User talk:Derik/Sandbox3

I must've missed where this was proposed. Where can I violently object? --Suki Brits 04:25, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Here's the place. And this is the proposal- thus why it's in Sandbox, not the name mainspace. Object away.

The question at hand is what do you do about this, or this or this?

This kinda template is a can of worms I don't want to open even if you put a must-explicitly-establish-consensus-first restrictor on it. But on the other hand-- we've got a lot of these characters who we're pretending are absolute ciphers about which nothing can be known. That's disingenuous— we know damn well they're supposed to be their G1 counterparts- or within an inch of their life of being them. Can't we... point? "Hey, yeah, this guy is a cipher- but if you're wonderign what he's like- he's probably a lot like this guy."

(Of course, a lot of the reason this is comming up is the continuing denial that the Movie belongs in the Generation 1 Continuity Family. For good or ill- a lot of the writers of the expanded stuff are forging strong connections to the G1 stuff, and creating/caeoing/namedropping characters who are not meant to stand independent of their G1 progenitors.)

So, um, yeah. This is a lousy solution. Do you have any other ideas about ways to address the issues above? -Derik 04:44, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Honestly? I'm not sure there's even any problem here. We have a disambiguation notice at the top of all these pages (or at least, we SHOULD)... so people can find their namesakes by following that link. The thing is that, aside from that shared name, there isn't actually anything that SAYS they're like those namesakes, like you said; I don't think we should be doing any more pointing aside from that, though. And you've pretty much nailed the point why it's a bad idea; it's too subjective.

We should mention either in the article body or a trivia section if there's something SOLID that connects the characters-- like how Skydive points out that it's clearly a G1 homage-- but any looser connection should just be left for the reader to infer on their own. --Suki Brits 06:22, 19 October 2007 (UTC)