Talk:Space bridge

I logged in, but it kept right on showing my IP address. Oy. I have no recollection of who destroyed the original Spanner bridge, or when. Was it Megatron? I guess it would have to be Megatron.--Chip 03:something, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

I assume they're referring to Megatron blasting the Space Bridge in issue 25, but given that the bridge is used almost immediately in issue #27 (US issues), I never would have assumed that this is a "new" Space Bridge, nor that the one blasted by Megatron was "almost completely destroyed." I just assumed that it was repaired.--G.B. Blackrock 03:45, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

That's what I would have assumed, but apparently one of the UK letter columns specified that the Bridge had been destroyed and replaced. The new version is apparently not built from Spanner.--Chip 03:50, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

That being the case, this information should be in italics, as is the current standard for UK-only information.--G.B. Blackrock 05:02, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

There is also an article at Space Bridge (both words capitalized) although that one is quite brief. I would be inclined to say that the words should not be capitalized in general, which would make "Space bridge" the proper article title (because the first letter of any article must be capitalized), rather than "Space Bridge" (which implies the words are always capitalized). However, I am probably more anti-capitalization in general than most other editors. So, regardless, the two articles should be merged and a redirect set up on one of them to the other. I vote for the capitalization seen in this article's title. --Steve-o 05:10, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

For consistency's sake, I'll edit the Marvel Comics entry. Chip 03:31, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Wasn't it Blaster who destroyed the Spanner-Space Bridge?

No. He was supposed to (US issue #18), but never got around to it. (And what about those italics for the UK-specific stuff?)--G.B. Blackrock 14:05, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and supplied the italics myself. For an example of precedent, see the Roadhandler (G1) entry, and its accompanying discussion.--G.B. Blackrock 14:10, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, G.B. I would have done it myself, but I'd already gone to bed by the time you brought it up. Chip 03:31, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

A new Space breidge being built isn't UK-only. Th space bridge is still usd by the 'cons for a couple years, thus while the UK comics may have detailed it, the bridg'es rebuilding was fact in te US comics. -Derik 16:11, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

In fact I have a recollection of a UK letters page somewhere around the 130s that confirmed it was still the same space bridge, as shown by Megatron's survival (this was before all that Straxus construct stuff). Which letters page said it was a new one? And in US #27 Ratbat is berating Shockwave for the inefficient operation on Earth but never mentions that a new bridge has been built, which seems an odd thing to ignore in a rant about waste. Timrollpickering 08:58, 19 July 2009 (EDT)

There are two contradictory recollections of the UK letters page in this talk page over the years. Chip in 2006 and Timrollpickering in 2009. It would be interesting to know which, if either, is correct. Is there any way to check? - Gimmick (talk) 10:10, 30 April 2016 (EDT)

Earthen vs. Terran

Earthen implies it is made of earth,I.E. an earthen dam,Terran describes its origin or termination point. ChoHIlqoq 21:27, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Stellar Spanner

I really wish we would have had a discussion about this before we elected to merge. Not everything that is based on the same concepts has to be all on the same page, we're not Wikipedia. Escargon (talk) 11:25, 9 May 2021 (EDT)

Folks had a discussion on Discord. --Sabrblade (talk) 15:05, 9 May 2021 (EDT)

I'm well aware? The point of the Discord is that it's a springboard for ideas that should be further discussed on the wiki, not for unilateral action. Escargon (talk) 15:13, 9 May 2021 (EDT)

Bringing this back up, again. Escargon (talk) 23:38, 4 July 2021 (EDT)

So let's maybe approach this from a different angle—rather than ask "why should we merge these two things", let's instead start with the central thesis of "why shouldn't we merge these two pages"?

In its first appearance, the stellar spanner shows up so that the writers can do a riff on the Transport to Oblivion/Bridge To Nowhere plot. In that story, it's very clearly just a differently-colored Sunbow model; the second time it shows up it's straight-up just the Marvel version, no different colors or anything. Adding to this, there's nothing in the comics to suggest that the stellar spanner works on any kind of alternate principle or functions differently from normal space bridge—this isn't something like, say, the Agonizing Rehabilitation Chamber, where there's some kind of deliberate inversion or twist on the stock Transformers premise to keep with the Shattered Glass theme...

... which brings me to my second point: I think it's worth keeping it on the main page because it does represent a significant evolution with the "concept" of space bridges as a whole. If ever we were to expand the current article with a "conceptual history" section (which, for the record, I think would be a worthwhile idea), it would be important to note that FunPub's crop of 2008-2010 stories were the first bits of media to pick up on how Animated tied together the concepts of transwarp/unspace and use them in their stories—for reference, see the dialogue in Blitzwing Bop, where Blitzwing describes the device as "transwarp without the starship".

Finally, I think there's the question of visibility to consider. Which will get more eyeballs on the concept and its contents—by folding it under the large and developed article that covers every permutation of space bridge, or putting it on its own page where it'll continue to languish? And it did languish—the article was missing information for five years before someone got around to finishing it up. Based on all these points, it seems clear to me that both pages would benefit from keeping them merged... and this is without going into the etymological debate about how "stellar spanner" is literally just "space bridge" after being run through a thesaurus. Grum (talk) 08:35, 5 July 2021 (EDT)

I think that you're overestimating just how much would be done with these articles being merged; it's a matter of fact that FunPub articles tend to have less work done for them. Escargon (talk) 09:35, 5 July 2021 (EDT)

Space bridges is the same. (The visibility point is irrelevant in my eyes, it's just that like you say, the whole joke of the stellar spanner is that it's the same thing using oblique words.) —The Wadapan (talk) 11:30, 5 July 2021 (EDT)

I feel like, from the point of view of communicating conceptual history and ties, having them merged is much more useful. Compare and contrast Sparks and Embers: Embers have physiological differences with Sparks that are remarked upon within the setting, and even then that only earns Embers a subheading on the Spark article. If the spanner had, say, been described as functioning differently from normal space bridges, that'd be a different story. Star Spangled Sam (talk) 11:35, 5 July 2021 (EDT)

Good points, and I think the ember one is enough to convince me. Escargon (talk) 11:38, 5 July 2021 (EDT)

I mean there is functionally zero differences between the two concepts besides the name. Hell, I think we gave it the different name because it was the same thing and we felt like something had to change so why not the name for shits and giggles?

But while I see no issues with merging, I have to agree that there should be discussion on the actual proper wiki not just on the discord because not everyone has the time or energy or patience to sit on the discord all day or sift through discord backlog, while wiki changes are very, very easily noticed on the "Recent Changes" page. --M Sipher (talk) 06:39, 6 July 2021 (EDT)