT)

I don't think it's accurate to say we're "picking and choosing certain IDW characters for their own pages just because one or two people think they're a little TOO different." After examining the situation, I'm convinced that Goldbug-separate-from-Bumblebee does need his own page. The question is simply what the page should be named.

A question which has been clouded by issues of disambiguation-by-continuity-family vs. by-publisher, what the definition of 'repurposing' is, how much sway tech-specs have, how to handle characters who change their names, and (I think) at least some desire to punish IDW for this pointless retcon by de-legitimizing their character. (I have no idea if Jeysie feels that way... but *I* certainly feel an urge to be petty about it.) But those are all page-internal matters. What decision (if any) is made in regard to them does not affect what name the page will ultimately have... it's just that the original discussion has exploded into a storm of all these side-issue. (Which in turn have offered an opportunity to re-open old debates about other pages, etc.)

It'll all work out. There will be shouting matches and crazy examples, Hoop will insult your mom and I will make a fool of myself at least three times before we eventually work our way back to actual discussion and (probably) discover that somewhere in all the snarling an actual consensus we can all agree on has formed and the wiki can move forward.

It's a stupid system, but it does eventually work. -Derik 02:22, 13 August 2009 (EDT)

Hearts of Steel?! WHY? There's NOTHING different about the characters themselves -- just the timing of when they arrive on Earth. If you were going to write up the intro paragraph for a HOS Bumblebee, what would you write that would be ANY different than G1 Bumblebee? The answer should be "nothing", and that's a pretty good litmus test right there. -- Repowers 10:08, 12 August 2009 (EDT)

WOW. I never figured that it'd come to this. OK, deep breath. I think that Derik's point about 'if there is a future Goldbug who isn't Bumblebee' is an excellent one, vis a vis *IF* he's going to live in his own article, it should be at a sensible name. I also couldn't agree more with M Sipher and ItsWalky about the absurdity of trying to break out *EVERY* IDW version of each character. Pretty soon we're going to have a different article for every possible iteration of every character, and that's lunacy. --Jimsorenson 19:05, 11 August 2009 (EDT)

Yeah, I've gotta say, Derik's point about possible future non-Bumblebee Goldbug's is a good one, and certainly the most convincing argument yet. I would say, however, that generally speaking, we don't base our disambigs around what MIGHT happen - if we did that, everything would have a disambig, even the guys who don't need one, because they MIGHT in the future. I'm still sticking with "Leave it where it is for now," and move it if Derik's hypothetical comes to pass. 100% with Sipher, Walky, Jim and whoever on the notion of splitting off IDW or HOS or anything like that. That's just dumb, guy. - Chris McFeely 19:42, 11 August 2009 (EDT)

And that's why I favor a Goldbug (G1) article. Whether or not the Goldbug-as-Bumblebee info is moved there or if the page simply links to Bumblebee for those continuities is another issue and is a discussion that could probably be saved for that page when it gets made. -- Dark T Zeratul 19:44, 11 August 2009 (EDT)

I love you, Dark T Zeratul, and I WILL have your babies, whether you like it or not.

Chris, I would agree with you except for that what you might think "isn't broken" is actually setting a very real, potentially very bad precedent right now that's having immediate effects. The fact that the debate is spreading to Galvatron (G1) and beyond is no accident. We're sending mixed signals by keeping the article the way it is, and it WILL keep causing problems. Derik's hypothetical is very useful: It exposes the key flaw. My solution is simple, clean, and affirms the current system, nipping lots of potential policy problems in the bud.

- Jackpot 19:56, 11 August 2009 (EDT)

Ever wonder if they write the comics with this kind of thing in mind?

"Just what can we do that'll screw up their classification system a bit more?"

"I know, we'll add another Fasttrack and a Dropshot, then we'll make Goldbug a whole new character! They'll be arguing over those parenthicals for weeks!"

"Excellent. Our work here is done."

Sometimes kinda seems that way. Just sayin'. --Emvee 19:36, 11 August 2009 (EDT)

"If we ever got another Sideays, technically we'd have to move this one to Sideways (RID)" was a recurring joke. (I think it even ended up on our Disambiguation policy page as an example.) Then Hasbro slapped the name on a character with literally 30 seconds of screentime.

I'm not saying it's a conspiracy or 'nuthin... bit it's enough to make you stop and think. -Derik 20:26, 11 August 2009 (EDT)

Somehow, I don't think they put basically any thought into such things. I mean, really, does Goldbug do anything in the comic that virtually any other random Autobot couldn't? Would the story really be any different with only five Throttlebots and Rollbar in charge? It feels like a "just do the first thing that pops into the head that sounds kinda cool". --M Sipher 19:44, 11 August 2009 (EDT)

Sadly, that could probably be applied to a great number of characters in a great number of stories. A few are very well fleshed out, and most are fairly generic. Either way, this was clearly intended to be the same Goldbug rather than an entirely new character. The only exception is that he didn't used to be Bumblebee, which as I pointed out earlier is an ongoing trend with IDW (Galvatron and Cyclonus so far, and probably Scourge when/if he shows up). -- Dark T Zeratul 19:48, 11 August 2009 (EDT)

Oh if they were doing it intentionally, they could do much much worse than that. "Oh, hey, here's G1 Demolishor! Now we're going to heavily imply he's actually UT Demolishor displaced from his own universe! No, wait, he's Shattered Glass Demolishor? Ah, we're just screwin with ya. he really is G1 Demolishor" --abates 19:53, 11 August 2009 (EDT)

Emvee, they're not trying to fuck with us. I assure you, everyone at IDW is just trying to tell fun, interesting stories. And if that sometimes results in giant arguments among us, well, so be it. I think there's a bit of tendency among us, as editors, to think that somehow our understanding of how the TF Universe is organized is binding in some way. It's not. We're just categorizing what's being produced. That's why I think Jeysie's interpretation of toys or no toys on this page were so off-base - because us breaking out Goldbug in IDW ORGANIZATIONALLY from Goldbug in earlier continuities was a construct OF OURS. It didn't reflect any underlying "reality" of the character.

Basically, we sometimes need to get off our collective high horses a bit. (All of us, myself included.) --Jimsorenson 20:05, 11 August 2009 (EDT)

Yeah, in the end there are really only two concerns we should have here:

• Is the result we end up with going to make the information easy to find for our readers?
• If we develop a standard to go with it, is it easy for editors to apply in a pinch?

Otherwise we can argue 'till we're blue in the face about the content creators "making work for us," but it ultimately doesn't matter regarding the goals any good wiki should have.--Rosicrucian^Talk 20:09, 11 August 2009 (EDT)

Over on the IDW boards, there was a complaint about how vague Bumper's death in Megatron Origin was, and I was filled with a horrible dread that the plan is to reveal Goldbug as the resurrected Bumper. If I worked at IDW and wanted to make trouble here, that would be my number one priority. - Cattleprod 20:21, 11 August 2009 (EDT)

I'll be sure to mention that to Andy. --Jimsorenson 20:29, 11 August 2009 (EDT)

Having just re-read the issue, I find Hubcap more likely. *thumbs up* -Derik 02:19, 12 August 2009 (EDT)

Now that I've read over the "discussion" regarding Goldbug, I'm kicking myself on not asking Andy regarding Goldbug's status during SDCC. *facepalm* --Lonegamer78 03:01, 12 August 2009 (EDT)

Yeah, I know Jim, it's just that it does feel s bit like that sometimes. And I know if I was writing the comics, it's the sort of thing I'd do because I'm a bit evil :) --Emvee 03:41, 12 August 2009 (EDT)

..."Goldbug (G1)/IDW comic continuity"? Just throwing that out there. —Interrobang 02:23, 12 August 2009 (EDT)

Goldbug 2? Dead Metal 02:44, 12 August 2009 (EDT)

*throws it back* -Derik 02:45, 12 August 2009 (EDT)

Changed Intro

This is getting completely stupid. Even if some people think his toy somehow applies, assuming his old tech spec applies is definitely fanon. Can we possibly please stick to, y'know, writing about what actually happened in canon and stop making stuff up? --Jeysie 20:06, 12 August 2009 (EDT)

IF this page stays here, then I agree; the fiction should be taken exclusively from his IDW appearances. -- Dark T Zeratul 21:50, 12 August 2009 (EDT)

Yes, Derik, it's not like you're well known for pulling stuff out of your ass based on completely stretching fanon interpretations of things or anything. Now, if someone with a better track record wants to make a case to me... (I can rebut every one of your footnotes if you really want. But just one instance off-hand, Goldbug even says himself that he's optimistic, and it's Sixshot specifically that makes him apprehensive, so how do you get he's "gloomy" out of that. As if Sixshot doesn't make everybody apprehensive?) --Jeysie 22:38, 12 August 2009 (EDT)

Dearest Jeysie,

Per your request, I have sourced my revision of Goldbug's bio. As you can see, about 85% of it came directly from the issue itself. (Which would have been obvious if you'd bothered to compare the text to the issue instead of just deleting it with a claim that I was drawing from his tech-spec.)
The other 15% comes from his tech-spec. I don't think you have a consensus to back your conviction that The 1987 toy isn't a representation of IDW Goldbug, so it's fair play. If you want to argue that Goldbug's fuel efficiency and underwater capabilities are "inherited" from Bumblebee and thus he would not have them if he was never Bumblebee... well I disagree, but I might be willing to be convinced on the subject. If, however, you want to argue that the tech-spec can't count because the toy doesn't belong on the page (I'm not putting words in your mouth, it's merely an inference fromt he fact you attempted to remove the toy only to have your edit reverted, and have insisted 4 times on this talk page that the toy should be removed or should not count because "There's no official statement that toy Goldbug = IDW Goldbug.") it appears to me that this matter is still up for debate, and I don't think you should be treating it like a settled matter.

cordial as always,

-Derik

I can rebut every one of your footnotes if you really want.

...seriously, you can rebut footnote #1 on my revision? The one citing that the character's name is Goldbug?

(I want to see this.)

Very well, I accept your challenge! If you can refute footnote #1, then I will not only go with your version of the article, but I will also support your initiative to remove Goldbug's toy from the page! -Derik 22:57, 12 August 2009 (EDT)

• 'I knew the lab's work was important because the other Throttlebots and I were there as couriers to keep the work from falling into enemy's hands.', 'There's no one faster or better at evading the enemy than us [...]' 'We were never in the command center, kept separate to keep the work secret.' '...we're the only survivors of a mission I never even have clearance to know about.' - covered in the current intro.
• 'Adaptable to underwater, cold and hot environments. Can withstand temperatures from -150 to 180 degrees Fahrenheit.', 'Inversion of 'Realizes what others think of him isn't nearly as important as what he thinks of himself.', 'Inversion of Excellent fuel efficiency; 2 1/2 times better than the next best Throttlebot.' based Goldbug's 1987 tech-spec. - Not applicable, since there's no canon evidence that his techspec still applies, toy or no toy.
• Neither snow, nor rain, nor heat, nor gloom of night stays these couriers from the swift completion of their appointed rounds. Herodotus on the Persian system of military couriers ~2500 years ago, The Histories - You're kidding? Out-of-Transformers source, thus not applicable.
• 'I try to keep my optimism on max, but this is Sixshot.' 'We should be dead. All of us...' 'Goldbug's despairing internal monologue is a sharp contrast to what his resolute spoken dialog throughout "Spotlight: Metroplex.' - Again, he's generally optimistic, it's just Sixshot specifically that makes him nervous because Sixshot makes everyone nervous (especially after you've already seen him blow up a space station).
• The only order Goldbug gives in "Spotlight: Metroplex" is to "hold [the shuttle] steady" as it's crashing and "roll for it" when the Throttlebots scramble to escape Sixshot. (Besides, what use does a unit of couriers have for a commander? It's not like they work in teams.) - Fanon supposition. At best it's an Error or Trivia.
• 'All of the Throttlebots except the notably slow Wideload display these jets on pages 4+7 of "Spotlight: Metroplex"' - Just because they have jets doesn't mean we know what they do/are for unless the fiction says so.

But I guess this changed into the "let's write up random fanon supposition" wiki when I wasn't looking? Like I said, considering your track record on pages like Omniverse, SG Ruckus, that weird BW thing you pulled out of thin air, and a multitude of other instances, you'll pardon me if I don't take your supposition seriously. But if anyone else has a good case... --Jeysie 23:03, 12 August 2009 (EDT)

Addendum: The rest of it is random quotes that could be read a number of different ways, or, in the case of Footnote 1, you being a smartass, which I have no patience for. --Jeysie 23:09, 12 August 2009 (EDT)

*phew* Man, I'm glad you decided to be pissy about this!

See, I didn't realize until after I posted my challenge that you had actually only promised to rebut all my footnotes, not refute them. A rebuttal is just a response, it wouldn't even have to be logical or proove anything; you could have said "This character is not named Goldbug because he could actually be Scourge in disguise" and I would have been honor bound to support your re-vision of the page and lobby for the toy's removal.

(I would have done it too. I'm a man of my word.) -Derik 23:25, 12 August 2009 (EDT)

It's a rebuttal because I'm willing to entertain the idea that my finding your footnote "proof" extremely dubious is actually incorrect. Provided it's proven to me in a logical and straightforward manner. If you had responded here with a civil logical comment on why you felt your intro (that you even stated in your summary was based at least partly on his tech specs) was nevertheless applicable, we could have a nice, productive conversation.

I'm not unreasonable to people who act reasonably. But if you're going to be a smartass, I've got no problems with being pissy about it. The TF fandom has tried my patience for dealing with that sort of crap at this point. --Jeysie 23:39, 12 August 2009 (EDT)

Oh no no... I'm not disagreeing about that. What you presented was definitely a rebuttal to footnotes 2, 3, 4, 5, 8, 9, 10, 11 and 20. I do not argue with that.

However when I accepted your challenge, it was specific to you rebutting footnote #1, which you (thankfully) passed on. -Derik 00:03, 13 August 2009 (EDT)

Considering I'd be very disappointed if you supported me without genuinely agreeing with my stance, I'm not particularly fussed either way. --Jeysie 00:21, 13 August 2009 (EDT)

Why not? I can argue for things I don't agree with now. That's healthy, it's part of being able to see things from another people's perspective.

For example; I could argue that because S:M Goldbug:

• Has a different color scheme, not present in the toy or any previous character model, more akin to the original Bumblebee model;
• Possesses a transformation scheme completely unlike the 1987 toy;
• Has a pelvis based on G1 Jazz and G1 Sideswipe's Sunbow animation models;
• Is 'more redesigned' than any of the other Throttlebots in S:M, possessing more anomalous details;
• Does not match his tech-spec in function, attitude, role or relation to G1 Bumblebee;

...that S:M Goldbug is not based on the 1987 toy, but is in fact a new character-design melange'd from several toys, character models and characterizations that while inspired by the 1987 toy much as Shattered Glass Goldbug is... can not actually said to be an incarnation of that same character.

I don't find that argument particularly compelling... but I have to admit that when you start rattling off all the influences that seem to have gone into the character and all the ways he doesn't draw from anything that came before, there are enough accumulated bits to give me pause. If you made a strong enough case beyond these 'bits about why this character should be treated that way... I might allow myself to be persuaded.

The thing is... you're not doing that. I don't feel a lot of give-and-take in your arguments or revisions. You can't just say "no" without dialoging There has be be give on both sides for there to be consensus. This is not a game of "I advance my perspective, and it is 100% correct or 100% incorrect. Let us stage an up-or-down vote."

And when you "rebutted every one of my footnotes", you didn't bother to present arguments against 6, 7, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18 or 19-- but you still felt free to remove the portion that states he's "gloomy on the inside but presents a more up-beat joking public face." I mean-- fergods sake. It's right there, he was experiencing doubts that the Autobots had already lost the war prior to Sixshot's attack.

And SUFFERING SHAD, did you actually say that "Just because the Throttlebots have jets doesn't mean we can say they make them go fast"?

FUCK. THAT. SHIT. If you're going to insult me at least offer a disingenuous argument like "how do we know those aren't the afterimages of running lights?"

Here's a mind blowing concept; how about saying- "I see where you're going with those jets Derik, but I think you're going too far to say for certain that they're short-range, or that they're for evasion. That needs to be eased that back a bit before I'm comfortable with it." You know-- try building consensus from different point of views instead of slapping down everyone's but your own?

I'm not placing the burden on you do do the work of resolving this, but when you simply revert my edits and say "keep your fannon shit out of the article" and followup with a point-by-point rebuttal that basically says "I wholly reject your reality and deny that your edits have any basis at all" you are leaving no ground for discussion.

I don't think you're "playing nice" with your fellow editors. And it's extremely irritating.

It's working against you too. You've been arguing that it's "inappropriate for the wiki" to include the Goldbug toy in this article for 4 days... and getting very little traction with users who feel that removing it would remove relevant information. I think you'd get a much better response if you suggested moving the toy to the trivia section like we do with some characters when it's not clear a toy can be legitimately said to 'be' someone. (You know; a compromise! As in 'give and take.' As in 'consensus.') I might be willing to entertain the suggestion if for no other reason than I think your fixation on this point is blocking anyone else from moving forward with this article.

We've been arguing about it for four days and until I took a whack at his bio this afternoon the entire article consisted of "Goldbug is the leader of the Throttlebots" and some {{stub}} tags! Be part of the process or get out of the way. -Derik 02:00, 13 August 2009 (EDT)

I'm more than willing to allow for compromise when I think I might be wrong on something. I'm actually not sure if I could make a good argument or not that if by wiki standards Goldbug even should be separated from Bumblebee, or if every G1 Goldbug should be on the same page, so I actually have no real opinion on that aspect of things.

What I am saying, and have been saying all along is that, if we decide, according to the fiction, that a character is different enough to be separated, then I think that means that we have to choose whether a toy belongs or not on the new page also based on the fiction. I would take that stance on any particular situation that brought it up; it just happened to be this one.

It's not my problem if other people didn't write up a certain thing. I've had other things I've been working on. And other folks could have easily reverted my edit saying they thought you were right, or posted on the talk page here saying as much. But they haven't yet.

When I altered your edits you could have made a civil argument here stating why you thought you were right. Instead you reinstated it with a ridiculous footnote thing to make a smartass point. So you'll pardon me if I feel no need to sugarcoat things to spare your feelings. I think what you posted was fan supposition and I find your justifications dubious, and I feel no need to pretend to feel otherwise. If other people think I'm wrong and overrule me, so be it. But all I've heard so far is you being smart alecky and throwing fits, which makes me even less inclined to be nice to you.

Not to mention that making all this dumb fuss over a bit of info that's not even remotely important enough to put on the page if we can't verify it makes me want to borrow Sipher's bag of soap. --Jeysie 02:42, 13 August 2009 (EDT)

you reinstated it with a ridiculous footnote thing to make a smartass point.

Your original note on the reversion was, and I quote: "...where did you get *any* of that from his actual fiction appearance?"

Sounds like a request to provide citation to me. And more to the point, it sounds like your original basis for the reversion was that I was drawing from the toy tech-spec, and you don't think the toy counts, therefore I'm not allowed to use it in the bio despite the general lack of support for your "the toy doesn't count" thing.

Also, if there is a pillowcase-beating in my future, may I respectfully request Irish Spring? -Derik 03:02, 13 August 2009 (EDT)

Because even if we decide the toy applies, that still doesn't prove that the tech spec applies. Especially considering that one, tech specs don't necessarily match fiction even when the toy does definitely match, and considering the fiction is the entire justification for the split to begin with, that's what we need to go by, not the toy. And two, considering that Goldbug's tech specs state he's got Bumblebee's mind, and at best we don't know if that's the case, and at worst we know that the writers have explicitly said he's not Bumblebee, that casts even more question on whether the rest of the tech spec bio necessarily applies or not.

(Sorry for all the "considerings".) --Jeysie 03:20, 13 August 2009 (EDT)

's not problem.

See-- I get that that's your argument. But momentarily bypassing whether or not the toy 'counts', I'm stuck on "even if we decide the toy applies, that still doesn't prove that the tech spec applies."

I don't think it works that way. Just because Beast Changer's tech-spec doesn't match the show doesn't mean that we doubt his tech-spec's information about his claws ability to rip through synthetic alloys or that his dragon scales are tougher than any Vehicon armor. If the toy is that character, its information still counts unless specifically contradicted.

The only time a tech-spec would completely not count is when a toy was repurposed as another character like Armorhide was as Huffer. Obviously Armorhide's tech-spec doesn't sound towards Huffer.

So what you're saying is that the G1 Goldbug toy was in fact repurposed for a character wholly unrelated to the original Goldbug... who is also named Goldbug, also a Throttlebot and is part of the same continuity.

The other option you're left with is that Goldbug is in fact a new character named Goldbug in the same continuity and the toy was not re-purposed as him... but instead it merely served as the same inspiration; like Mainframe (Animated) was inspired by Mainframe (G1), but the G1 toy is not a representation fo the Animated character (and this its tech-spec cannot simply be assumed to appear.)

All this other noise about the vagueness, clouding issues etc etc etc... is irrelevant. It's got to be one of those two for your argument to hold water.

And frankly, the first one is crazy, and while the second one is a bit more plausible, I'm honestly blanking on any instance of us doing the 'inspiration' thing within the same continuity family... it's pretty much limited to cross-family homages and unused Dialcone/Microman toys. And in any case, the toy would still go in the trivia section as inspiration, so you shouldn't really be arguing for it's wholesale removal.

Also, your statement that "There's no official statement that toy Goldbug = IDW Goldbug." is utterly meaningless. Your'e basically saying that unless a writer or editor posts "Yes, Chase was Chase the 1987 toy" we have to treat him as a separate character. No, just... no.

Look, if you want to argue for how you think this page should be, fine, do it. But understand that you are suggesting a very unusual treatment for this page, and the burden of proof is on you to convince people. That means constructing actual arguments, with supporting reasons. Not simply repeating "no, because I don't think it should be that way" again and again and again. Obstinance != convincing people.

Unless you start making actual arguments, I'm not listening to you anymore. -Derik 04:38, 13 August 2009 (EDT)

"If the toy is that character, its information still counts unless specifically contradicted."

So the fact that the tech spec claims Goldbug is Bee's mind in a remade body while the writers (and the story's timeline placement) indicate that IDW Goldbug is NOT IDW Bumblebee here isn't enough of a "contradiction" for you to put the rest in doubt? You and I have different threshholds of "contradiction", then.

"So what you're saying is that the G1 Goldbug toy was in fact repurposed for a character wholly unrelated to the original Goldbug... who is also named Goldbug, also a Throttlebot and is part of the same continuity."

This is entirely possible. It's just that we don't know for sure until we get at least a picture of him as that toy, which Sipher at least agrees with me about, so it's not like I'm the only person here saying this, for pity's sake, so stop acting like I am.

"The other option you're left with is that Goldbug is in fact a new character named Goldbug in the same continuity and the toy was not re-purposed as him... but instead it merely served as the same inspiration;"

That's exactly what I'm saying for the moment. The writers say Bumblebee and Goldbug are separate, and IDW Galvatron is also a character that was inspired by G1 Galvatron without also being him (so it's not like this is new). So I don't get people's burning need to make connections that even the writers state don't exist. I'm not sure how you can claim the tech spec applies either when a good chunk of it explicitly is not the case here, and thus including it would be inaccurate.

And, I really don't get why people are claiming I'm "not making an argument". As far as I'm concerned, "If we decide a character is separate enough fiction-wise, then he must also be separate enough toy-wise as well unless the fiction we used to separate him by says otherwise" IS AN ARGUMENT. Only making a character halfway separate seems like being wishy-washy and fan assumptive at best, unless there's some canon support like at least getting a description or picture of the character with an altmode like the toy, a la something like the SG stories. And nobody's given me a good solid reason based on canon why that doesn't amount to "well, I think the toy applies anyway just because I feel it does" or "well, I think being wishy-washy is a good thing because it means we don't have to actually make up our minds whether the character is separate or not".

I think this is all because fans have this burning thing that they can't accept everything not being tied together in a neat bow, even when they need made-up fanwank to do it. Let it go. Accept that sometimes stuff, even similar stuff, just is not connected because the writers didn't intend for it to be connected, so they didn't write it that way. --Jeysie 08:49, 13 August 2009 (EDT)

There's precedent for one toy representing multiple characters. Namely, all of the pretenders having both English and Japanese pages. -- Dark T Zeratul 14:39, 13 August 2009 (EDT)

*facepalms* For the fiftieth time, I never said that one toy couldn't represent multiple characters. It's a question of whether a given toy officially represents more than one character or not. I'm assuming that the Pretender toys officially in canon represent both the English and Japanese characters, correct? But here we don't even have a pic of Goldbug looking like his toy to go from. People not paying attention to and reading what I'm saying is part of why I'm being so pissy, y'know. --Jeysie 15:23, 13 August 2009 (EDT)

This Goldbug thing is so crazy. It's really either all or nothing on the toy/toy bio. On the one hand I'm thinking, he's Goldbug the Throttlebot. The tech spec has to apply. He has the mind of Bumblebee? OK. We don't know how it happened. Freak orbital jump accident like the Star Trek episode with two Rikers? They are machines, so maybe Bumblebee's mind was copied at some point? On the other hand, he seems to be just new character that happens to be named Goldbug and is a Throttlebot. It doesn't make sense to incorporate anything we know of the Bumblebee Goldbug. That is the most straightforward approach, but something in me is unwilling to just say the tech spec Goldbug simply doesn't exist, so I'm coming down on the side of that this Goldbug has Bumblebee's mind somehow, whether he knows it or not.

This is also why all the Goldbug stuff should be on one page, so we can just present Goldbug as the fiction does and let the reader make a determination from the facts. Having a separate IDW Goldbug page draws a line. Someone had an idea of a "Goldbug (G1)" page that simply links to Bumblebee's page where appropriate and I liked that idea a lot. - Starfield 00:35, 13 August 2009 (EDT)

I think "he's a new character that happens to be named Goldbug and is a Throttlebot" makes perfect sense, considering that the writers have said he's separate, Galvatron is handled pretty much the same way, and there's zip in IDW canon so far that I can recall off-hand that shows any hint of mind-copying (and why would they use it on Bumblebee, of all people?). I think people just need to accept that sometimes a duck is just a duck and that not everything needs to be connected. --Jeysie 00:43, 13 August 2009 (EDT)

Yea, that makes sense, except that if that is the case, I can't shake the idea that "tech spec Goldbug the Throttlebot" also exists, somewhere off-panel in the IDW universe. - Starfield

I still see the "Goldbug (G1) page linking to Bumblebee for the other continuities" as the easiest solution. It resolves the issue of the toy, it resolves the issue of the intro, and it resolves the issue of any potential future non-Bumblebee Goldbugs. -- Dark T Zeratul 01:38, 13 August 2009 (EDT)

"This page is 70 kilobytes long". I hate you all. —Interrobang 03:10, 13 August 2009 (EDT)

Well, the kids have to learn about Tekwar sooner or later. -Derik 04:25, 13 August 2009 (EDT)

Breaking down the problem

I have read every... single... thing... in this whole discussion, from this page to Talk:Galvatron (G1) to the Community Portal, and I honestly think all of it is because Goldbug presents a unique collision of three basic page-organization principles:

1. All versions of a character from the same continuity-family belong on the same page. (Therefore IDW-Galvatron is on Galvatron (G1).)
2. If a character changes identity but the "life story" is seamless, no new page is made. (Therefore there is no separate Rodimus Prime (G1) page.)
3. If one series-summary contains two separate "life stories," one should be broken out. (Therefore Galvatron II is separate from Galvatron (G1).)

I'm not sure if these rules have ever been codified, but they're the underpinning of how we've built all of our character-pages so far. Judging by how the debate has gone, everyone has their own instinctive way of balancing them which they consider the "simple," "intuitive" answer, and everyone else is a dick for even suggesting an alternative.

Well, here's the problem: This page as currently written satisfies #2 and #3, but it leaves #1 in a strange limbo, which is the source of all the drama. On the face of it, some people think there's no problem at all - Goldbug (G1) is actually contained within Bumblebee (G1), and the IDW-Goldbug is separated out into Goldbug (IDW) by rule #3, so we're fine. But it's not so simple; we're right to separate IDW-Goldbug from Bumblebee (G1), but the principles don't support him being thrown out of the (for lack of a better term) "G1-Goldbug collective." This isn't just philoso-wankery; there are practical ramifications:

IDW-Goldbug and IDW-Galvatron have the exact same relation to their previous G1 incarnations. So if IDW-Galvy gets to live on a page with the original Galvy toy and an intro that reflects the other G1-Galvies, then IDW-Goldbug shouldn't be considered any differently. Yet, living in this "(IDW)" ghetto, he looks like he's been separated even more, and that's why the question of whether to put his toy here or incorporate the old bio is so contentious. Moreover, it's causing the debate to flow in the other direction, as people are considering throwing out principle #1 entirely and making a separate "Galvatron (IDW)" article and lord knows what else.

My solution balances all three principles equally and provides a decisive answer to EVERY SINGLE POINT OF DEBATE:

• Should the Goldbug toy go here? (YES, since the article would represent all G1-Goldbugs.)
• Should the old bio info be used in the intro? (YES, in the same vague, overarching, brush-over-the-contradictions way we do for every other character.)
• Should IDW-Galvatron be separated? (NO, he violates none of the principles.)
• Should the Goldbug info be moved out of Bumblebee (G1) or something? (NO, seamless life-stories should be kept whole.)

Is my solution more complicated than the current setup? Let's see how a reader would encounter information in my schema:

• If a reader searches for or follows a link to:
  • Bumblebee (G1), he will find all the relevant Goldbug info there, exactly as it currently stands.
  • Goldbug, he'll be redirected to Goldbug (disambiguation), just like now.
  • Goldbug (IDW), he'll be redirected to this page and find exactly what he's looking for.
  • Goldbug (G1), he'll end up here and, assuming he was looking for the Bumblebee versions at all, will have a single extra click to go through.

That's IT. THAT'S the "complication" my solution causes: One extra click for a fraction of the readers. Meanwhile, it provides resolution to all of these debates, affirms the standards we already have, leaves the content of all articles unscathed, and provides a solid precedent for what to do the next time this inevitably happens (I'm looking at you, Rodimus).

Fuck YES, that's worth it. I'm not just pushing this because it's "my idea"; I think it is honest-to-gods The Right Answer. If there are valid critiques or more effective alternatives, I'm all ears, but I have yet to hear them. And if people think this is a mountain-out-of-a-molehill situation, well, I say this is a FANTASTIC opportunity to figure some shit out on a character who's relatively inconsequential, before we have to deal with it later on a hairier subject.

- Jackpot 04:38, 14 August 2009 (EDT)

Looking at the recent constant arguments over this article, I am willing to change my mind and back your solution, as long as this talk page gets deleted. ---Blackout- 05:31, 14 August 2009 (EDT)

Heh, well even after archiving the first two sections, it's STILL giving page-length warnings. So if this time we can finally resolve it all, I'll be happy to sweep more of this godawful debate under the archival rug. And, hey, thanks for the open-mindedness. It sounds selfish for me to say it because you're "joining my side," but honestly, I'm happy whenever people honestly listen to each other's ideas and are capable of adapting their own positions to find the objectively best answer. - Jackpot 06:02, 14 August 2009 (EDT)

I read that yesterday and must say it did change my mind. I do like your approach and I throw my support behind it. Dead Metal 06:08, 14 August 2009 (EDT)

The original discussion got very off-track because of all the side-issues involved. (Which is a bit silly, because all of those issues can be handled individually, nothing about them required them to have "handled as a whole.") There were a lot of confusion about what this-or-that decision 'would mean' in terms of how they might set policy that would affect other articles and ambiguity about exactly the issues-at-hand were due to a host of complicating factors... which I think directly resulted in the original deadlock. (And frankly, an up-and-down vote should not have been called while people were still coming into the discussion and were so obviously struggling to understand the issues involved.)

As I see it, there are 3 separate decisions that need to be made.

1. Should Marvel/Sunbow Goldbug be covered on the same page as Marvel/Sunbow Bumbelbee?
2. Should IDW Goldbug get covered on the same page as Marvel/Sunbow Goldbug?

And if the answer to that decision is "no," then we have to answer;

1. Should the page for non-Bumblebee Goldbugs be "Goldbug (G1)" or "Goldbug (IDW)"?
2. Should the 1987 toy be included on the non-Bumblebee Goldbug page?

I think people are a lot clearer on these issues in the wake of the argument(s) that sprang up and then ran themselves into the ground after the deadlock vote and we're now in a better position to form a consensus.

But since it's been so contentious, we should probably do a voting poll to establish community consensus. Actually 2-4 separate polls, collapsing the open issues down one-by-one until a single solution is reached.

It's a pain in the ass, but I strongly believe that reaching decision on the Galvatron article will go smoother if the related issues surrounding this Goldbug article are settled in a clear manner first.

That's my two cents. But I've also been hip-deep in this debate so I'm not a neutral party. Which is why I'm floating the idea of a series of consensus-polls rather than simply calling one myself. I have a conflict-of-interest so I shouldn't be initiating action myself. -Derik 06:13, 14 August 2009 (EDT)

Yeek. I completely understand where you're coming from, but I'm afraid that that'll end up being way more trouble than it's worth. Put it this way: If this time around, my proposal still doesn't get decisive support, then yeah, maybe multiple polls are the only option left. But if my proposal can get the community seal of approval right now, that'll be a huge breakthrough, and then we'll have all the time in the world to massage the nitpicky details of it. You voted in favor of the move before; can I assume you still favor it if, at least for the moment, it happens according to my sandbox model? - Jackpot 06:28, 14 August 2009 (EDT)

I agree with every one of your points, but not your sandbox proposal. I think the page (more-or-less as it's treated now) should be moved to "Goldbug (G1)" with some top-level links to Bumblebee, but not reproducing all those empty sections. The real reason we're separating this article out is not for convenience or filing purposes... we're separating it out because we feel that non-Bumblebee-Goldbug needs to be handled seperately from Bumblebee-Goldbug.

We wouldn't normally do that; "Scorponok (Energon)"'s article includes a Cybertronian Decepticon and a version of the character who isn't even a Transformer; he's a Quintesson. (Actually, it's a clone of a Quintesson created with memories implanted onto the spark of the deceased Decepticon Thrust.) We treat them as the same character.

Demonstrably major differences between incarnations of a character are not enough reason to spin them out into their own article... normally.

The reason we're doing it here stems from a differnt policy-- whena character changes names and forms... we don't split them out either. So all the times Bee got rebuilt into Goldbug are covered in the "Bumblebee (G1)" article, because it makes more sense to present his history in a straight line rather than send readers back-and-forth between two articles as he swaps bodies back and forth.

Those are both good practices, enacted for obviosu and beneficial reasons. 99% of the time you can put them into action without any problem. But in this 1% of the time our practice of "move Goldbug's fiction to Bumblebee's article" is running smack-dab into the fact we now have a Goldbug who's not Bumblebee... so he can't go in "Bumblebee (G1)." Warring imperatives.

Your sandbox strikes me as in-name-but-not-action separating "Bumblebee (G1)" and "Goldbug (G1)," just with cute 'see this' aliases that render 70% of the article's length empty space. That's terrible. The only reason we're giving this it's own article is because we need somewhere to put "non-Bumblebee Goldbug." But you want to uglify the "non-Bumblebee Goldbug" article by spamming it with Bumblebee-Goldbug redirect-links, Bumblebee-Goldbug main images, and a bio that's not allowed to actually talk about non-Bumbleebee-Goldbug because it has to be slaves in service of "Go read this other article!" Plus it breaks every standard practice we have for toy sections. If this article is about all versions of G1 Goldbug... then it has to have all representations of the character on there, just like the Optimus Prime toy section has e-Hobby Orion Pax.

In pursuit of one ideal, I think your sandbox proposal stampedes over several over overs and (most importantly) does so in an inconsistent fashion. The page's entire raison d’état is to have a place to pus non-Bumblebee Goldbug. Your proposal does a tremendous dis-service to non-Bumblebee Goldbug--- turning his bio, mainpic, and 90% of his fiction section in re-direct links all completely irrelevant to non-Bumblebee Goldbug who-- let me restate-- is the entire reason this article exists. If this is such a crucial difference and it invalidates parts of his tech-spec, then he needs a ^&*() main bio that tells you what this unique version of the character is "about;" not to have his article annexed in the service of Bumblebee. In terms of encoded meanings... what I take away from your sandbox proposal is; "Look this version of the character is really stupid, and we resent having to deal with him so we're going to bury his ass in spam-links until he's lost in his own article while constantly sending you over to the real article; Bumblebee."

We agree on every principle you want to affirm... but we've reached wildly different conclusions on what end result those principles inevitably lead to. That's because they're struggling for primacy; which guiding principle 'wins' when they're in conflict? It's like the 3 Laws of Robotics... the order-of-primacy you place on these principles in has a major affect on the outcome.

...which is why I think 1 big vote isn't gonna work. We need to bit off smaller chunks and narrow down 'the range of possibilities' for this page form A-Z where it currently is (with nothing decided) to F-H. (a range both of our approaches would fall under) and then make a decision on that.

But more important the whole original bru-ha-ha on this and other pages fundamentally stems from people not understanding, being confused by or disagreeing with such basic principles as "wildly alternate versions of characters go on the same page" and "when a character switches bodies/names in an otherwise linear fiction it goes ont he same page." And as a result we were suddenly fielding serious proposals to split out all of the IDW pages by people who didn't understand why Goldbug's example was so different (or just thought that's what the actual debate was about) or split off all the Hearts of Steel articles.

The 'basic principles' you outline at the beginning of this section based on precedent and how we treat other articles and then treat as a given... not everyone is clear on them. That's why I think we need people to vote to affirm those principles not a solution... and then demonstrate how those principles then lead to a single solution. (Or at least a finite set of equally-meritorious solutions from which to choose.)

Do you really want to start a discussion on how we treat Galvatron's article without people being on the same page on the fundamental issues? Think of it as a primer so that the Galvatron debate doesn't get derailed by arguments that "Hearts of Steel Scourge" co-existing with "Thundercracker" should determine how we treat Galvatron.

Dude, right now the "Galvatron (G1)" page includes all of Straxus-as-Galvatron's adventures from the Marvel comic but not Megatron-as-Galvatron'ss. if there isn't some basic understanding of the core issues going in, that discussion is going to be a bloodbath. -Derik 07:35, 14 August 2009 (EDT)

*squints and goes cross-eyed* ...I think Derik managed to articulate why something seemed off/wrong to me about your sandbox proposal, which I couldn't manage to explain myself at the time. --Jeysie 08:06, 14 August 2009 (EDT)

I'm not going to respond to everything you said, since I think I've already laid out almost all of my case as best as I can above. We have disagreements; maybe we can work them out some other time. I'll just say two things:

1) It's not that I think IDW-Goldbug is worthless and should be "buried," it's that I think the meta-G1-Goldbug should be acknowledged. As I see it, the concept of IDW-Goldbug isn't a head-to-toe rejection of G1-Goldbug; it's an expansion of what G1-Goldbug can be. It's similar to how Spotlight: Ultra Magnus expanded the idea of Ultra Magnus to include an interstellar-sheriff possibility. So my solution serves that idea by bringing the meta-G1-Goldbug stuff into the article while NOT burying IDW-Goldbug underneath a bunch of Marvel and Sunbow details that are better covered elsewhere.

2) I'm surprised you think our preferred ends are "wildly different." Based on what you said before, I thought you favored the same solution, just with the Marvel and Sunbow sections fleshed out too. Maybe that counts as a huge chasm to you; it doesn't to me. It's what I consider a detail capable of being "massaged" after the move in more low-impact discussions. (For instance, the idea of repeating the info between articles hasn't really been talked about... there are possibilities.) So what you see as loggerheads, I see as small potatoes compared to the benefits of just getting this thing moved into a less controversial space.

And that's probably the last I'm going to say about most of this. I think I've described my stance from just about every angle, and anything more would be repetition. Like I said, I don't think you and I are so far apart, but shrug. At this point, I'm content to let the chips... FALL WHERE THEY MAY!

- Jackpot 13:29, 14 August 2009 (EDT)

I think a big part of my problem was that I didn't want the Bumblebee-as-Goldbug info pulled out of Bumblebee's page, I'm honestly having trouble remembering now. I see this as a good solution. - Cattleprod 12:34, 14 August 2009 (EDT)

I'm in favor of Jackpot's sandboxed solution. --ItsWalky 13:15, 14 August 2009 (EDT)

I too favor Jackpot's sandboxed solution. Any questions about specific details of the page (i.e. leaving the Marvel/Sunbow sections as pure redirects vs. putting some or all of the information there, etc.) can be ironed out after the move. -- Dark T Zeratul 13:55, 14 August 2009 (EDT)

Hey, that sounds an awful lot like "let's settle the question in chunks instead of voting on single solutions." If only someone who didn't have a conflict of interest (read: not myself) would call for a poll-for-consensus vote about "Goldbug (IDW)" vs. "Goldbug (G1)," so that we could settle that issue, then move on to the actual page contents... -Derik 14:34, 14 August 2009 (EDT)

Just to be formal about it, I don't favor Jackpot's sandbox proposal for much of what Derik said above - it's a wishy-washy "Well, I don't wanna separate him out, but if you're gonna make me anyway..." setup that basically has Goldbug-as-Bee info on Bee's page and IDW Goldbug-that's-not-Bee info on its own page... which is exactly what we have now anyway, just right now it's in a much clearer and better-representing format.
Basically, I say either all of IDW Goldbug's info goes on Bee's page, IDW Goldbug stays completely separate based on his fiction info alone, or every bit of Goldbug info gets separated out onto its own page. I honestly don't know which would work best; I just know that I see no point in weird half-hearted info-splitting that doesn't commit to anything because we can't make a choice and stick to it. --Jeysie 14:21, 14 August 2009 (EDT)

Only Sith believe in absolutes! --ItsWalky 14:24, 14 August 2009 (EDT)

...wasn't Anakin's entire descent to the dark side charted by shades-of-gray "for the greater good" sacrifices to bring about a utopian society ruled by a benevolent dictator who could end suffering? -Derik 14:34, 14 August 2009 (EDT)

It's almost like George Lucas is a hack! --ItsWalky 14:52, 14 August 2009 (EDT)

Or Obi-wan is externalizing his dissatisfaction with the Jedi order's unhealthy obsession with absolutes (you're not allowed to fall in love or have close friendships because they lead to fear -> anger -> hate -> suffering...) and projecting is onto their enemies!

...though Lucas being a hack is much more likely. -Derik 14:55, 14 August 2009 (EDT)

What you see as "wishy-washy," I see as "balanced." You want to see us make a hard choice between three extremes, but I think the true solution recognizes the inherently soft situation for what it is. I see each extreme doing a greater disservice than the middle ground that gives all three principles equal weight. But, as with Derik above, I can't think of a different way to explain my reasoning, so I'm not going to try again. I'm sorry we can't see eye-to-eye on this one. - Jackpot 18:50, 14 August 2009 (EDT)

I agree. If it is "wishy-washy," than it matches how Goldbug is presented as a character, which is a bit mushy. Solidifying the articles draws conclusions that aren't there. For example, making "IDW Goldbug stay completely separate based on his fiction info alone," draws the conclusion that he has nothing at all to do with his original bio, which is an unwarranted assumption. Putting everything on Bumblebee's page does not recognize that IDW has two separate characters. I am more in favor of putting every bit of Goldbug on the Goldbug page, actually, but what Jackpot proposes is a good second choice. - Starfield 19:39, 14 August 2009 (EDT)

Well, if there's nothing that lets us treat him as truly separate, then that means he either belongs on the Bee page, or all of the Goldbug info belongs on a separate page, with "See: Goldbug" links in the right spot on Bee's page..

But Jackpot's solution is useless, as it pretty much says, "Everything about Goldbug is on Bee's page except this IDW info." So, uh, how is that better than what we have now, which is... a page full of just the IDW info, because that's the only info that's separate. If 90% of the time we're going to have people go to a Goldbug (G1) page just to find out that all the info is on Bee's page, that's what the nice redirect we already have is for. Then the other 10% of the time they can click on the nice disambig we also already have and get the SG or IDW pages.

I'm only in favor of change if it actually does something different and better than the status quo. Jackpot's sandbox idea fulfills neither requirement. --Jeysie 23:52, 14 August 2009 (EDT)

Thinking outside the box, can we have Goldbug (G1) information be a sub-page of the Bumblebee (G1) page somehow, like 2009 comics is a sub page of 2009? - Starfield 18:11, 5 September 2009 (EDT)

What I was thinking, is it possible for one sub-page to go to two main pages? We could have a "Goldbug (Marvel comics)" "Goldbug (G1)/Marvel Comics continuity" sub-page that automatically puts the same information on the "Bumblebee (G1)" page and the "Goldbug (G1)" page in the appropriate places. - Starfield 18:46, 5 September 2009 (EDT)