Template talk:Apocrypha - Revision history

Abates at 09:23, 15 April 2018

2018-04-15T09:23:02Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 09:23, 15 April 2018
Line 20:		Line 20:
	:::::The idea of "declared itself non-canon" is totally irrelevant. We have never ever followed such a standard here before, and rightfully so. If Hasbro made a TF toy on which the painted deco read "This is not a Transformer," would we leave it off the wiki, or give it some stupid "disclaimer" at the top? Of course not, we'd just make a note of the ironic joke and treat it no differently from all the rest of the line. I object in the strongest possible terms to placing such incredibly undue weight on the matter of author intent that for the first and only time ''ever'', standard TF characters and fiction that went through the same standard publication process as everything else ever would be somehow treated as different, all because of some paradoxical and ill-informed blather from a guy who is contradicting essential and foundational elements of the TF mythos. We KNOW how the TF [[multiverse]] works. We know that the whole underpinning of the multiverse is that it's all canon, it's all "real" somewhere. [[Geosensus]] is a "real" Transformers character, just like [[Starscream (G1)\|Starscream]] is and [[Trannis]] is and just like Geniuz and TerrorClaw are not. The proper recognition of all official product as having equally crossed the threshold of validity--regardless of what agrees with what else--has been one of the guiding principles of this wiki for over 5 years, basically since any of us started contributing to it and making it worth a damn. In every other instance where a creative type has gotten stuff wrong, we point it out and go on our way. The idea that an author can say "this licensed story actually isn't licensed, that officially published character isn't official," or whatever, is simply a mistake and I can't even begin to fathom any reason why we should defer to it.		:::::The idea of "declared itself non-canon" is totally irrelevant. We have never ever followed such a standard here before, and rightfully so. If Hasbro made a TF toy on which the painted deco read "This is not a Transformer," would we leave it off the wiki, or give it some stupid "disclaimer" at the top? Of course not, we'd just make a note of the ironic joke and treat it no differently from all the rest of the line. I object in the strongest possible terms to placing such incredibly undue weight on the matter of author intent that for the first and only time ''ever'', standard TF characters and fiction that went through the same standard publication process as everything else ever would be somehow treated as different, all because of some paradoxical and ill-informed blather from a guy who is contradicting essential and foundational elements of the TF mythos. We KNOW how the TF [[multiverse]] works. We know that the whole underpinning of the multiverse is that it's all canon, it's all "real" somewhere. [[Geosensus]] is a "real" Transformers character, just like [[Starscream (G1)\|Starscream]] is and [[Trannis]] is and just like Geniuz and TerrorClaw are not. The proper recognition of all official product as having equally crossed the threshold of validity--regardless of what agrees with what else--has been one of the guiding principles of this wiki for over 5 years, basically since any of us started contributing to it and making it worth a damn. In every other instance where a creative type has gotten stuff wrong, we point it out and go on our way. The idea that an author can say "this licensed story actually isn't licensed, that officially published character isn't official," or whatever, is simply a mistake and I can't even begin to fathom any reason why we should defer to it.
	:::::I would also point out that the TF:Legends page has been bent over backwards to stay relatively "neutral" on this affair but finishes up with the notion that we ignore the concept that any official-published work "doesn't count," and instead we (rightly, sanely) treat it the same as all the rest of the horde. And that has been our stated policy on the matter in the pertinent article ''for at least 3 years''. Why dredge this up all over again after so long?		:::::I would also point out that the TF:Legends page has been bent over backwards to stay relatively "neutral" on this affair but finishes up with the notion that we ignore the concept that any official-published work "doesn't count," and instead we (rightly, sanely) treat it the same as all the rest of the horde. And that has been our stated policy on the matter in the pertinent article ''for at least 3 years''. Why dredge this up all over again after so long?
	:::::Besides, even if for some reason we were in such thrall to author intent, it wouldn't matter. The book does not clearly or sensibly declare any such thing. The [[David Cian\|editor]] says its stories were meant not to be taken as real facts that actually happened. The cover copy writer on the same book contradicts that, saying its stories were put together with no hard-and-fast rules at all. So which author intent do you follow? Shall we put TWO stupid and unnecessary disclaimers on the book now? And you can sure as heck bet that professional TF writers like [[Simon Furman]] and [[Bob Skir]] meant for their stories to be "real", especially Skir, who edited Beast Machines and made his Legends story fit perfectly within it. There is already longstanding precedent on this wiki to validate Skir's [[Singularity Ablyss\|Legends story]], as we (correctly) adopt his name for Megatron's giant head, the [[Grand Mal]]. We don't do it because Bob Skir is particularly awesome (even though he is) or because we love the name or because of the phase of the moon or whatever, or because we hadn't read Cian's gobbeldygook before that article got posted, or because a shadow fell across all our copies of the book and we never noticed Cian's words. We do it because the name was published under the official stamp and thus is as much a Transformers "fact" as the name of [[Nightstalker\|Ravage's brother]], period, fullstop. --[[User:Thylacine 2000\|Thylacine 2000]] 21:46, 21 June 2010 (EDT)		:::::Besides, even if for some reason we were in such thrall to author intent, it wouldn't matter. The book does not clearly or sensibly declare any such thing. The [[David Cian\|editor]] says its stories were meant not to be taken as real facts that actually happened. The cover copy writer on the same book contradicts that, saying its stories were put together with no hard-and-fast rules at all. So which author intent do you follow? Shall we put TWO stupid and unnecessary disclaimers on the book now? And you can sure as heck bet that professional TF writers like [[Simon Furman]] and [[Bob Skir]] meant for their stories to be "real", especially Skir, who edited Beast Machines and made his Legends story fit perfectly within it. There is already longstanding precedent on this wiki to validate Skir's [[Singularity Ablyss\|Legends story]], as we (correctly) adopt his name for Megatron's giant head, the [[Grand Mal]]. We don't do it because Bob Skir is particularly awesome (even though he is) or because we love the name or because of the phase of the moon or whatever, or because we hadn't read Cian's gobbeldygook before that article got posted, or because a shadow fell across all our copies of the book and we never noticed Cian's words. We do it because the name was published under the official stamp and thus is as much a Transformers "fact" as the name of [[Nightstalker (G1)\|Ravage's brother]], period, fullstop. --[[User:Thylacine 2000\|Thylacine 2000]] 21:46, 21 June 2010 (EDT)
	:Too many "vast"s. I know what you are trying to say, though. How about "As a rule, unofficial work is considered to be non-germane to this wiki, but occasionally an unofficial..." - [[User:Starfield\|Starfield]] 14:04, 21 June 2010 (EDT)		:Too many "vast"s. I know what you are trying to say, though. How about "As a rule, unofficial work is considered to be non-germane to this wiki, but occasionally an unofficial..." - [[User:Starfield\|Starfield]] 14:04, 21 June 2010 (EDT)

Abates: /* Draft 1 Discussion */

2013-07-20T11:18:07Z

Draft 1 Discussion

← Older revision		Revision as of 11:18, 20 July 2013
Line 17:		Line 17:
	::It would be totally inappropriate to suggest Legends or its characters like Paddles are as "apocryphal" as a fanfic story like Alignment. Legends had all the same Hasbro trademarks and official publication process as any ROTF storybook. The idea that it somehow "doesn't count" is just Cian's paradoxical "Sideswipe-died-in-TFTM" Johnny Come Lately bullshit and should be ignored. --[[User:Thylacine 2000\|Thylacine 2000]] 14:16, 21 June 2010 (EDT)		::It would be totally inappropriate to suggest Legends or its characters like Paddles are as "apocryphal" as a fanfic story like Alignment. Legends had all the same Hasbro trademarks and official publication process as any ROTF storybook. The idea that it somehow "doesn't count" is just Cian's paradoxical "Sideswipe-died-in-TFTM" Johnny Come Lately bullshit and should be ignored. --[[User:Thylacine 2000\|Thylacine 2000]] 14:16, 21 June 2010 (EDT)
	:::I was just about to say the opposite. As written, this template only addresses unofficial-but-relevant sources. But I think it could do double duty and also cover official stuff that declares itself non-canon, such as "Legends" and the published Mosaics. - [[User:Jackpot\|Jackpot]] 18:56, 21 June 2010 (EDT)		:::I was just about to say the opposite. As written, this template only addresses unofficial-but-relevant sources. But I think it could do double duty and also cover official stuff that declares itself non-canon, such as "Legends" and the published Mosaics. - [[User:Jackpot\|Jackpot]] 18:56, 21 June 2010 (EDT)
	::::Does Legends really declare itself to be non-canon? I don't have the book, but there is a quote on the [[Transformers Legends]] page that says, "...none of the stories in this volume are part of continuity...". It sounds like it is establishing the stories as not part of existing continuity, as if to say, "treat these as micro-continuities". I think that is what he was trying to get across anyway. - [[User:Starfield\|Starfield]] 20:53, 21 June 2010 (EDT)		::::Does Legends really declare itself to be non-canon? I don't have the book, but there is a quote on the [[Transformers Legends (book)\|Transformers Legends]] page that says, "...none of the stories in this volume are part of continuity...". It sounds like it is establishing the stories as not part of existing continuity, as if to say, "treat these as micro-continuities". I think that is what he was trying to get across anyway. - [[User:Starfield\|Starfield]] 20:53, 21 June 2010 (EDT)
	:::::The idea of "declared itself non-canon" is totally irrelevant. We have never ever followed such a standard here before, and rightfully so. If Hasbro made a TF toy on which the painted deco read "This is not a Transformer," would we leave it off the wiki, or give it some stupid "disclaimer" at the top? Of course not, we'd just make a note of the ironic joke and treat it no differently from all the rest of the line. I object in the strongest possible terms to placing such incredibly undue weight on the matter of author intent that for the first and only time ''ever'', standard TF characters and fiction that went through the same standard publication process as everything else ever would be somehow treated as different, all because of some paradoxical and ill-informed blather from a guy who is contradicting essential and foundational elements of the TF mythos. We KNOW how the TF [[multiverse]] works. We know that the whole underpinning of the multiverse is that it's all canon, it's all "real" somewhere. [[Geosensus]] is a "real" Transformers character, just like [[Starscream (G1)\|Starscream]] is and [[Trannis]] is and just like Geniuz and TerrorClaw are not. The proper recognition of all official product as having equally crossed the threshold of validity--regardless of what agrees with what else--has been one of the guiding principles of this wiki for over 5 years, basically since any of us started contributing to it and making it worth a damn. In every other instance where a creative type has gotten stuff wrong, we point it out and go on our way. The idea that an author can say "this licensed story actually isn't licensed, that officially published character isn't official," or whatever, is simply a mistake and I can't even begin to fathom any reason why we should defer to it.		:::::The idea of "declared itself non-canon" is totally irrelevant. We have never ever followed such a standard here before, and rightfully so. If Hasbro made a TF toy on which the painted deco read "This is not a Transformer," would we leave it off the wiki, or give it some stupid "disclaimer" at the top? Of course not, we'd just make a note of the ironic joke and treat it no differently from all the rest of the line. I object in the strongest possible terms to placing such incredibly undue weight on the matter of author intent that for the first and only time ''ever'', standard TF characters and fiction that went through the same standard publication process as everything else ever would be somehow treated as different, all because of some paradoxical and ill-informed blather from a guy who is contradicting essential and foundational elements of the TF mythos. We KNOW how the TF [[multiverse]] works. We know that the whole underpinning of the multiverse is that it's all canon, it's all "real" somewhere. [[Geosensus]] is a "real" Transformers character, just like [[Starscream (G1)\|Starscream]] is and [[Trannis]] is and just like Geniuz and TerrorClaw are not. The proper recognition of all official product as having equally crossed the threshold of validity--regardless of what agrees with what else--has been one of the guiding principles of this wiki for over 5 years, basically since any of us started contributing to it and making it worth a damn. In every other instance where a creative type has gotten stuff wrong, we point it out and go on our way. The idea that an author can say "this licensed story actually isn't licensed, that officially published character isn't official," or whatever, is simply a mistake and I can't even begin to fathom any reason why we should defer to it.
	:::::I would also point out that the TF:Legends page has been bent over backwards to stay relatively "neutral" on this affair but finishes up with the notion that we ignore the concept that any official-published work "doesn't count," and instead we (rightly, sanely) treat it the same as all the rest of the horde. And that has been our stated policy on the matter in the pertinent article ''for at least 3 years''. Why dredge this up all over again after so long?		:::::I would also point out that the TF:Legends page has been bent over backwards to stay relatively "neutral" on this affair but finishes up with the notion that we ignore the concept that any official-published work "doesn't count," and instead we (rightly, sanely) treat it the same as all the rest of the horde. And that has been our stated policy on the matter in the pertinent article ''for at least 3 years''. Why dredge this up all over again after so long?

Khajidha: /* Mixing terms "apocrypha" and "pseudocanon" */

2010-08-09T03:32:16Z

Mixing terms "apocrypha" and "pseudocanon"

← Older revision		Revision as of 03:32, 9 August 2010
Line 54:		Line 54:

	It may not be a big deal, but maybe we should stick to one term. The first and second sentences in particular switch terms. Since we have a "pseudocanon" article, I propose we use that term throughout the template text. - [[User:Starfield\|Starfield]] 21:17, 8 August 2010 (EDT)		It may not be a big deal, but maybe we should stick to one term. The first and second sentences in particular switch terms. Since we have a "pseudocanon" article, I propose we use that term throughout the template text. - [[User:Starfield\|Starfield]] 21:17, 8 August 2010 (EDT)
			:To be truly consistent we'd have to switch this to "template pseudocanon". Perhaps just noting that the two terms are synonymous in the first sentence would be enough. --[[User:Khajidha\|Khajidha]] 23:32, 8 August 2010 (EDT)

Starfield: /* Mixing terms "apocrypha" and "pseudocanon" */ new section

2010-08-09T01:17:05Z

Mixing terms "apocrypha" and "pseudocanon": new section

← Older revision		Revision as of 01:17, 9 August 2010
Line 50:		Line 50:
	Any thoughts as to an image for this template? It'd class it up a bit.--[[User:Jimsorenson\|Jimsorenson]] 12:56, 14 July 2010 (EDT)		Any thoughts as to an image for this template? It'd class it up a bit.--[[User:Jimsorenson\|Jimsorenson]] 12:56, 14 July 2010 (EDT)
	:I dunno if it needs one. I mean, it fits so nicely to the left of the fiction infobox/image (see "[[Dead Men's Boots]]"). We talking something tiny? Maybe hunter from "Hail & Farewell"? --[[User:M Sipher\|M Sipher]] 13:22, 14 July 2010 (EDT)		:I dunno if it needs one. I mean, it fits so nicely to the left of the fiction infobox/image (see "[[Dead Men's Boots]]"). We talking something tiny? Maybe hunter from "Hail & Farewell"? --[[User:M Sipher\|M Sipher]] 13:22, 14 July 2010 (EDT)

			== Mixing terms "apocrypha" and "pseudocanon" ==

			It may not be a big deal, but maybe we should stick to one term. The first and second sentences in particular switch terms. Since we have a "pseudocanon" article, I propose we use that term throughout the template text. - [[User:Starfield\|Starfield]] 21:17, 8 August 2010 (EDT)

M Sipher: /* Image */

2010-07-14T17:22:04Z

Image

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:22, 14 July 2010
Line 49:		Line 49:
	==Image==		==Image==
	Any thoughts as to an image for this template? It'd class it up a bit.--[[User:Jimsorenson\|Jimsorenson]] 12:56, 14 July 2010 (EDT)		Any thoughts as to an image for this template? It'd class it up a bit.--[[User:Jimsorenson\|Jimsorenson]] 12:56, 14 July 2010 (EDT)
			:I dunno if it needs one. I mean, it fits so nicely to the left of the fiction infobox/image (see "[[Dead Men's Boots]]"). We talking something tiny? Maybe hunter from "Hail & Farewell"? --[[User:M Sipher\|M Sipher]] 13:22, 14 July 2010 (EDT)

Jimsorenson: /* Apocrypha category? */

2010-07-14T16:57:47Z

Apocrypha category?

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:57, 14 July 2010
Line 45:		Line 45:
	:I think that's a great idea. Unfortunately, my wikia mojo is stretched to the limit already. Someone else will have to add that feature.--[[User:Jimsorenson\|Jimsorenson]] 12:29, 14 July 2010 (EDT)		:I think that's a great idea. Unfortunately, my wikia mojo is stretched to the limit already. Someone else will have to add that feature.--[[User:Jimsorenson\|Jimsorenson]] 12:29, 14 July 2010 (EDT)
	::If you think any further support from peons will help get it done, you have my vote in favor.--[[User:Khajidha\|Khajidha]] 12:30, 14 July 2010 (EDT)		::If you think any further support from peons will help get it done, you have my vote in favor.--[[User:Khajidha\|Khajidha]] 12:30, 14 July 2010 (EDT)
	:::Actually, figured it out. Templates are tricky, but not not impossible.		:::Actually, figured it out. Templates are tricky, but not not impossible.--[[User:Jimsorenson\|Jimsorenson]] 12:57, 14 July 2010 (EDT)

	==Image==		==Image==
	Any thoughts as to an image for this template? It'd class it up a bit.--[[User:Jimsorenson\|Jimsorenson]] 12:56, 14 July 2010 (EDT)		Any thoughts as to an image for this template? It'd class it up a bit.--[[User:Jimsorenson\|Jimsorenson]] 12:56, 14 July 2010 (EDT)

Jimsorenson: /* Apocrypha category? */

2010-07-14T16:56:22Z

Apocrypha category?

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:56, 14 July 2010
Line 45:		Line 45:
	:I think that's a great idea. Unfortunately, my wikia mojo is stretched to the limit already. Someone else will have to add that feature.--[[User:Jimsorenson\|Jimsorenson]] 12:29, 14 July 2010 (EDT)		:I think that's a great idea. Unfortunately, my wikia mojo is stretched to the limit already. Someone else will have to add that feature.--[[User:Jimsorenson\|Jimsorenson]] 12:29, 14 July 2010 (EDT)
	::If you think any further support from peons will help get it done, you have my vote in favor.--[[User:Khajidha\|Khajidha]] 12:30, 14 July 2010 (EDT)		::If you think any further support from peons will help get it done, you have my vote in favor.--[[User:Khajidha\|Khajidha]] 12:30, 14 July 2010 (EDT)
			:::Actually, figured it out. Templates are tricky, but not not impossible.

			==Image==
			Any thoughts as to an image for this template? It'd class it up a bit.--[[User:Jimsorenson\|Jimsorenson]] 12:56, 14 July 2010 (EDT)

Khajidha: /* Apocrypha category? */

2010-07-14T16:30:38Z

Apocrypha category?

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:30, 14 July 2010
Line 44:		Line 44:
	Should this template add the article to a Category marked "Apocrypha"? We seem to have enough, or at least BIG ENOUGH items, to warrant it, I think. It'd be good to be able to get to all those "not really official" items all in one place. --[[User:M Sipher\|M Sipher]] 12:27, 14 July 2010 (EDT)		Should this template add the article to a Category marked "Apocrypha"? We seem to have enough, or at least BIG ENOUGH items, to warrant it, I think. It'd be good to be able to get to all those "not really official" items all in one place. --[[User:M Sipher\|M Sipher]] 12:27, 14 July 2010 (EDT)
	:I think that's a great idea. Unfortunately, my wikia mojo is stretched to the limit already. Someone else will have to add that feature.--[[User:Jimsorenson\|Jimsorenson]] 12:29, 14 July 2010 (EDT)		:I think that's a great idea. Unfortunately, my wikia mojo is stretched to the limit already. Someone else will have to add that feature.--[[User:Jimsorenson\|Jimsorenson]] 12:29, 14 July 2010 (EDT)
			::If you think any further support from peons will help get it done, you have my vote in favor.--[[User:Khajidha\|Khajidha]] 12:30, 14 July 2010 (EDT)

Jimsorenson: /* Apocrypha category? */

2010-07-14T16:29:11Z

Apocrypha category?

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:29, 14 July 2010
Line 43:		Line 43:
	==Apocrypha category?==		==Apocrypha category?==
	Should this template add the article to a Category marked "Apocrypha"? We seem to have enough, or at least BIG ENOUGH items, to warrant it, I think. It'd be good to be able to get to all those "not really official" items all in one place. --[[User:M Sipher\|M Sipher]] 12:27, 14 July 2010 (EDT)		Should this template add the article to a Category marked "Apocrypha"? We seem to have enough, or at least BIG ENOUGH items, to warrant it, I think. It'd be good to be able to get to all those "not really official" items all in one place. --[[User:M Sipher\|M Sipher]] 12:27, 14 July 2010 (EDT)
			:I think that's a great idea. Unfortunately, my wikia mojo is stretched to the limit already. Someone else will have to add that feature.--[[User:Jimsorenson\|Jimsorenson]] 12:29, 14 July 2010 (EDT)

M Sipher: /* Apocrypha category? */ New section

2010-07-14T16:27:50Z

Apocrypha category?: New section

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:27, 14 July 2010
Line 40:		Line 40:
	::I don't think the TOC entry is necessary, actually. It seems that people like this template. Unless anyone strongly objects, I'm going to slap this puppy on Alignment, Hail & Farewell, and Dead Men's Boots. There seems to be debate about whether it should apply to Legends or not, so I'm not going to add it there until/unless there is some kind of consensus. (I have no strong feelings one way or the other, but am leaning towards NOT applying it.)--[[User:Jimsorenson\|Jimsorenson]] 23:02, 28 June 2010 (EDT)		::I don't think the TOC entry is necessary, actually. It seems that people like this template. Unless anyone strongly objects, I'm going to slap this puppy on Alignment, Hail & Farewell, and Dead Men's Boots. There seems to be debate about whether it should apply to Legends or not, so I'm not going to add it there until/unless there is some kind of consensus. (I have no strong feelings one way or the other, but am leaning towards NOT applying it.)--[[User:Jimsorenson\|Jimsorenson]] 23:02, 28 June 2010 (EDT)
	:::Yeah, I think we should just change the H2 to a plain bolded thingy, to keep the wiki software from sticking the TOC in weird spots. (The Bee at Pax page just looks ridiculously formatted at the moment as a result.) Otherwise, I like it. --[[User:Jeysie\|Jeysie]] 23:05, 28 June 2010 (EDT)		:::Yeah, I think we should just change the H2 to a plain bolded thingy, to keep the wiki software from sticking the TOC in weird spots. (The Bee at Pax page just looks ridiculously formatted at the moment as a result.) Otherwise, I like it. --[[User:Jeysie\|Jeysie]] 23:05, 28 June 2010 (EDT)

			==Apocrypha category?==
			Should this template add the article to a Category marked "Apocrypha"? We seem to have enough, or at least BIG ENOUGH items, to warrant it, I think. It'd be good to be able to get to all those "not really official" items all in one place. --[[User:M Sipher\|M Sipher]] 12:27, 14 July 2010 (EDT)

← Older revision		Revision as of 11:18, 20 July 2013
Line 17:		Line 17:
	::It would be totally inappropriate to suggest Legends or its characters like Paddles are as "apocryphal" as a fanfic story like Alignment. Legends had all the same Hasbro trademarks and official publication process as any ROTF storybook. The idea that it somehow "doesn't count" is just Cian's paradoxical "Sideswipe-died-in-TFTM" Johnny Come Lately bullshit and should be ignored. --[[User:Thylacine 2000\|Thylacine 2000]] 14:16, 21 June 2010 (EDT)		::It would be totally inappropriate to suggest Legends or its characters like Paddles are as "apocryphal" as a fanfic story like Alignment. Legends had all the same Hasbro trademarks and official publication process as any ROTF storybook. The idea that it somehow "doesn't count" is just Cian's paradoxical "Sideswipe-died-in-TFTM" Johnny Come Lately bullshit and should be ignored. --[[User:Thylacine 2000\|Thylacine 2000]] 14:16, 21 June 2010 (EDT)
	:::I was just about to say the opposite. As written, this template only addresses unofficial-but-relevant sources. But I think it could do double duty and also cover official stuff that declares itself non-canon, such as "Legends" and the published Mosaics. - [[User:Jackpot\|Jackpot]] 18:56, 21 June 2010 (EDT)		:::I was just about to say the opposite. As written, this template only addresses unofficial-but-relevant sources. But I think it could do double duty and also cover official stuff that declares itself non-canon, such as "Legends" and the published Mosaics. - [[User:Jackpot\|Jackpot]] 18:56, 21 June 2010 (EDT)
	::::Does Legends really declare itself to be non-canon? I don't have the book, but there is a quote on the [[Transformers Legends]] page that says, "...none of the stories in this volume are part of continuity...". It sounds like it is establishing the stories as not part of existing continuity, as if to say, "treat these as micro-continuities". I think that is what he was trying to get across anyway. - [[User:Starfield\|Starfield]] 20:53, 21 June 2010 (EDT)		::::Does Legends really declare itself to be non-canon? I don't have the book, but there is a quote on the [[Transformers Legends (book)\|Transformers Legends]] page that says, "...none of the stories in this volume are part of continuity...". It sounds like it is establishing the stories as not part of existing continuity, as if to say, "treat these as micro-continuities". I think that is what he was trying to get across anyway. - [[User:Starfield\|Starfield]] 20:53, 21 June 2010 (EDT)
	:::::The idea of "declared itself non-canon" is totally irrelevant. We have never ever followed such a standard here before, and rightfully so. If Hasbro made a TF toy on which the painted deco read "This is not a Transformer," would we leave it off the wiki, or give it some stupid "disclaimer" at the top? Of course not, we'd just make a note of the ironic joke and treat it no differently from all the rest of the line. I object in the strongest possible terms to placing such incredibly undue weight on the matter of author intent that for the first and only time ''ever'', standard TF characters and fiction that went through the same standard publication process as everything else ever would be somehow treated as different, all because of some paradoxical and ill-informed blather from a guy who is contradicting essential and foundational elements of the TF mythos. We KNOW how the TF [[multiverse]] works. We know that the whole underpinning of the multiverse is that it's all canon, it's all "real" somewhere. [[Geosensus]] is a "real" Transformers character, just like [[Starscream (G1)\|Starscream]] is and [[Trannis]] is and just like Geniuz and TerrorClaw are not. The proper recognition of all official product as having equally crossed the threshold of validity--regardless of what agrees with what else--has been one of the guiding principles of this wiki for over 5 years, basically since any of us started contributing to it and making it worth a damn. In every other instance where a creative type has gotten stuff wrong, we point it out and go on our way. The idea that an author can say "this licensed story actually isn't licensed, that officially published character isn't official," or whatever, is simply a mistake and I can't even begin to fathom any reason why we should defer to it.		:::::The idea of "declared itself non-canon" is totally irrelevant. We have never ever followed such a standard here before, and rightfully so. If Hasbro made a TF toy on which the painted deco read "This is not a Transformer," would we leave it off the wiki, or give it some stupid "disclaimer" at the top? Of course not, we'd just make a note of the ironic joke and treat it no differently from all the rest of the line. I object in the strongest possible terms to placing such incredibly undue weight on the matter of author intent that for the first and only time ''ever'', standard TF characters and fiction that went through the same standard publication process as everything else ever would be somehow treated as different, all because of some paradoxical and ill-informed blather from a guy who is contradicting essential and foundational elements of the TF mythos. We KNOW how the TF [[multiverse]] works. We know that the whole underpinning of the multiverse is that it's all canon, it's all "real" somewhere. [[Geosensus]] is a "real" Transformers character, just like [[Starscream (G1)\|Starscream]] is and [[Trannis]] is and just like Geniuz and TerrorClaw are not. The proper recognition of all official product as having equally crossed the threshold of validity--regardless of what agrees with what else--has been one of the guiding principles of this wiki for over 5 years, basically since any of us started contributing to it and making it worth a damn. In every other instance where a creative type has gotten stuff wrong, we point it out and go on our way. The idea that an author can say "this licensed story actually isn't licensed, that officially published character isn't official," or whatever, is simply a mistake and I can't even begin to fathom any reason why we should defer to it.
	:::::I would also point out that the TF:Legends page has been bent over backwards to stay relatively "neutral" on this affair but finishes up with the notion that we ignore the concept that any official-published work "doesn't count," and instead we (rightly, sanely) treat it the same as all the rest of the horde. And that has been our stated policy on the matter in the pertinent article ''for at least 3 years''. Why dredge this up all over again after so long?		:::::I would also point out that the TF:Legends page has been bent over backwards to stay relatively "neutral" on this affair but finishes up with the notion that we ignore the concept that any official-published work "doesn't count," and instead we (rightly, sanely) treat it the same as all the rest of the horde. And that has been our stated policy on the matter in the pertinent article ''for at least 3 years''. Why dredge this up all over again after so long?

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:30, 14 July 2010
Line 44:		Line 44:
	Should this template add the article to a Category marked "Apocrypha"? We seem to have enough, or at least BIG ENOUGH items, to warrant it, I think. It'd be good to be able to get to all those "not really official" items all in one place. --[[User:M Sipher\|M Sipher]] 12:27, 14 July 2010 (EDT)		Should this template add the article to a Category marked "Apocrypha"? We seem to have enough, or at least BIG ENOUGH items, to warrant it, I think. It'd be good to be able to get to all those "not really official" items all in one place. --[[User:M Sipher\|M Sipher]] 12:27, 14 July 2010 (EDT)
	:I think that's a great idea. Unfortunately, my wikia mojo is stretched to the limit already. Someone else will have to add that feature.--[[User:Jimsorenson\|Jimsorenson]] 12:29, 14 July 2010 (EDT)		:I think that's a great idea. Unfortunately, my wikia mojo is stretched to the limit already. Someone else will have to add that feature.--[[User:Jimsorenson\|Jimsorenson]] 12:29, 14 July 2010 (EDT)
			::If you think any further support from peons will help get it done, you have my vote in favor.--[[User:Khajidha\|Khajidha]] 12:30, 14 July 2010 (EDT)