Talk:Heavy Load (Universe)
From MediaWiki
Mixmaster? Is that you?
Heavy Load's bio Decepticon chemist gone slowly mad by his own projects, used to be sorta different? Sounds like this dude's Mixmaster to me. --ItsWalky 01:24, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
- I had the same thought, but I'm not sure what to do with it. Are we talking about putting his info on Mixmaster's page the way that Tankor is on Octane's? With the latter, we have a lot more confirmation - right up to the Club mag explicitly saying he's the same guy. But Heavy Load may as well have been G1 Quickmix, for all we know. - Jackpot 01:32, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
- Eh, Quickmix wasn't always a Decepticon chemist. "Cement mixer Decepticon chemist who's not quite all there" has always been Mixmaster's thing. And he's missing from Classics Devastator, an absence called out in the fiction. --ItsWalky 02:21, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
- "Optimizing fuel mixtures to increase the energy efficiency of all mechanoid life" sounds suspiciously non-Decepticonny to me. I know that same sentence describes him as "Decepticon Heavy Load," but that could just be an awkward reference to his present status (plus it's his trademarked name, so...) Now, I totally hear you with the missing-Constructicon thing - it was likewise the initial thought I had. Hell, I'd be tickled pink if the Club fiction DID give him that backstory. But until they do, I'd say all bets are off. - Jackpot 02:58, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
- Eh, Quickmix wasn't always a Decepticon chemist. "Cement mixer Decepticon chemist who's not quite all there" has always been Mixmaster's thing. And he's missing from Classics Devastator, an absence called out in the fiction. --ItsWalky 02:21, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
Move to "Heavy Load (Classics)"?
I just brought this up over on Talk:Universe (franchise), but this is a good, concrete example. Since the Universe Classics guys have a "Classic Series" label on their bios, I think that's good enough reason to identify them as primarily Classics characters, not Universe (2008). It's more informative. Not only is the term "Universe" laden with a sprawling, vague history, but the 2008 line is ALREADY split between Classics and Robot Heroes. - Jackpot 02:00, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
- I really disagree. "Classics Series" is a subline, if anything, of Universe. It's like moving Scavenger (BW) to Scavenger (Transmetals). The continuity note can be made to be more specific ("the Classics portion of Universe") , but the article stays. —Interrobang 02:11, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
- That's not unheard of. We have the likes of Long Haul (Micromaster), after all. The reasoning behind that was different, yes, but I think this new situation also calls for an exception. "Universe" as a franchise is so diffuse and definition-less, I don't think we should give it the weight of creating splits in how we label the other franchises it subsumes. There is no fictional or conceptual break between these new toys called "Classics" and the old ones (likewise with Robot Heroes, for that matter). Making the Universe jump our primary label does a disservice to readers who should be getting the most relevant information, not the most pedantic. - Jackpot 02:44, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
- I think this should be moved to Heavy Load (Classic Series), as I feel we should keep the old Universe and the new Universe separate at all times, as they are two completely different things. The old Universe had a storyline to go with it, the new is just a catch-all name. The Universe parenthetical should be applied only to characters from the original, as they would be considered part of that storyline. More importantly, I don't think Heavy Load belongs in the "Universe characters" category as, again, that should be for characters who were part of the old Universe storyline. --KilMichaelMcC 06:54, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
- That's not unheard of. We have the likes of Long Haul (Micromaster), after all. The reasoning behind that was different, yes, but I think this new situation also calls for an exception. "Universe" as a franchise is so diffuse and definition-less, I don't think we should give it the weight of creating splits in how we label the other franchises it subsumes. There is no fictional or conceptual break between these new toys called "Classics" and the old ones (likewise with Robot Heroes, for that matter). Making the Universe jump our primary label does a disservice to readers who should be getting the most relevant information, not the most pedantic. - Jackpot 02:44, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
- I'm with Kil, at least insofar that I strongly feel that the parenthetical disambigs should not, themselves, be ambiguous. -Derik 08:14, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
Anyone else want to weigh in? - Jackpot 18:44, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
- You're putting too much stock into the name. The function of the parenthetical is to disambiguate, not specify exactly which continuity the guy's from. That's what reading the article is for. —Interrobang 18:58, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
- Right. It says "Universe" on his card, and the parenthetical is not about what continuity he's from. --ItsWalky 19:03, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
- I disagree with using "Classics" in any form here, but do feel that "Universe" itself is a bit confusing, since the two Universe lines are fairly distinct. Why not (Universe 2008) like the category he's under? --M Sipher 19:05, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
- Reluctantly I must agree with Walky. The parenthetical disambig's purpose is not to identify the continuity. It is to disambig- to make it so that this article can only refer to one character. Since there was no 'Heavy Load' int he 2004 Universe line, it does that already.
- The indented italicized continuity identifier at the top of the page is supposed to identify the continuity. That is it's job.
- 95% of the time the two will be identical. But they don't have to be. And in this case when the continuity spans multiple franchises, it shouldn't.
- (Note: the continuity identifier is currenly screwed up, saying it's the 'classics part of the Universe franchise.' I'm fixing.) -Derik 19:15, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
- I'm not talking about continuity. I am, however, talking about two distinct franchises that share a name. I think "Universe" should stay, since that's the franchise name, but I also think it needs something else —like "2008"— to up-front at-a-glance specify which of the two Universe franchises he's in. Remember, this will also show up in Category directories outside of "Universe 2008", like "Decepticons". --M Sipher 19:32, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
- I disagree with using "Classics" in any form here, but do feel that "Universe" itself is a bit confusing, since the two Universe lines are fairly distinct. Why not (Universe 2008) like the category he's under? --M Sipher 19:05, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
- Right. It says "Universe" on his card, and the parenthetical is not about what continuity he's from. --ItsWalky 19:03, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
- This is NOT about continuities. This is the existing Classics FRANCHISE versus the new Universe franchise. The Classics franchise had been loosely defined by package design and various sources calling toys "Classics." Heavy Load's package says "Classic Series," which to my mind makes him part of the Classics franchise. Yes, he's ALSO part of the Universe (2008) franchise, and that's the bigger label on the box. If our hard-and-fast rule is to always default to the most prominent label, then so be it. But I hold that "Universe" has become nearly meaningless, and it serves the Wiki better to continue using the Classics franchise identifier where it applies. If most folks still disagree, then fair enough. I just don't want us getting derailed by a strawman. - Jackpot 21:12, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
- The main point is still that it's only for disambiguation. You're getting worked up over something we only do because Heavy Load (Cybertron) and Heavy Load (RID) can't occupy the same space. —Interrobang 00:14, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
- And yet it becomes part of the TITLE, which is the biggest, most visually important part of the page. Also, it spills over into how we ought to be labeling the Toys section for all these guys. It may not matter to you, but it matters to me that we make the best choice. If everybody else thinks the best choice is different, then so be it. But if you really think the question doesn't matter, then why participate in the discussion? - Jackpot 00:33, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
- Because the (unwritten) policy is using the line the toy is released in for the parenthetical (i.e. Cryotek used to be at Cryotek (RID)). There shouldn't even an argument about the toy section's name. The line's name is Universe. That's all there is to it. —Interrobang 01:14, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
- But there are two lines called "Universe". This presents confusion. I say we move the page to "Heavy Load (Universe 2008)". We disambig pages with "(Movie)", and yet "Movie" is not what the line is called, is it? Or "G1", for that matter? --M Sipher 04:12, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
- You're worried you may confuse him with the Heavy Load from the other Universe line? -Derik 05:40, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
- Disambigs are not descriptive. That's why they're non-mandatory. They're apprended to article names only so that the articles are kept seperate.
- The continuity note- the very first line of the article will say he's from Classics continuity, not the 2004 TFU. -06:14, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
- Heavy Load is a "Universe" toy, and also a "Classic Series" toy, so in the interest of maintaining the distinction between the old and new Universe lines at all times, I think his paranthetical should be "Classic Series." It just seems obvious to me. --KilMichaelMcC 12:27, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
- But there are two lines called "Universe". This presents confusion. I say we move the page to "Heavy Load (Universe 2008)". We disambig pages with "(Movie)", and yet "Movie" is not what the line is called, is it? Or "G1", for that matter? --M Sipher 04:12, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
- Because the (unwritten) policy is using the line the toy is released in for the parenthetical (i.e. Cryotek used to be at Cryotek (RID)). There shouldn't even an argument about the toy section's name. The line's name is Universe. That's all there is to it. —Interrobang 01:14, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
- And yet it becomes part of the TITLE, which is the biggest, most visually important part of the page. Also, it spills over into how we ought to be labeling the Toys section for all these guys. It may not matter to you, but it matters to me that we make the best choice. If everybody else thinks the best choice is different, then so be it. But if you really think the question doesn't matter, then why participate in the discussion? - Jackpot 00:33, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
- The main point is still that it's only for disambiguation. You're getting worked up over something we only do because Heavy Load (Cybertron) and Heavy Load (RID) can't occupy the same space. —Interrobang 00:14, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
- This is NOT about continuities. This is the existing Classics FRANCHISE versus the new Universe franchise. The Classics franchise had been loosely defined by package design and various sources calling toys "Classics." Heavy Load's package says "Classic Series," which to my mind makes him part of the Classics franchise. Yes, he's ALSO part of the Universe (2008) franchise, and that's the bigger label on the box. If our hard-and-fast rule is to always default to the most prominent label, then so be it. But I hold that "Universe" has become nearly meaningless, and it serves the Wiki better to continue using the Classics franchise identifier where it applies. If most folks still disagree, then fair enough. I just don't want us getting derailed by a strawman. - Jackpot 21:12, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Universe isn't really a part of any continuity family...toys like the new legends, and the majority of the product so far, look to be listed as "Classic Series". The Prime reissue is labeled as "G1 Series". Similarly, I'm sure Hot Shot will be "Armada Series" despite being in Universe packaging. I submit then that characters like Heavy Load and Acid Storm belong to the Classics portion of the G1 continuity family. --Spectre 05:53, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
