User talk:Steve-o/Proposed Style Guide

qualifiers

i say use multiple qualifiers. compare Armorhide (UT) (Mini-Con) and Armorhide (UT) (Autobot). also, generally speaking, when using qualifiers, do continuity, then faction. If there are two guys with the same name, from the same continuity, of the same faction, then use subgroups as dividers. Offhand, Sky High is the only one I can think of, with the resultant pages being Sky High (G1) (Pretender) and Sky High (G1) (Micromaster). -hx 11:49, 5 April 2006 (PDT)

Also, while I'm thinking about it, there's UT Blurr and UT Skywarp and UT Thundercracker, who I guess would violate the traditional (UT) naming schema. How are we handling them? Blurr (UT) (Armada) vs Blurr (UT) (Cybertron)? -hx 11:52, 5 April 2006 (PDT)

As a side note, Hoop, we've been treating Cybertron Skywarp and Thundercracker as their Armada entities. Blurr (Cybertron) is as many as three distinct people, though, either being Armada Blurr (website bio), Velocitron Blurr (toy bio), or Earth-refugee Blurr (cartoon appearance). --ItsWalky 18:57, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Cybertron* words

I'd like to bring up, in a less hostile environment, the Cybertron/Cybertronic/Cybertronian/Cybertronix discussion again. This is my preference originally, because we do have separate words to cover the four different definitions at hand, and I think encouraging people to use them within the confines of this wiki would be a productive thing to do, since it would introduce consistency and help eliminate ambiguity or confusion. Clearly using "Cybertronian" as a generic adjective isn't wrong. It shows up endlessly in the fiction, significantly more than "Cybertronic" does. But "Cybertronic" has no other defintion, whereas "Cybertronian" also means "those guys from G2". I grant that "Cybertron" as a name for a member of the race is the same as the name of the planet, and consequently I have the least strong feelings about it. But "Cybertronic" is, in my opinion, a very useful word. Therefore, I stand behind the suggestion that we come up with a consistent way to use "Cybertron*" words on this site, even though I don't think it was originally brought up in an appropriate way. -LV 20:22, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

I also find it pretty strange to suggest that NOT distinguishing all these words is less confusing than doing so - how can this possibly be? Is anyone reading that someone is made of a Cybertronic alloy going to be incapable of comprehending what that means? -LV 13:24, 5 April 2006 (PDT)

I don't have anything to add to this but a general agreement with LV here. --M Sipher

Therefore, I stand behind the suggestion that we come up with a consistent way to use "Cybertron*" words on this site

By what process do you suggest we pick these usages? My knowledge of the canon is a lot less detailed than yours, so, maybe you're remembering things I'm not, but I can't imagine any basis for deciding that a particular variant of the word is going to mean one thing and not another thing. In my mind, Cybertronian and Cybertronic are both completely generic descriptors with no distinguishing uses aside from Cybertronian having been applied to Jhiaxus' forces in addition to its myriad generic uses.

I feel like any definitions we come up with would be totally arbitrary and not obvious to most readers of the Wiki. (That is, assuming that the Wiki ever amasses readers besides the dozen or so of us who are working on it.)

I'm not saying that I think it's impossible or that I am against have precise definitions. I just don't know that there is a good way of making those decisions, and that even if we make them, most people probably won't know them. I think it would be less confusing to just use both words as generic because that is the way the fandom already uses them.

--Steve-o 23:13, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

From Teletraan I: The Transformers Wiki, a Wikia wiki.