Talk:Sandstorm (G1) - Revision history

Ascendron: /* Stopping the bickering now. */

2016-03-18T00:45:05Z

Stopping the bickering now.

← Older revision		Revision as of 00:45, 18 March 2016
Line 46:		Line 46:
	::I can see where you're coming from, Xaaron, but each character page should offer the same level as informativeness as all the others. I shouldn't have to flip over to some other Wrecker's page just to see a writeup of the Marvel comics that actually informs of me of what happened rather than filling the section with jackassery. If you can be funny ''and'' informative at the same time, then that's great, but this section only manages the former. If I have to choose one or the other, I'll go with informativeness over jokes every time. Yes to the rewrite. -[[User:Foffy the Sheep\|Foffy the Sheep]] ([[User talk:Foffy the Sheep\|talk]]) 16:22, 17 March 2016 (EDT)		::I can see where you're coming from, Xaaron, but each character page should offer the same level as informativeness as all the others. I shouldn't have to flip over to some other Wrecker's page just to see a writeup of the Marvel comics that actually informs of me of what happened rather than filling the section with jackassery. If you can be funny ''and'' informative at the same time, then that's great, but this section only manages the former. If I have to choose one or the other, I'll go with informativeness over jokes every time. Yes to the rewrite. -[[User:Foffy the Sheep\|Foffy the Sheep]] ([[User talk:Foffy the Sheep\|talk]]) 16:22, 17 March 2016 (EDT)
	::The current write up gives us absolutely no context for anything. "beating up Autobot leader Optimus Prime"? Where? Why? How? Who? What? So, yes, we are losing out on information and jokes are almost never going to justify that. You can say that it's basically the same for multiple characters, but that's 75% of character appearances and we still give them their full write-up with needed context. [[User:Saix\|Saix]] ([[User talk:Saix\|talk]]) 16:27, 17 March 2016 (EDT)		::The current write up gives us absolutely no context for anything. "beating up Autobot leader Optimus Prime"? Where? Why? How? Who? What? So, yes, we are losing out on information and jokes are almost never going to justify that. You can say that it's basically the same for multiple characters, but that's 75% of character appearances and we still give them their full write-up with needed context. [[User:Saix\|Saix]] ([[User talk:Saix\|talk]]) 16:27, 17 March 2016 (EDT)
			:::I think it was a bit extreme to call the write-up "garbage," as it's not badly written. But I do agree it could use some expanding. --[[User:Ascendron\|Ascendron]] ([[User talk:Ascendron\|talk]]) 20:45, 17 March 2016 (EDT)

Saix: /* Stopping the bickering now. */

2016-03-17T20:27:45Z

Stopping the bickering now.

← Older revision		Revision as of 20:27, 17 March 2016
Line 45:		Line 45:
	:I '''disagree''' because of how generic the Wreckers' Marvel write-ups are otherwise. It's "Springer and 6-8 other guys" for over 100 issues, with none of them doing anything individual or note-worthy, so why not have some fun with one of them? We're not losing out on any information this way. I wrote this nine years ago, and it's been tagged as a Featured Article since then, so not everyone seems to think it's bad. If the majority agrees, though, I'll take responsibility for a re-write. --[[User:Xaaron\|Xaaron]] ([[User talk:Xaaron\|talk]]) 16:09, 17 March 2016 (EDT)		:I '''disagree''' because of how generic the Wreckers' Marvel write-ups are otherwise. It's "Springer and 6-8 other guys" for over 100 issues, with none of them doing anything individual or note-worthy, so why not have some fun with one of them? We're not losing out on any information this way. I wrote this nine years ago, and it's been tagged as a Featured Article since then, so not everyone seems to think it's bad. If the majority agrees, though, I'll take responsibility for a re-write. --[[User:Xaaron\|Xaaron]] ([[User talk:Xaaron\|talk]]) 16:09, 17 March 2016 (EDT)
	::I can see where you're coming from, Xaaron, but each character page should offer the same level as informativeness as all the others. I shouldn't have to flip over to some other Wrecker's page just to see a writeup of the Marvel comics that actually informs of me of what happened rather than filling the section with jackassery. If you can be funny ''and'' informative at the same time, then that's great, but this section only manages the former. If I have to choose one or the other, I'll go with informativeness over jokes every time. Yes to the rewrite. -[[User:Foffy the Sheep\|Foffy the Sheep]] ([[User talk:Foffy the Sheep\|talk]]) 16:22, 17 March 2016 (EDT)		::I can see where you're coming from, Xaaron, but each character page should offer the same level as informativeness as all the others. I shouldn't have to flip over to some other Wrecker's page just to see a writeup of the Marvel comics that actually informs of me of what happened rather than filling the section with jackassery. If you can be funny ''and'' informative at the same time, then that's great, but this section only manages the former. If I have to choose one or the other, I'll go with informativeness over jokes every time. Yes to the rewrite. -[[User:Foffy the Sheep\|Foffy the Sheep]] ([[User talk:Foffy the Sheep\|talk]]) 16:22, 17 March 2016 (EDT)
			::The current write up gives us absolutely no context for anything. "beating up Autobot leader Optimus Prime"? Where? Why? How? Who? What? So, yes, we are losing out on information and jokes are almost never going to justify that. You can say that it's basically the same for multiple characters, but that's 75% of character appearances and we still give them their full write-up with needed context. [[User:Saix\|Saix]] ([[User talk:Saix\|talk]]) 16:27, 17 March 2016 (EDT)

Foffy the Sheep: /* Stopping the bickering now. */

2016-03-17T20:25:49Z

Stopping the bickering now.

← Older revision		Revision as of 20:25, 17 March 2016
Line 44:		Line 44:
	:Apparently indicating a section is still missing information is now controversial and requires a talk page intervention. [[User:Saix\|Saix]] ([[User talk:Saix\|talk]]) 16:03, 17 March 2016 (EDT)		:Apparently indicating a section is still missing information is now controversial and requires a talk page intervention. [[User:Saix\|Saix]] ([[User talk:Saix\|talk]]) 16:03, 17 March 2016 (EDT)
	:I '''disagree''' because of how generic the Wreckers' Marvel write-ups are otherwise. It's "Springer and 6-8 other guys" for over 100 issues, with none of them doing anything individual or note-worthy, so why not have some fun with one of them? We're not losing out on any information this way. I wrote this nine years ago, and it's been tagged as a Featured Article since then, so not everyone seems to think it's bad. If the majority agrees, though, I'll take responsibility for a re-write. --[[User:Xaaron\|Xaaron]] ([[User talk:Xaaron\|talk]]) 16:09, 17 March 2016 (EDT)		:I '''disagree''' because of how generic the Wreckers' Marvel write-ups are otherwise. It's "Springer and 6-8 other guys" for over 100 issues, with none of them doing anything individual or note-worthy, so why not have some fun with one of them? We're not losing out on any information this way. I wrote this nine years ago, and it's been tagged as a Featured Article since then, so not everyone seems to think it's bad. If the majority agrees, though, I'll take responsibility for a re-write. --[[User:Xaaron\|Xaaron]] ([[User talk:Xaaron\|talk]]) 16:09, 17 March 2016 (EDT)
	::I can see where you're coming from, Xaaron, but each character page should offer the same level as informativeness as all the others. I shouldn't have to flip over to some other Wrecker's page just to see a writeup of ~~Time Wars~~ that actually informs of me of what happened rather than filling the section with jackassery. If you can be funny ''and'' informative at the same time, then that's great, but this section only manages the former. If I have to choose one or the other, I'll go with informativeness over jokes every time. Yes to the rewrite. -[[User:Foffy the Sheep\|Foffy the Sheep]] ([[User talk:Foffy the Sheep\|talk]]) 16:22, 17 March 2016 (EDT)		::I can see where you're coming from, Xaaron, but each character page should offer the same level as informativeness as all the others. I shouldn't have to flip over to some other Wrecker's page just to see a writeup of the Marvel comics that actually informs of me of what happened rather than filling the section with jackassery. If you can be funny ''and'' informative at the same time, then that's great, but this section only manages the former. If I have to choose one or the other, I'll go with informativeness over jokes every time. Yes to the rewrite. -[[User:Foffy the Sheep\|Foffy the Sheep]] ([[User talk:Foffy the Sheep\|talk]]) 16:22, 17 March 2016 (EDT)

Foffy the Sheep: /* Stopping the bickering now. */

2016-03-17T20:22:23Z

Stopping the bickering now.

← Older revision		Revision as of 20:22, 17 March 2016
Line 44:		Line 44:
	:Apparently indicating a section is still missing information is now controversial and requires a talk page intervention. [[User:Saix\|Saix]] ([[User talk:Saix\|talk]]) 16:03, 17 March 2016 (EDT)		:Apparently indicating a section is still missing information is now controversial and requires a talk page intervention. [[User:Saix\|Saix]] ([[User talk:Saix\|talk]]) 16:03, 17 March 2016 (EDT)
	:I '''disagree''' because of how generic the Wreckers' Marvel write-ups are otherwise. It's "Springer and 6-8 other guys" for over 100 issues, with none of them doing anything individual or note-worthy, so why not have some fun with one of them? We're not losing out on any information this way. I wrote this nine years ago, and it's been tagged as a Featured Article since then, so not everyone seems to think it's bad. If the majority agrees, though, I'll take responsibility for a re-write. --[[User:Xaaron\|Xaaron]] ([[User talk:Xaaron\|talk]]) 16:09, 17 March 2016 (EDT)		:I '''disagree''' because of how generic the Wreckers' Marvel write-ups are otherwise. It's "Springer and 6-8 other guys" for over 100 issues, with none of them doing anything individual or note-worthy, so why not have some fun with one of them? We're not losing out on any information this way. I wrote this nine years ago, and it's been tagged as a Featured Article since then, so not everyone seems to think it's bad. If the majority agrees, though, I'll take responsibility for a re-write. --[[User:Xaaron\|Xaaron]] ([[User talk:Xaaron\|talk]]) 16:09, 17 March 2016 (EDT)
			::I can see where you're coming from, Xaaron, but each character page should offer the same level as informativeness as all the others. I shouldn't have to flip over to some other Wrecker's page just to see a writeup of Time Wars that actually informs of me of what happened rather than filling the section with jackassery. If you can be funny ''and'' informative at the same time, then that's great, but this section only manages the former. If I have to choose one or the other, I'll go with informativeness over jokes every time. Yes to the rewrite. -[[User:Foffy the Sheep\|Foffy the Sheep]] ([[User talk:Foffy the Sheep\|talk]]) 16:22, 17 March 2016 (EDT)

Xaaron: /* Stopping the bickering now. */

2016-03-17T20:09:41Z

Stopping the bickering now.

← Older revision		Revision as of 20:09, 17 March 2016
Line 43:		Line 43:
	Alright, so the Marvel write-ups pretty Wiki-2006ish. I agree with Saix that it should be rewritten. All in favor? [[User:Escargon\|Escargon]] ([[User talk:Escargon\|talk]]) 16:00, 17 March 2016 (EDT)		Alright, so the Marvel write-ups pretty Wiki-2006ish. I agree with Saix that it should be rewritten. All in favor? [[User:Escargon\|Escargon]] ([[User talk:Escargon\|talk]]) 16:00, 17 March 2016 (EDT)
	:Apparently indicating a section is still missing information is now controversial and requires a talk page intervention. [[User:Saix\|Saix]] ([[User talk:Saix\|talk]]) 16:03, 17 March 2016 (EDT)		:Apparently indicating a section is still missing information is now controversial and requires a talk page intervention. [[User:Saix\|Saix]] ([[User talk:Saix\|talk]]) 16:03, 17 March 2016 (EDT)
			:I '''disagree''' because of how generic the Wreckers' Marvel write-ups are otherwise. It's "Springer and 6-8 other guys" for over 100 issues, with none of them doing anything individual or note-worthy, so why not have some fun with one of them? We're not losing out on any information this way. I wrote this nine years ago, and it's been tagged as a Featured Article since then, so not everyone seems to think it's bad. If the majority agrees, though, I'll take responsibility for a re-write. --[[User:Xaaron\|Xaaron]] ([[User talk:Xaaron\|talk]]) 16:09, 17 March 2016 (EDT)

Saix: /* Stopping the bickering now. */

2016-03-17T20:03:44Z

Stopping the bickering now.

← Older revision		Revision as of 20:03, 17 March 2016
Line 42:		Line 42:

	Alright, so the Marvel write-ups pretty Wiki-2006ish. I agree with Saix that it should be rewritten. All in favor? [[User:Escargon\|Escargon]] ([[User talk:Escargon\|talk]]) 16:00, 17 March 2016 (EDT)		Alright, so the Marvel write-ups pretty Wiki-2006ish. I agree with Saix that it should be rewritten. All in favor? [[User:Escargon\|Escargon]] ([[User talk:Escargon\|talk]]) 16:00, 17 March 2016 (EDT)
			:Apparently indicating a section is still missing information is now controversial and requires a talk page intervention. [[User:Saix\|Saix]] ([[User talk:Saix\|talk]]) 16:03, 17 March 2016 (EDT)

Escargon: /* Stopping the bickering now. */ new section

2016-03-17T20:00:25Z

Stopping the bickering now.: new section

← Older revision		Revision as of 20:00, 17 March 2016
Line 38:		Line 38:
	:<strike>Given that the parts that the two toys share match LSOTW Springer and not that Sandstorm art, I'm guessing Hasbro designed the Springer toy and then realised they could retool it into something close to that Sandstorm design. (That bit about reverse-engineering was Seibertron speculating, not info from Roche's tweet.) [[User:Jalaguy\|Jalaguy]] 16:08, 6 August 2013 (EDT) </strike>		:<strike>Given that the parts that the two toys share match LSOTW Springer and not that Sandstorm art, I'm guessing Hasbro designed the Springer toy and then realised they could retool it into something close to that Sandstorm design. (That bit about reverse-engineering was Seibertron speculating, not info from Roche's tweet.) [[User:Jalaguy\|Jalaguy]] 16:08, 6 August 2013 (EDT) </strike>
	:... says Jalaguy, without re-checking Twitter... >_< It sounds, then, like Roche designed Sandstorm and his transformation, and Hasbro used that to design a toy that would serve as both Springer and Sandstorm. It does still seem like they gave precedence to matching Springer's design, though. [[User:Jalaguy\|Jalaguy]] 16:57, 6 August 2013 (EDT)		:... says Jalaguy, without re-checking Twitter... >_< It sounds, then, like Roche designed Sandstorm and his transformation, and Hasbro used that to design a toy that would serve as both Springer and Sandstorm. It does still seem like they gave precedence to matching Springer's design, though. [[User:Jalaguy\|Jalaguy]] 16:57, 6 August 2013 (EDT)

			== Stopping the bickering now. ==

			Alright, so the Marvel write-ups pretty Wiki-2006ish. I agree with Saix that it should be rewritten. All in favor? [[User:Escargon\|Escargon]] ([[User talk:Escargon\|talk]]) 16:00, 17 March 2016 (EDT)

Jalaguy: /* Nick Roche design influence */

2013-08-06T20:57:01Z

Nick Roche design influence

← Older revision		Revision as of 20:57, 6 August 2013
Line 36:		Line 36:
	==Nick Roche design influence==		==Nick Roche design influence==
	Looks like Nick designed Sandstorm for Hasbro back in 2010, according to the twitter of the man himself. Also sounds like Kyde/Hasbro reverse engineered Springer from his designs, from the way he tells it. http://www.seibertron.com/transformers/news/hasbro-generations-idw-sandstorm-nick-roche-concept-art/28094/ Don't know where to put it in or how, but that belongs on both Sandstorm and Springer's pages. [[User:Antimatter\|Antimatter]] 13:32, 6 August 2013 (EDT)		Looks like Nick designed Sandstorm for Hasbro back in 2010, according to the twitter of the man himself. Also sounds like Kyde/Hasbro reverse engineered Springer from his designs, from the way he tells it. http://www.seibertron.com/transformers/news/hasbro-generations-idw-sandstorm-nick-roche-concept-art/28094/ Don't know where to put it in or how, but that belongs on both Sandstorm and Springer's pages. [[User:Antimatter\|Antimatter]] 13:32, 6 August 2013 (EDT)
	:Given that the parts that the two toys share match LSOTW Springer and not that Sandstorm art, I'm guessing Hasbro designed the Springer toy and then realised they could retool it into something close to that Sandstorm design. (That bit about reverse-engineering was Seibertron speculating, not info from Roche's tweet.) [[User:Jalaguy\|Jalaguy]] 16:08, 6 August 2013 (EDT)		:<strike>Given that the parts that the two toys share match LSOTW Springer and not that Sandstorm art, I'm guessing Hasbro designed the Springer toy and then realised they could retool it into something close to that Sandstorm design. (That bit about reverse-engineering was Seibertron speculating, not info from Roche's tweet.) [[User:Jalaguy\|Jalaguy]] 16:08, 6 August 2013 (EDT) </strike>
			:... says Jalaguy, without re-checking Twitter... >_< It sounds, then, like Roche designed Sandstorm and his transformation, and Hasbro used that to design a toy that would serve as both Springer and Sandstorm. It does still seem like they gave precedence to matching Springer's design, though. [[User:Jalaguy\|Jalaguy]] 16:57, 6 August 2013 (EDT)

Jalaguy: /* Nick Roche design influence */

2013-08-06T20:08:29Z

Nick Roche design influence

← Older revision		Revision as of 20:08, 6 August 2013
Line 36:		Line 36:
	==Nick Roche design influence==		==Nick Roche design influence==
	Looks like Nick designed Sandstorm for Hasbro back in 2010, according to the twitter of the man himself. Also sounds like Kyde/Hasbro reverse engineered Springer from his designs, from the way he tells it. http://www.seibertron.com/transformers/news/hasbro-generations-idw-sandstorm-nick-roche-concept-art/28094/ Don't know where to put it in or how, but that belongs on both Sandstorm and Springer's pages. [[User:Antimatter\|Antimatter]] 13:32, 6 August 2013 (EDT)		Looks like Nick designed Sandstorm for Hasbro back in 2010, according to the twitter of the man himself. Also sounds like Kyde/Hasbro reverse engineered Springer from his designs, from the way he tells it. http://www.seibertron.com/transformers/news/hasbro-generations-idw-sandstorm-nick-roche-concept-art/28094/ Don't know where to put it in or how, but that belongs on both Sandstorm and Springer's pages. [[User:Antimatter\|Antimatter]] 13:32, 6 August 2013 (EDT)
			:Given that the parts that the two toys share match LSOTW Springer and not that Sandstorm art, I'm guessing Hasbro designed the Springer toy and then realised they could retool it into something close to that Sandstorm design. (That bit about reverse-engineering was Seibertron speculating, not info from Roche's tweet.) [[User:Jalaguy\|Jalaguy]] 16:08, 6 August 2013 (EDT)

Antimatter at 17:32, 6 August 2013

2013-08-06T17:32:40Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:32, 6 August 2013
Line 33:		Line 33:
	== GDO Sandstorm ==		== GDO Sandstorm ==
	1. He's out. 2. The one I got has crappy facepaint. Anyone else have this problem, and, if so, should we make a note of it? --[[Special:Contributions/75.82.9.197\|75.82.9.197]] 19:16, 29 September 2012 (EDT)		1. He's out. 2. The one I got has crappy facepaint. Anyone else have this problem, and, if so, should we make a note of it? --[[Special:Contributions/75.82.9.197\|75.82.9.197]] 19:16, 29 September 2012 (EDT)

			==Nick Roche design influence==
			Looks like Nick designed Sandstorm for Hasbro back in 2010, according to the twitter of the man himself. Also sounds like Kyde/Hasbro reverse engineered Springer from his designs, from the way he tells it. http://www.seibertron.com/transformers/news/hasbro-generations-idw-sandstorm-nick-roche-concept-art/28094/ Don't know where to put it in or how, but that belongs on both Sandstorm and Springer's pages. [[User:Antimatter\|Antimatter]] 13:32, 6 August 2013 (EDT)

← Older revision		Revision as of 00:45, 18 March 2016
Line 46:		Line 46:
	::I can see where you're coming from, Xaaron, but each character page should offer the same level as informativeness as all the others. I shouldn't have to flip over to some other Wrecker's page just to see a writeup of the Marvel comics that actually informs of me of what happened rather than filling the section with jackassery. If you can be funny ''and'' informative at the same time, then that's great, but this section only manages the former. If I have to choose one or the other, I'll go with informativeness over jokes every time. Yes to the rewrite. -[[User:Foffy the Sheep\|Foffy the Sheep]] ([[User talk:Foffy the Sheep\|talk]]) 16:22, 17 March 2016 (EDT)		::I can see where you're coming from, Xaaron, but each character page should offer the same level as informativeness as all the others. I shouldn't have to flip over to some other Wrecker's page just to see a writeup of the Marvel comics that actually informs of me of what happened rather than filling the section with jackassery. If you can be funny ''and'' informative at the same time, then that's great, but this section only manages the former. If I have to choose one or the other, I'll go with informativeness over jokes every time. Yes to the rewrite. -[[User:Foffy the Sheep\|Foffy the Sheep]] ([[User talk:Foffy the Sheep\|talk]]) 16:22, 17 March 2016 (EDT)
	::The current write up gives us absolutely no context for anything. "beating up Autobot leader Optimus Prime"? Where? Why? How? Who? What? So, yes, we are losing out on information and jokes are almost never going to justify that. You can say that it's basically the same for multiple characters, but that's 75% of character appearances and we still give them their full write-up with needed context. [[User:Saix\|Saix]] ([[User talk:Saix\|talk]]) 16:27, 17 March 2016 (EDT)		::The current write up gives us absolutely no context for anything. "beating up Autobot leader Optimus Prime"? Where? Why? How? Who? What? So, yes, we are losing out on information and jokes are almost never going to justify that. You can say that it's basically the same for multiple characters, but that's 75% of character appearances and we still give them their full write-up with needed context. [[User:Saix\|Saix]] ([[User talk:Saix\|talk]]) 16:27, 17 March 2016 (EDT)
			:::I think it was a bit extreme to call the write-up "garbage," as it's not badly written. But I do agree it could use some expanding. --[[User:Ascendron\|Ascendron]] ([[User talk:Ascendron\|talk]]) 20:45, 17 March 2016 (EDT)

← Older revision		Revision as of 20:27, 17 March 2016
Line 45:		Line 45:
	:I '''disagree''' because of how generic the Wreckers' Marvel write-ups are otherwise. It's "Springer and 6-8 other guys" for over 100 issues, with none of them doing anything individual or note-worthy, so why not have some fun with one of them? We're not losing out on any information this way. I wrote this nine years ago, and it's been tagged as a Featured Article since then, so not everyone seems to think it's bad. If the majority agrees, though, I'll take responsibility for a re-write. --[[User:Xaaron\|Xaaron]] ([[User talk:Xaaron\|talk]]) 16:09, 17 March 2016 (EDT)		:I '''disagree''' because of how generic the Wreckers' Marvel write-ups are otherwise. It's "Springer and 6-8 other guys" for over 100 issues, with none of them doing anything individual or note-worthy, so why not have some fun with one of them? We're not losing out on any information this way. I wrote this nine years ago, and it's been tagged as a Featured Article since then, so not everyone seems to think it's bad. If the majority agrees, though, I'll take responsibility for a re-write. --[[User:Xaaron\|Xaaron]] ([[User talk:Xaaron\|talk]]) 16:09, 17 March 2016 (EDT)
	::I can see where you're coming from, Xaaron, but each character page should offer the same level as informativeness as all the others. I shouldn't have to flip over to some other Wrecker's page just to see a writeup of the Marvel comics that actually informs of me of what happened rather than filling the section with jackassery. If you can be funny ''and'' informative at the same time, then that's great, but this section only manages the former. If I have to choose one or the other, I'll go with informativeness over jokes every time. Yes to the rewrite. -[[User:Foffy the Sheep\|Foffy the Sheep]] ([[User talk:Foffy the Sheep\|talk]]) 16:22, 17 March 2016 (EDT)		::I can see where you're coming from, Xaaron, but each character page should offer the same level as informativeness as all the others. I shouldn't have to flip over to some other Wrecker's page just to see a writeup of the Marvel comics that actually informs of me of what happened rather than filling the section with jackassery. If you can be funny ''and'' informative at the same time, then that's great, but this section only manages the former. If I have to choose one or the other, I'll go with informativeness over jokes every time. Yes to the rewrite. -[[User:Foffy the Sheep\|Foffy the Sheep]] ([[User talk:Foffy the Sheep\|talk]]) 16:22, 17 March 2016 (EDT)
			::The current write up gives us absolutely no context for anything. "beating up Autobot leader Optimus Prime"? Where? Why? How? Who? What? So, yes, we are losing out on information and jokes are almost never going to justify that. You can say that it's basically the same for multiple characters, but that's 75% of character appearances and we still give them their full write-up with needed context. [[User:Saix\|Saix]] ([[User talk:Saix\|talk]]) 16:27, 17 March 2016 (EDT)

← Older revision		Revision as of 20:25, 17 March 2016
Line 44:		Line 44:
	:Apparently indicating a section is still missing information is now controversial and requires a talk page intervention. [[User:Saix\|Saix]] ([[User talk:Saix\|talk]]) 16:03, 17 March 2016 (EDT)		:Apparently indicating a section is still missing information is now controversial and requires a talk page intervention. [[User:Saix\|Saix]] ([[User talk:Saix\|talk]]) 16:03, 17 March 2016 (EDT)
	:I '''disagree''' because of how generic the Wreckers' Marvel write-ups are otherwise. It's "Springer and 6-8 other guys" for over 100 issues, with none of them doing anything individual or note-worthy, so why not have some fun with one of them? We're not losing out on any information this way. I wrote this nine years ago, and it's been tagged as a Featured Article since then, so not everyone seems to think it's bad. If the majority agrees, though, I'll take responsibility for a re-write. --[[User:Xaaron\|Xaaron]] ([[User talk:Xaaron\|talk]]) 16:09, 17 March 2016 (EDT)		:I '''disagree''' because of how generic the Wreckers' Marvel write-ups are otherwise. It's "Springer and 6-8 other guys" for over 100 issues, with none of them doing anything individual or note-worthy, so why not have some fun with one of them? We're not losing out on any information this way. I wrote this nine years ago, and it's been tagged as a Featured Article since then, so not everyone seems to think it's bad. If the majority agrees, though, I'll take responsibility for a re-write. --[[User:Xaaron\|Xaaron]] ([[User talk:Xaaron\|talk]]) 16:09, 17 March 2016 (EDT)
	::I can see where you're coming from, Xaaron, but each character page should offer the same level as informativeness as all the others. I shouldn't have to flip over to some other Wrecker's page just to see a writeup of ~~Time Wars~~ that actually informs of me of what happened rather than filling the section with jackassery. If you can be funny ''and'' informative at the same time, then that's great, but this section only manages the former. If I have to choose one or the other, I'll go with informativeness over jokes every time. Yes to the rewrite. -[[User:Foffy the Sheep\|Foffy the Sheep]] ([[User talk:Foffy the Sheep\|talk]]) 16:22, 17 March 2016 (EDT)		::I can see where you're coming from, Xaaron, but each character page should offer the same level as informativeness as all the others. I shouldn't have to flip over to some other Wrecker's page just to see a writeup of the Marvel comics that actually informs of me of what happened rather than filling the section with jackassery. If you can be funny ''and'' informative at the same time, then that's great, but this section only manages the former. If I have to choose one or the other, I'll go with informativeness over jokes every time. Yes to the rewrite. -[[User:Foffy the Sheep\|Foffy the Sheep]] ([[User talk:Foffy the Sheep\|talk]]) 16:22, 17 March 2016 (EDT)

← Older revision		Revision as of 20:22, 17 March 2016
Line 44:		Line 44:
	:Apparently indicating a section is still missing information is now controversial and requires a talk page intervention. [[User:Saix\|Saix]] ([[User talk:Saix\|talk]]) 16:03, 17 March 2016 (EDT)		:Apparently indicating a section is still missing information is now controversial and requires a talk page intervention. [[User:Saix\|Saix]] ([[User talk:Saix\|talk]]) 16:03, 17 March 2016 (EDT)
	:I '''disagree''' because of how generic the Wreckers' Marvel write-ups are otherwise. It's "Springer and 6-8 other guys" for over 100 issues, with none of them doing anything individual or note-worthy, so why not have some fun with one of them? We're not losing out on any information this way. I wrote this nine years ago, and it's been tagged as a Featured Article since then, so not everyone seems to think it's bad. If the majority agrees, though, I'll take responsibility for a re-write. --[[User:Xaaron\|Xaaron]] ([[User talk:Xaaron\|talk]]) 16:09, 17 March 2016 (EDT)		:I '''disagree''' because of how generic the Wreckers' Marvel write-ups are otherwise. It's "Springer and 6-8 other guys" for over 100 issues, with none of them doing anything individual or note-worthy, so why not have some fun with one of them? We're not losing out on any information this way. I wrote this nine years ago, and it's been tagged as a Featured Article since then, so not everyone seems to think it's bad. If the majority agrees, though, I'll take responsibility for a re-write. --[[User:Xaaron\|Xaaron]] ([[User talk:Xaaron\|talk]]) 16:09, 17 March 2016 (EDT)
			::I can see where you're coming from, Xaaron, but each character page should offer the same level as informativeness as all the others. I shouldn't have to flip over to some other Wrecker's page just to see a writeup of Time Wars that actually informs of me of what happened rather than filling the section with jackassery. If you can be funny ''and'' informative at the same time, then that's great, but this section only manages the former. If I have to choose one or the other, I'll go with informativeness over jokes every time. Yes to the rewrite. -[[User:Foffy the Sheep\|Foffy the Sheep]] ([[User talk:Foffy the Sheep\|talk]]) 16:22, 17 March 2016 (EDT)

← Older revision		Revision as of 20:09, 17 March 2016
Line 43:		Line 43:
	Alright, so the Marvel write-ups pretty Wiki-2006ish. I agree with Saix that it should be rewritten. All in favor? [[User:Escargon\|Escargon]] ([[User talk:Escargon\|talk]]) 16:00, 17 March 2016 (EDT)		Alright, so the Marvel write-ups pretty Wiki-2006ish. I agree with Saix that it should be rewritten. All in favor? [[User:Escargon\|Escargon]] ([[User talk:Escargon\|talk]]) 16:00, 17 March 2016 (EDT)
	:Apparently indicating a section is still missing information is now controversial and requires a talk page intervention. [[User:Saix\|Saix]] ([[User talk:Saix\|talk]]) 16:03, 17 March 2016 (EDT)		:Apparently indicating a section is still missing information is now controversial and requires a talk page intervention. [[User:Saix\|Saix]] ([[User talk:Saix\|talk]]) 16:03, 17 March 2016 (EDT)
			:I '''disagree''' because of how generic the Wreckers' Marvel write-ups are otherwise. It's "Springer and 6-8 other guys" for over 100 issues, with none of them doing anything individual or note-worthy, so why not have some fun with one of them? We're not losing out on any information this way. I wrote this nine years ago, and it's been tagged as a Featured Article since then, so not everyone seems to think it's bad. If the majority agrees, though, I'll take responsibility for a re-write. --[[User:Xaaron\|Xaaron]] ([[User talk:Xaaron\|talk]]) 16:09, 17 March 2016 (EDT)