Talk:G.I. Joe (team) - Revision history

Abates: /* R&R */

2009-11-05T23:34:09Z

R&R

← Older revision		Revision as of 23:34, 5 November 2009
Line 1:		Line 1:
	==Character articles==		==Character articles==
	~~http://www.projectwonderful.com/advertisehere.php?id=38527&type=1We~~'re not really going to do entries for ''all'' of these Joe characters, are we? I mean, I can see a few being justified, but this seems like an awful lot of links....--[[User:G.B. Blackrock\|G.B. Blackrock]] 22:57, 8 June 2006 (UTC)		We're not really going to do entries for ''all'' of these Joe characters, are we? I mean, I can see a few being justified, but this seems like an awful lot of links....--[[User:G.B. Blackrock\|G.B. Blackrock]] 22:57, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

	:Eventually, why not? They've appeared in Transformers comics. I mean, we have pages for Spider-Man, US1, and that big fire-snortin' lizard... - [[User:RolonBolon\|RolonBolon]] 23:18, 8 June 2006 (UTC)		:Eventually, why not? They've appeared in Transformers comics. I mean, we have pages for Spider-Man, US1, and that big fire-snortin' lizard... - [[User:RolonBolon\|RolonBolon]] 23:18, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
Line 55:		Line 55:
	What's the proper spelling of Rock'n Roll? At the moment we have his name written in various articles as "Rock'N'Roll", "Rock'n'Roll", "Rock 'N' Roll", "Rock 'n' Roll", "Rock 'N Roll", and "Rock n Roll". Does it vary by fiction? The G.I. Joe wiki uses "Rock 'n Roll". --[[User:Abates\|abates]] 05:24, 5 November 2009 (EST)		What's the proper spelling of Rock'n Roll? At the moment we have his name written in various articles as "Rock'N'Roll", "Rock'n'Roll", "Rock 'N' Roll", "Rock 'n' Roll", "Rock 'N Roll", and "Rock n Roll". Does it vary by fiction? The G.I. Joe wiki uses "Rock 'n Roll". --[[User:Abates\|abates]] 05:24, 5 November 2009 (EST)
	:"Rock 'n Roll" is the correct spelling. Besides being on JoeWiki, it's also on the packaging and filecard of the 82/83 figure. The only other legitimate variation is from the 1989 figure which had the name spelled "Rock & Roll".--[[User:Tigerpaw28\|Tigerpaw28]] 13:17, 5 November 2009 (EST)		:"Rock 'n Roll" is the correct spelling. Besides being on JoeWiki, it's also on the packaging and filecard of the 82/83 figure. The only other legitimate variation is from the 1989 figure which had the name spelled "Rock & Roll".--[[User:Tigerpaw28\|Tigerpaw28]] 13:17, 5 November 2009 (EST)
			::Ah, I figured as much. I'll amend the alternate spellings. --[[User:Abates\|abates]] 18:34, 5 November 2009 (EST)

Tigerpaw28: /* R&R */

2009-11-05T18:17:18Z

R&R

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:17, 5 November 2009
Line 54:		Line 54:

	What's the proper spelling of Rock'n Roll? At the moment we have his name written in various articles as "Rock'N'Roll", "Rock'n'Roll", "Rock 'N' Roll", "Rock 'n' Roll", "Rock 'N Roll", and "Rock n Roll". Does it vary by fiction? The G.I. Joe wiki uses "Rock 'n Roll". --[[User:Abates\|abates]] 05:24, 5 November 2009 (EST)		What's the proper spelling of Rock'n Roll? At the moment we have his name written in various articles as "Rock'N'Roll", "Rock'n'Roll", "Rock 'N' Roll", "Rock 'n' Roll", "Rock 'N Roll", and "Rock n Roll". Does it vary by fiction? The G.I. Joe wiki uses "Rock 'n Roll". --[[User:Abates\|abates]] 05:24, 5 November 2009 (EST)
			:"Rock 'n Roll" is the correct spelling. Besides being on JoeWiki, it's also on the packaging and filecard of the 82/83 figure. The only other legitimate variation is from the 1989 figure which had the name spelled "Rock & Roll".--[[User:Tigerpaw28\|Tigerpaw28]] 13:17, 5 November 2009 (EST)

Abates: /* R&R */ new section

2009-11-05T10:24:53Z

R&R: new section

← Older revision		Revision as of 10:24, 5 November 2009
Line 50:		Line 50:
	Shouldn't most of these be redirecting to [[G.I. Joe (franchise)]] instead of [[G.I. Joe (team)]]? --[[User:MistaTee\|MistaTee]] 14:42, 19 August 2009 (EDT)		Shouldn't most of these be redirecting to [[G.I. Joe (franchise)]] instead of [[G.I. Joe (team)]]? --[[User:MistaTee\|MistaTee]] 14:42, 19 August 2009 (EDT)
	:I don't know which sense of the term is more prevalent; for some reason, the Search function doesn't like "G.I. Joe" and won't give me any results. [http://tfwiki.net/w2/index.php?title=Special:Whatlinkshere/G.I._Joe&limit=500&from=0 Here are all the pages that link to the redirect,] but I'm not about to check a significant portion one-by-one to see which meaning they're using. If you want to do that, or you know a better method of discerning the trends, please go for it. - [[User:Jackpot\|Jackpot]] 01:22, 20 August 2009 (EDT)		:I don't know which sense of the term is more prevalent; for some reason, the Search function doesn't like "G.I. Joe" and won't give me any results. [http://tfwiki.net/w2/index.php?title=Special:Whatlinkshere/G.I._Joe&limit=500&from=0 Here are all the pages that link to the redirect,] but I'm not about to check a significant portion one-by-one to see which meaning they're using. If you want to do that, or you know a better method of discerning the trends, please go for it. - [[User:Jackpot\|Jackpot]] 01:22, 20 August 2009 (EDT)

			== R&R ==

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

Jackpot: /* redirects */

2009-08-20T05:22:31Z

redirects

← Older revision		Revision as of 05:22, 20 August 2009
Line 49:		Line 49:

	Shouldn't most of these be redirecting to [[G.I. Joe (franchise)]] instead of [[G.I. Joe (team)]]? --[[User:MistaTee\|MistaTee]] 14:42, 19 August 2009 (EDT)		Shouldn't most of these be redirecting to [[G.I. Joe (franchise)]] instead of [[G.I. Joe (team)]]? --[[User:MistaTee\|MistaTee]] 14:42, 19 August 2009 (EDT)
			:I don't know which sense of the term is more prevalent; for some reason, the Search function doesn't like "G.I. Joe" and won't give me any results. [http://tfwiki.net/w2/index.php?title=Special:Whatlinkshere/G.I._Joe&limit=500&from=0 Here are all the pages that link to the redirect,] but I'm not about to check a significant portion one-by-one to see which meaning they're using. If you want to do that, or you know a better method of discerning the trends, please go for it. - [[User:Jackpot\|Jackpot]] 01:22, 20 August 2009 (EDT)

MistaTee: /* redirects */ new section

2009-08-19T18:42:41Z

redirects: new section

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:42, 19 August 2009
Line 45:		Line 45:

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

			== redirects ==

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

Jackpot: /* Action Force */

2009-08-12T06:28:04Z

Action Force

← Older revision		Revision as of 06:28, 12 August 2009
Line 33:		Line 33:

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

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

	==Unfinished page?==		==Unfinished page?==

Monzo at 05:57, 12 August 2009

2009-08-12T05:57:16Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 05:57, 12 August 2009
Line 30:		Line 30:
	::::::As I mentioned - uh, three years ago, by now - this continuity issue only really effects the nine Action Force characters who were in ''Ancient Relics'', of whom only three have pages at the moment. Looking over those respective pages, I think we may need to devise a version of the ukonly note for them... like, ''"Because Action Force continuity is incompatible with US G.I. Joe continuity, this adventure is presented separately; see the main article for more info".''		::::::As I mentioned - uh, three years ago, by now - this continuity issue only really effects the nine Action Force characters who were in ''Ancient Relics'', of whom only three have pages at the moment. Looking over those respective pages, I think we may need to devise a version of the ukonly note for them... like, ''"Because Action Force continuity is incompatible with US G.I. Joe continuity, this adventure is presented separately; see the main article for more info".''

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

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

Monzo at 05:51, 12 August 2009

2009-08-12T05:51:10Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 05:51, 12 August 2009
Line 25:		Line 25:
	:::::'''Edit:''' Y'know, wait, I think I might be starting to understand your position. It's more than just the fact that some of the AF characters have different identities than the Joes... you're also pointing out that the AF comic series is a whole other ''universe.'' To use the Marvel example again, it's like if IDW, having already crossed over with the mainstream ''Avengers'', went on to do an ''Ultimates'' crossover. To the TF fan, the characters might seem the same at a glance, but really, the crossover is different on a deeper, continuity-related level. Let me know if I've got that right.		:::::'''Edit:''' Y'know, wait, I think I might be starting to understand your position. It's more than just the fact that some of the AF characters have different identities than the Joes... you're also pointing out that the AF comic series is a whole other ''universe.'' To use the Marvel example again, it's like if IDW, having already crossed over with the mainstream ''Avengers'', went on to do an ''Ultimates'' crossover. To the TF fan, the characters might seem the same at a glance, but really, the crossover is different on a deeper, continuity-related level. Let me know if I've got that right.
	:::::- [[User:Jackpot\|Jackpot]] 23:36, 11 August 2009 (EDT)		:::::- [[User:Jackpot\|Jackpot]] 23:36, 11 August 2009 (EDT)

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

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

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

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

	==Unfinished page?==		==Unfinished page?==

Jackpot: /* Action Force */

2009-08-12T03:58:45Z

Action Force

← Older revision		Revision as of 03:58, 12 August 2009
Line 22:		Line 22:
	::::There aren't a whole lot of alternate names/birthplaces from AF that are relevant to the characters on the wiki, anyway - aside from Flint, I think the only guy with changed details that showed up in Ancient Relics was Wild Bill. --[[User:Monzo\|Monzo]] 23:30, 11 August 2009 (EDT)		::::There aren't a whole lot of alternate names/birthplaces from AF that are relevant to the characters on the wiki, anyway - aside from Flint, I think the only guy with changed details that showed up in Ancient Relics was Wild Bill. --[[User:Monzo\|Monzo]] 23:30, 11 August 2009 (EDT)

	:::::I appreciate your desire to document this stuff, but I think our ha-ha-plug-our-ears-and-cover-our-eyes-to-outside-sources policy serves a bigger purpose than just humor. It means we don't overextend ourselves. Right now, I think that working the AF-guys-are-kind-of-different thing into our fiction writeups is just plain confusing, especially if you're saying most of the relevant characters don't even ''have'' different identites. Certain I was confused by it until I started editing the articles in-depth, and I'm still not totally certain on it all. Like I said, it's totally worth a trivia note, but I don't see the value in trying to work with it as TF-canon. In this case, that means I think there's no reason to treat the UK stuff any differently in structure than we normally do, with the italics and such. - [[User:Jackpot\|Jackpot]] 23:36, 11 August 2009 (EDT)		:::::I appreciate your desire to document this stuff, but I think our ha-ha-plug-our-ears-and-cover-our-eyes-to-outside-sources policy serves a bigger purpose than just humor. It means we don't overextend ourselves. Right now, I think that working the AF-guys-are-kind-of-different thing into our fiction writeups is just plain confusing, especially if you're saying most of the relevant characters don't even ''have'' different identites. Certain I was confused by it until I started editing the articles in-depth, and I'm still not totally certain on it all. Like I said, it's totally worth a trivia note, but I don't see the value in trying to work with it as TF-canon. In this case, that means I think there's no reason to treat the UK stuff any differently in structure than we normally do, with the italics and such.
			:::::'''Edit:''' Y'know, wait, I think I might be starting to understand your position. It's more than just the fact that some of the AF characters have different identities than the Joes... you're also pointing out that the AF comic series is a whole other ''universe.'' To use the Marvel example again, it's like if IDW, having already crossed over with the mainstream ''Avengers'', went on to do an ''Ultimates'' crossover. To the TF fan, the characters might seem the same at a glance, but really, the crossover is different on a deeper, continuity-related level. Let me know if I've got that right.
			:::::- [[User:Jackpot\|Jackpot]] 23:36, 11 August 2009 (EDT)

	==Unfinished page?==		==Unfinished page?==

Jackpot: /* Action Force */ Just to clarify.

2009-08-12T03:44:43Z

Action Force: Just to clarify.

← Older revision		Revision as of 03:44, 12 August 2009
Line 22:		Line 22:
	::::There aren't a whole lot of alternate names/birthplaces from AF that are relevant to the characters on the wiki, anyway - aside from Flint, I think the only guy with changed details that showed up in Ancient Relics was Wild Bill. --[[User:Monzo\|Monzo]] 23:30, 11 August 2009 (EDT)		::::There aren't a whole lot of alternate names/birthplaces from AF that are relevant to the characters on the wiki, anyway - aside from Flint, I think the only guy with changed details that showed up in Ancient Relics was Wild Bill. --[[User:Monzo\|Monzo]] 23:30, 11 August 2009 (EDT)

	:::::I appreciate your desire to document this stuff, but I think our ha-ha-plug-our-ears-and-cover-our-eyes-to-outside-sources policy serves a bigger purpose than just humor. It means we don't overextend ourselves. Right now, I think that working the AF-guys-are-kind-of-different thing into our fiction writeups is just plain confusing, especially if you're saying most of the relevant characters don't even ''have'' different identites. Certain I was confused by it until I started editing the articles in-depth, and I'm still not totally certain on it all. Like I said, it's totally worth a trivia note, but I don't see the value in trying to work with it as TF-canon. - [[User:Jackpot\|Jackpot]] 23:36, 11 August 2009 (EDT)		:::::I appreciate your desire to document this stuff, but I think our ha-ha-plug-our-ears-and-cover-our-eyes-to-outside-sources policy serves a bigger purpose than just humor. It means we don't overextend ourselves. Right now, I think that working the AF-guys-are-kind-of-different thing into our fiction writeups is just plain confusing, especially if you're saying most of the relevant characters don't even ''have'' different identites. Certain I was confused by it until I started editing the articles in-depth, and I'm still not totally certain on it all. Like I said, it's totally worth a trivia note, but I don't see the value in trying to work with it as TF-canon. In this case, that means I think there's no reason to treat the UK stuff any differently in structure than we normally do, with the italics and such. - [[User:Jackpot\|Jackpot]] 23:36, 11 August 2009 (EDT)

	==Unfinished page?==		==Unfinished page?==

← Older revision		Revision as of 23:34, 5 November 2009
Line 1:		Line 1:
	==Character articles==		==Character articles==
	~~http://www.projectwonderful.com/advertisehere.php?id=38527&type=1We~~'re not really going to do entries for ''all'' of these Joe characters, are we? I mean, I can see a few being justified, but this seems like an awful lot of links....--[[User:G.B. Blackrock\|G.B. Blackrock]] 22:57, 8 June 2006 (UTC)		We're not really going to do entries for ''all'' of these Joe characters, are we? I mean, I can see a few being justified, but this seems like an awful lot of links....--[[User:G.B. Blackrock\|G.B. Blackrock]] 22:57, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

	:Eventually, why not? They've appeared in Transformers comics. I mean, we have pages for Spider-Man, US1, and that big fire-snortin' lizard... - [[User:RolonBolon\|RolonBolon]] 23:18, 8 June 2006 (UTC)		:Eventually, why not? They've appeared in Transformers comics. I mean, we have pages for Spider-Man, US1, and that big fire-snortin' lizard... - [[User:RolonBolon\|RolonBolon]] 23:18, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
Line 55:		Line 55:
	What's the proper spelling of Rock'n Roll? At the moment we have his name written in various articles as "Rock'N'Roll", "Rock'n'Roll", "Rock 'N' Roll", "Rock 'n' Roll", "Rock 'N Roll", and "Rock n Roll". Does it vary by fiction? The G.I. Joe wiki uses "Rock 'n Roll". --[[User:Abates\|abates]] 05:24, 5 November 2009 (EST)		What's the proper spelling of Rock'n Roll? At the moment we have his name written in various articles as "Rock'N'Roll", "Rock'n'Roll", "Rock 'N' Roll", "Rock 'n' Roll", "Rock 'N Roll", and "Rock n Roll". Does it vary by fiction? The G.I. Joe wiki uses "Rock 'n Roll". --[[User:Abates\|abates]] 05:24, 5 November 2009 (EST)
	:"Rock 'n Roll" is the correct spelling. Besides being on JoeWiki, it's also on the packaging and filecard of the 82/83 figure. The only other legitimate variation is from the 1989 figure which had the name spelled "Rock & Roll".--[[User:Tigerpaw28\|Tigerpaw28]] 13:17, 5 November 2009 (EST)		:"Rock 'n Roll" is the correct spelling. Besides being on JoeWiki, it's also on the packaging and filecard of the 82/83 figure. The only other legitimate variation is from the 1989 figure which had the name spelled "Rock & Roll".--[[User:Tigerpaw28\|Tigerpaw28]] 13:17, 5 November 2009 (EST)
			::Ah, I figured as much. I'll amend the alternate spellings. --[[User:Abates\|abates]] 18:34, 5 November 2009 (EST)