Talk:Mech - Revision history

ZeldaTheSwordsman: /* Toys? */

2010-06-23T23:53:48Z

Toys?

← Older revision		Revision as of 23:53, 23 June 2010
Line 55:		Line 55:

	:In this case, I'd say a series of section sub-headers and "Main Article:" links would suffice, since in both cases we're talking about an entire toy subline. (it does raise the issue of whether Star Wars should have its own toyline page... probably overkill, given the lack of fiction beyond packaging bios.)-- [[User:Repowers\|Repowers]] 18:12, 17 April 2009 (EDT)		:In this case, I'd say a series of section sub-headers and "Main Article:" links would suffice, since in both cases we're talking about an entire toy subline. (it does raise the issue of whether Star Wars should have its own toyline page... probably overkill, given the lack of fiction beyond packaging bios.)-- [[User:Repowers\|Repowers]] 18:12, 17 April 2009 (EDT)

			:The [[Cobybot]] is a mech by definition. [[User:ZeldaTheSwordsman\|ZeldaTheSwordsman]] 19:53, 23 June 2010 (EDT)

Geewunling: /* Uses of the word "mech" */

2009-07-07T06:42:52Z

Uses of the word "mech"

← Older revision		Revision as of 06:42, 7 July 2009
Line 23:		Line 23:
	:::::: For those unaware: "Mechs and femmes" as substitute for "men and women" has been a near-ubiquitous component of fanfic writing for years now, without any canonical basis at all. It is so common that I suspect that many people who use it are unaware that it was actually a fanon convention and ''not'' a standard part of "how Transformers talk" in canon. Jeysie seems to suggesting that the article address this in some fashion. --[[User:KilMichaelMcC\|KilMichaelMcC]] 19:47, 17 April 2009 (EDT)		:::::: For those unaware: "Mechs and femmes" as substitute for "men and women" has been a near-ubiquitous component of fanfic writing for years now, without any canonical basis at all. It is so common that I suspect that many people who use it are unaware that it was actually a fanon convention and ''not'' a standard part of "how Transformers talk" in canon. Jeysie seems to suggesting that the article address this in some fashion. --[[User:KilMichaelMcC\|KilMichaelMcC]] 19:47, 17 April 2009 (EDT)

	::::::Their point is that fanon-ness has nothing to do with how we ought to treat subjects. If it seems like they're making a mountain out of a molehill, it's because they're trying to nip a bad standard in the bud. Ideally, we give each subject as much consideration as the official material merits, no more, no less. Like [[Seeker]], [[Slipstream (Animated)\|Female Starscream]], and any other idea that the fans used before the creators did, it should be judged on the same standards as everything else. Being used by fans first isn't a cause for degraded status.		::::::Their point is that fanon-ness has nothing to do with how we ought to treat subjects. If it seems like they're making a mountain out of a molehill, it's because they're trying to nip a bad standard in the bud. Ideally, we give each subject as much consideration as the official material merits, no more, no less. Like [[Seeker (disambiguation)\|Seeker]], [[Slipstream (Animated)\|Female Starscream]], and any other idea that the fans used before the creators did, it should be judged on the same standards as everything else. Being used by fans first isn't a cause for degraded status.
	::::::That having been said, I also am leaning towards the "Note" solution, just because there isn't that much to ''say'' about the "slang" usage. But that's the ONLY reason. '''Edit:''' And I've added the note. I think it covers all the bases.		::::::That having been said, I also am leaning towards the "Note" solution, just because there isn't that much to ''say'' about the "slang" usage. But that's the ONLY reason. '''Edit:''' And I've added the note. I think it covers all the bases.
	::::::- [[User:Jackpot\|Jackpot]] 19:48, 17 April 2009 (EDT)		::::::- [[User:Jackpot\|Jackpot]] 19:48, 17 April 2009 (EDT)

Interrobang at 21:36, 30 May 2009

2009-05-30T21:36:24Z

Interrobang at 21:34, 30 May 2009

2009-05-30T21:34:04Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:34, 30 May 2009
Line 18:		Line 18:
	:::Just simply appended that with the sentiment, "For the sake of being thorough, this other related term has the same status in case that issue ever also comes up. Especially since in fanon usage 'mech' generally ''is'' gender-based."		:::Just simply appended that with the sentiment, "For the sake of being thorough, this other related term has the same status in case that issue ever also comes up. Especially since in fanon usage 'mech' generally ''is'' gender-based."
	:::(Sheesh, talk about making what was supposed to be a simple comment way more complicated than it should have been...) --[[User:Jeysie\|Jeysie]] 18:44, 17 April 2009 (EDT)		:::(Sheesh, talk about making what was supposed to be a simple comment way more complicated than it should have been...) --[[User:Jeysie\|Jeysie]] 18:44, 17 April 2009 (EDT)
	::::So you're recommending we curtail [[Female Starscream]] because that's a fanon idea? --[[User:ItsWalky\|ItsWalky]] 19:16, 17 April 2009 (EDT)		::::So you're recommending we curtail [[[[Slipstream (Animated)\|Female Starscream]] because that's a fanon idea? --[[User:ItsWalky\|ItsWalky]] 19:16, 17 April 2009 (EDT)
	:::::...? How is a character that showed up in an official series a fanon idea? For that matter, what does that have to do with my opinion that "mech" is AFAIK mainly a fanon term and thus doesn't rate much of a write-up?		:::::...? How is a character that showed up in an official series a fanon idea? For that matter, what does that have to do with my opinion that "mech" is AFAIK mainly a fanon term and thus doesn't rate much of a write-up?
	:::::(I had thought that would be a simple, easy-to-understand point, but apparently not, considering that we seem to be on two completely different trains of thought here.) --[[User:Jeysie\|Jeysie]] 19:30, 17 April 2009 (EDT)		:::::(I had thought that would be a simple, easy-to-understand point, but apparently not, considering that we seem to be on two completely different trains of thought here.) --[[User:Jeysie\|Jeysie]] 19:30, 17 April 2009 (EDT)

Jackpot: Talk:Battle suit moved to Talk:Mech: The fuck? No, that's not the answer. The SW-TFs were never called "battle suits". "Mech" is the only term that encompasses the whole Crossover line.

2009-04-18T10:38:18Z

Talk:Battle suit moved to Talk:Mech: The fuck? No, that's not the answer. The SW-TFs were never called "battle suits". "Mech" is the only term that encompasses the whole Crossover line.

← Older revision	Revision as of 10:38, 18 April 2009
(No difference)

Jeysie: /* Uses of the word "mech" */

2009-04-18T01:49:58Z

Uses of the word "mech"

← Older revision		Revision as of 01:49, 18 April 2009
Line 41:		Line 41:
	:::(But then, I tend to view the fanclub stuff as essentially official fanzines, so... yeah, I eventually realized that I was never going to get my point across in a way that wouldn't get me lynched for being percieved as being unintentionally insulting.) --[[User:Jeysie\|Jeysie]] 21:41, 17 April 2009 (EDT)		:::(But then, I tend to view the fanclub stuff as essentially official fanzines, so... yeah, I eventually realized that I was never going to get my point across in a way that wouldn't get me lynched for being percieved as being unintentionally insulting.) --[[User:Jeysie\|Jeysie]] 21:41, 17 April 2009 (EDT)
	::::FunPub stuff still gets cleared by Hasbro legal, and thus by our (admittedly fairly binary) policy on canon is neither "more" nor "less" canon than "mainstream" releases. It's simply canon. Everything that gets the Hasbro stamp of approval is.--[[User:Rosicrucian\|Rosicrucian]][[User Talk:Rosicrucian\|<sup>Talk</sup>]] 21:45, 17 April 2009 (EDT)		::::FunPub stuff still gets cleared by Hasbro legal, and thus by our (admittedly fairly binary) policy on canon is neither "more" nor "less" canon than "mainstream" releases. It's simply canon. Everything that gets the Hasbro stamp of approval is.--[[User:Rosicrucian\|Rosicrucian]][[User Talk:Rosicrucian\|<sup>Talk</sup>]] 21:45, 17 April 2009 (EDT)
			:::::Yeah, I know... just trying to explain why, even though it's technically canon, I still had the frame of thought on the matter I did.
			:::::Ironically I don't even give a crap on this particular issue. I was just stating my vote, to go with whatever other votes other people ended up having. If I'd known a statement I thought was pretty simple/straightforward was going to be such an unexpected can of worms/way more complicated than it needed to be, I wouldn't have bothered. Sigh. --[[User:Jeysie\|Jeysie]] 21:49, 17 April 2009 (EDT)

	== Toys? ==		== Toys? ==

Rosicrucian: /* Uses of the word "mech" */

2009-04-18T01:45:48Z

Uses of the word "mech"

← Older revision		Revision as of 01:45, 18 April 2009
Line 40:		Line 40:
	:::I had gotten the impression that most of the Dreamwave folks, at least, worked on other pro stuff besides/before Transformers. (Kind of like how Wyatt was an already-established industry pro before doing Animated.) Not to mention there's still a difference between doing stuff intended for "mainstream" release and doing stuff that's by fans for a fanclub.		:::I had gotten the impression that most of the Dreamwave folks, at least, worked on other pro stuff besides/before Transformers. (Kind of like how Wyatt was an already-established industry pro before doing Animated.) Not to mention there's still a difference between doing stuff intended for "mainstream" release and doing stuff that's by fans for a fanclub.
	:::(But then, I tend to view the fanclub stuff as essentially official fanzines, so... yeah, I eventually realized that I was never going to get my point across in a way that wouldn't get me lynched for being percieved as being unintentionally insulting.) --[[User:Jeysie\|Jeysie]] 21:41, 17 April 2009 (EDT)		:::(But then, I tend to view the fanclub stuff as essentially official fanzines, so... yeah, I eventually realized that I was never going to get my point across in a way that wouldn't get me lynched for being percieved as being unintentionally insulting.) --[[User:Jeysie\|Jeysie]] 21:41, 17 April 2009 (EDT)
			::::FunPub stuff still gets cleared by Hasbro legal, and thus by our (admittedly fairly binary) policy on canon is neither "more" nor "less" canon than "mainstream" releases. It's simply canon. Everything that gets the Hasbro stamp of approval is.--[[User:Rosicrucian\|Rosicrucian]][[User Talk:Rosicrucian\|<sup>Talk</sup>]] 21:45, 17 April 2009 (EDT)

	== Toys? ==		== Toys? ==

Jeysie: /* Uses of the word "mech" */

2009-04-18T01:41:18Z

Uses of the word "mech"

← Older revision		Revision as of 01:41, 18 April 2009
Line 38:		Line 38:
	:That would satisfy my quibbles, at least, if that were the case. shrug --[[User:Jeysie\|Jeysie]] 21:18, 17 April 2009 (EDT)		:That would satisfy my quibbles, at least, if that were the case. shrug --[[User:Jeysie\|Jeysie]] 21:18, 17 April 2009 (EDT)
	::I got into the second issue on a speed-read before finding a usage of the term, but, yeah, it's in there. (I have no idea how Adam Patyk and Brad Mick are any less die-hard fans than the Fan Club dudes, if that's what satisfies the quibbles. Adam Patyk was in the online fandom for like a full decade before Dreamwave even existed.) --[[User:ItsWalky\|ItsWalky]] 21:23, 17 April 2009 (EDT)		::I got into the second issue on a speed-read before finding a usage of the term, but, yeah, it's in there. (I have no idea how Adam Patyk and Brad Mick are any less die-hard fans than the Fan Club dudes, if that's what satisfies the quibbles. Adam Patyk was in the online fandom for like a full decade before Dreamwave even existed.) --[[User:ItsWalky\|ItsWalky]] 21:23, 17 April 2009 (EDT)
			:::I had gotten the impression that most of the Dreamwave folks, at least, worked on other pro stuff besides/before Transformers. (Kind of like how Wyatt was an already-established industry pro before doing Animated.) Not to mention there's still a difference between doing stuff intended for "mainstream" release and doing stuff that's by fans for a fanclub.
			:::(But then, I tend to view the fanclub stuff as essentially official fanzines, so... yeah, I eventually realized that I was never going to get my point across in a way that wouldn't get me lynched for being percieved as being unintentionally insulting.) --[[User:Jeysie\|Jeysie]] 21:41, 17 April 2009 (EDT)

	== Toys? ==		== Toys? ==

ItsWalky: /* Uses of the word "mech" */

2009-04-18T01:23:41Z

Uses of the word "mech"

← Older revision		Revision as of 01:23, 18 April 2009
Line 37:		Line 37:
	Not that it really contributes anything to the discussion, and I'm certainly not digging my issues out to check, but weren't the Dreamwave Micromasters all, like, "My mech!" and junk? Like "dawg" or "bro" or whatevs. - [[User:Chris McFeely\|Chris McFeely]] 21:03, 17 April 2009 (EDT)		Not that it really contributes anything to the discussion, and I'm certainly not digging my issues out to check, but weren't the Dreamwave Micromasters all, like, "My mech!" and junk? Like "dawg" or "bro" or whatevs. - [[User:Chris McFeely\|Chris McFeely]] 21:03, 17 April 2009 (EDT)
	:That would satisfy my quibbles, at least, if that were the case. shrug --[[User:Jeysie\|Jeysie]] 21:18, 17 April 2009 (EDT)		:That would satisfy my quibbles, at least, if that were the case. shrug --[[User:Jeysie\|Jeysie]] 21:18, 17 April 2009 (EDT)
			::I got into the second issue on a speed-read before finding a usage of the term, but, yeah, it's in there. (I have no idea how Adam Patyk and Brad Mick are any less die-hard fans than the Fan Club dudes, if that's what satisfies the quibbles. Adam Patyk was in the online fandom for like a full decade before Dreamwave even existed.) --[[User:ItsWalky\|ItsWalky]] 21:23, 17 April 2009 (EDT)

	== Toys? ==		== Toys? ==

Jeysie: /* Uses of the word "mech" */

2009-04-18T01:18:43Z

Uses of the word "mech"

← Older revision		Revision as of 01:18, 18 April 2009
Line 36:		Line 36:

	Not that it really contributes anything to the discussion, and I'm certainly not digging my issues out to check, but weren't the Dreamwave Micromasters all, like, "My mech!" and junk? Like "dawg" or "bro" or whatevs. - [[User:Chris McFeely\|Chris McFeely]] 21:03, 17 April 2009 (EDT)		Not that it really contributes anything to the discussion, and I'm certainly not digging my issues out to check, but weren't the Dreamwave Micromasters all, like, "My mech!" and junk? Like "dawg" or "bro" or whatevs. - [[User:Chris McFeely\|Chris McFeely]] 21:03, 17 April 2009 (EDT)
			:That would satisfy my quibbles, at least, if that were the case. shrug --[[User:Jeysie\|Jeysie]] 21:18, 17 April 2009 (EDT)

	== Toys? ==		== Toys? ==

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:36, 30 May 2009
Line 18:		Line 18:
	:::Just simply appended that with the sentiment, "For the sake of being thorough, this other related term has the same status in case that issue ever also comes up. Especially since in fanon usage 'mech' generally ''is'' gender-based."		:::Just simply appended that with the sentiment, "For the sake of being thorough, this other related term has the same status in case that issue ever also comes up. Especially since in fanon usage 'mech' generally ''is'' gender-based."
	:::(Sheesh, talk about making what was supposed to be a simple comment way more complicated than it should have been...) --[[User:Jeysie\|Jeysie]] 18:44, 17 April 2009 (EDT)		:::(Sheesh, talk about making what was supposed to be a simple comment way more complicated than it should have been...) --[[User:Jeysie\|Jeysie]] 18:44, 17 April 2009 (EDT)
	::::So you're recommending we curtail [[[[Slipstream (Animated)\|Female Starscream]] because that's a fanon idea? --[[User:ItsWalky\|ItsWalky]] 19:16, 17 April 2009 (EDT)		::::So you're recommending we curtail [[Slipstream (Animated)\|Female Starscream]] because that's a fanon idea? --[[User:ItsWalky\|ItsWalky]] 19:16, 17 April 2009 (EDT)
	:::::...? How is a character that showed up in an official series a fanon idea? For that matter, what does that have to do with my opinion that "mech" is AFAIK mainly a fanon term and thus doesn't rate much of a write-up?		:::::...? How is a character that showed up in an official series a fanon idea? For that matter, what does that have to do with my opinion that "mech" is AFAIK mainly a fanon term and thus doesn't rate much of a write-up?
	:::::(I had thought that would be a simple, easy-to-understand point, but apparently not, considering that we seem to be on two completely different trains of thought here.) --[[User:Jeysie\|Jeysie]] 19:30, 17 April 2009 (EDT)		:::::(I had thought that would be a simple, easy-to-understand point, but apparently not, considering that we seem to be on two completely different trains of thought here.) --[[User:Jeysie\|Jeysie]] 19:30, 17 April 2009 (EDT)
	:::::: For those unaware: "Mechs and femmes" as substitute for "men and women" has been a near-ubiquitous component of fanfic writing for years now, without any canonical basis at all. It is so common that I suspect that many people who use it are unaware that it was actually a fanon convention and ''not'' a standard part of "how Transformers talk" in canon. Jeysie seems to suggesting that the article address this in some fashion. --[[User:KilMichaelMcC\|KilMichaelMcC]] 19:47, 17 April 2009 (EDT)		:::::: For those unaware: "Mechs and femmes" as substitute for "men and women" has been a near-ubiquitous component of fanfic writing for years now, without any canonical basis at all. It is so common that I suspect that many people who use it are unaware that it was actually a fanon convention and ''not'' a standard part of "how Transformers talk" in canon. Jeysie seems to suggesting that the article address this in some fashion. --[[User:KilMichaelMcC\|KilMichaelMcC]] 19:47, 17 April 2009 (EDT)

	::::::Their point is that fanon-ness has nothing to do with how we ought to treat subjects. If it seems like they're making a mountain out of a molehill, it's because they're trying to nip a bad standard in the bud. Ideally, we give each subject as much consideration as the official material merits, no more, no less. Like [[Seeker]], [[Female Starscream]], and any other idea that the fans used before the creators did, it should be judged on the same standards as everything else. Being used by fans first isn't a cause for degraded status.		::::::Their point is that fanon-ness has nothing to do with how we ought to treat subjects. If it seems like they're making a mountain out of a molehill, it's because they're trying to nip a bad standard in the bud. Ideally, we give each subject as much consideration as the official material merits, no more, no less. Like [[Seeker]], [[Slipstream (Animated)\|Female Starscream]], and any other idea that the fans used before the creators did, it should be judged on the same standards as everything else. Being used by fans first isn't a cause for degraded status.
	::::::That having been said, I also am leaning towards the "Note" solution, just because there isn't that much to ''say'' about the "slang" usage. But that's the ONLY reason. '''Edit:''' And I've added the note. I think it covers all the bases.		::::::That having been said, I also am leaning towards the "Note" solution, just because there isn't that much to ''say'' about the "slang" usage. But that's the ONLY reason. '''Edit:''' And I've added the note. I think it covers all the bases.
	::::::- [[User:Jackpot\|Jackpot]] 19:48, 17 April 2009 (EDT)		::::::- [[User:Jackpot\|Jackpot]] 19:48, 17 April 2009 (EDT)
Line 32:		Line 32:
	::::::::''Timelines'' stories are official. They're canon. They "count" as much as anything. If they use the term "mech" to mean "robot of nonspecific gender," then that's an official usage that deserves inclusion. If they used "mech" in a particularly important way that bore a significant amount of attention, then we would give it an article, no question. Neither Greg and Trent's pedigree nor the nature of the stories' distribution affect that. - [[User:Jackpot\|Jackpot]] 20:15, 17 April 2009 (EDT)		::::::::''Timelines'' stories are official. They're canon. They "count" as much as anything. If they use the term "mech" to mean "robot of nonspecific gender," then that's an official usage that deserves inclusion. If they used "mech" in a particularly important way that bore a significant amount of attention, then we would give it an article, no question. Neither Greg and Trent's pedigree nor the nature of the stories' distribution affect that. - [[User:Jackpot\|Jackpot]] 20:15, 17 April 2009 (EDT)
	:::::::::...sigh, I can't think of any way to phrase this that doesn't either come off as unintentionally insulting or making things even more stupidly complicated, so I'll just say that the term is still 98% fanon-usage-only, and therefore IMHO giving it a lot of attention for the moment would be both unnecessary and misleading, and leave it at that. (Since, as KilMichael pointed out, the term started out as a solely fanon convention, and the only canon example being put forth so far is, well, written by fans for a fanclub.) --[[User:Jeysie\|Jeysie]] 20:38, 17 April 2009 (EDT)		:::::::::...sigh, I can't think of any way to phrase this that doesn't either come off as unintentionally insulting or making things even more stupidly complicated, so I'll just say that the term is still 98% fanon-usage-only, and therefore IMHO giving it a lot of attention for the moment would be both unnecessary and misleading, and leave it at that. (Since, as KilMichael pointed out, the term started out as a solely fanon convention, and the only canon example being put forth so far is, well, written by fans for a fanclub.) --[[User:Jeysie\|Jeysie]] 20:38, 17 April 2009 (EDT)
	::::::::::Derrick Wyatt is a die-hard Transformers fan. Again, I say we ditch [[Female Starscream]], because she only appeared in one episode, while there are buttloads of female Starscreams that have appeared in fanfiction over the course of decades. Female Starscreams are still 98% fanon-usage only, and started out as a solely fanon convention. --[[User:ItsWalky\|ItsWalky]] 20:42, 17 April 2009 (EDT)		::::::::::Derrick Wyatt is a die-hard Transformers fan. Again, I say we ditch [[Slipstream (Animated)\|Female Starscream]], because she only appeared in one episode, while there are buttloads of female Starscreams that have appeared in fanfiction over the course of decades. Female Starscreams are still 98% fanon-usage only, and started out as a solely fanon convention. --[[User:ItsWalky\|ItsWalky]] 20:42, 17 April 2009 (EDT)
	:::::::::::Yeah, you're completely missing my intended point (and arguing against a point I'm not making), and I can't think of any simpler way to put it, so I give up. --[[User:Jeysie\|Jeysie]] 20:55, 17 April 2009 (EDT)		:::::::::::Yeah, you're completely missing my intended point (and arguing against a point I'm not making), and I can't think of any simpler way to put it, so I give up. --[[User:Jeysie\|Jeysie]] 20:55, 17 April 2009 (EDT)