Talk:Goldbug (IDW)

'87 toy

This discussion is carried over from Talk:Popular Earth vehicle alternate modes#VW Beetle. My view is that the '87 toy = Bumblebee renamed. It says so in his bio. So, at best, the toy could be said to have been repurposed into IDW Goldbug, except that IDW Goldbug is not a VW Beetle, so it is not even repurposed. - Starfield 17:05, 9 August 2009 (EDT)

The bios often vary wildly from the depiction in the fiction, yes? I'd say that this version of Goldbug is at least as close to the toy as, say, G1 Bumblebee is to Hearts of Steel Bumblebee, which co-exist on the same page. Or IDW Sunstreaker, who's a Headmaster. Maybe we should make a separate page for the non-gestalt, non-animal Predacons of IDW. I'd say that if we're willing to accept that there can be bodies for characters that aren't based on the toys, but are still associated with the toys, then it has to cut both ways. The only thing that makes Goldbug different from the other characters is that the character is sometimes the same guy as Bumblebee. Otherwise, if this toy can't live on the same page as Goldbug (IDW), then really none of the other IDW Throttlebot bodies (or any other kind of bodies) should live on the same page with their more toy-like other depictions. --Jimsorenson 17:23, 9 August 2009 (EDT)

Well, except that the other characters live on the same page because we consider them to be the same characters, just portrayed slightly differently between continuities. So the fact that the toys don't always represent every single depiction is considered low priority.

However, since we already decided that IDW Goldbug is a separate enough character to get his own page, that means that assuming the same toy as the Goldbug characters we separated him from is a "good enough for government work" match is no longer a "valid" assumption. --Jeysie 17:29, 9 August 2009 (EDT)

Ah, but we decided that he's separate enough from prior depictions of Goldbug to warrant his own page. But that's emphatically not the same as saying that he's a separate character. It's purely a wiki convention, for our own convenience. Clearly, the idea that Goldbug is a member of the team called Throttlebots is something that ultimately traces its roots to the toys. Ignoring a line on the bio, well, that's nothing new for us, or for Transformers fans, pros and everyone in between. This is not an analogous situation to, say, Galvatron II, where there were two guys running around with the same name. This is just, well, IDW's Goldbug, and in this continuity he's not Bumblebee. Just like in this continuity, Galvatron isn't Megatron. We still call them the same guy, and associate all the toys together, even though really the Galvatron G1 toy looks almost nothing like the Galvatron from IDW. And if the IDW Rodimus Prime isn't Hot Rod, which seems likely, then that toy should still be on the page too. All IMO, of course. --Jimsorenson 17:48, 9 August 2009 (EDT)

Well, I tend to take the stance that we shouldn't assume/make up things unless we need to. And if we do need to make any assumptions, we should mark them as being such (which is why we have things like the "nameless character" templates, after all).

If we consider IDW Goldbug to be separate enough to get his own page, mere wiki convention or not, then IMHO he's separate enough that we shouldn't make an unofficial assumption that the toy still applies, unless we see something from IDW themself that suggests it does (like an Earth mode that looks like the toy). Seeing as how inclusion of a toy is not important enough that it demands an assumption on our part in order to fulfill the bare basic requirements for a character page. --Jeysie 17:53, 9 August 2009 (EDT)

I agree with Jim. I don't think the visual depiction of a character needs to match the look of a toy for the toy to "apply," nor do previous personality depictions come into play at all, since bio/story-portrayal disparities have been a fact of Transformer life since the beginning. It's very odd to see the VW-Beetle Goldbug on this page, I agree, but the logic is sound. Imagine for a moment that, up until IDW, Goldbug had been a toy-only character. Then suddenly IDW uses him in "Cybertronian" form... wouldn't we still put the old toy on his page? It doesn't matter how much the bio differs; the toy of the yellowish Throttlebot named "Goldbug" in the G1 toyline was obviously the inspiration for IDW's character of a yellowish Throttlebot named "Goldbug" in their G1 comic. And, to return to the real world, it also doesn't matter that there's this other interpretation out there of Goldbug being a rebuilt Bumblebee. It doesn't affect the logic of this page's content, other than that the stories about him being Bumblebee belong on Bumblebee's page instead. The toy, being an independent entity (independent even from its own packaging bio), belongs in both places. - Jackpot 18:51, 9 August 2009 (EDT)

That is one way to go about it, but taking that logic to its logical conclusion—both Goldbugs should be on the same page. I think the only reason we are squeamish about not merging them is because it says "Bumblebee" on the top of the page. That shouldn't matter, technically, since Goldbug (G1) redirects there. - Starfield 18:59, 9 August 2009 (EDT)

You're right; it's purely for convenience's sake that we've separated them. IDW-Goldbug is an incarnation of G1 Goldbug, so if we were being completely literal, we would put IDW-Goldbug's info on the page that Goldbug (G1) redirects to. But how would that read? We'd have to break the Bumblebee section up somehow between 'Bee and Goldbug, which is unprecedented and strikes me as an awkward solution, especially since we don't know how major a character Goldbug might become - or even how intertwined their storylines might get.

Actually, I think the most logically-consistent solution would be to make a separate Goldbug (G1) page and transplant all of the Goldbug info from Bumblebee (G1) into it. It's the Galvatron (G1) approach. The only counterargument to that I see is again one of convenience: it would put the reader through an unwarranted amount of work, jumping to a different page just to see the miniscule amount of material about, say, the Marvel Goldbug before jumping BACK to the Bumblebee page when he becomes a Pretender. Especially considering that, unlike Galvatron, there's no significant difference between Bumblebee and Goldbug's identities or story-roles.

So we're left with the pages as they currently stand, not really the most logical conclusion but the most convenient one. And... well, honestly, now I'm at a loss as to how this pertains to the toy question. If we can accept separating IDW-Goldbug from the rest, he's still an incarnation of the character represented by the toy, so why wouldn't the toy go here?

- Jackpot 20:24, 9 August 2009 (EDT)

I don't find the logic sound at all. There's no official statement that toy Goldbug = IDW Goldbug, period. I really don't see why this is even an issue. The toy information is not at all important enough that it must be included, so there's no reason for us to make up a completely fanon assumption with zero canon support. If IDW ever does give us some canon info that makes assuming the toy is the same reasonable, then we can add it. But we shouldn't be putting fanon on the wiki. --Jeysie 19:09, 9 August 2009 (EDT)

Jeysie, is there any official statement that toy Goldbug == Sunbow Cartoon Goldbug? I don't remember them every saying that. The character model is pretty different. Actually, I don't know of any official statement that, say, Activators Cliffumper is the same as Cliffjumper from the animated cartoon. One is an earth mode, one isn't. Or almost any other toy for that matter. Where would such a statement be made? Under what circumstances? --Jimsorenson 19:15, 9 August 2009 (EDT)

The fact that we consider them enough the same character to put them all on the same page is "good enough" there. But, if we consider a character incarnation separate enough to warrant its own page, then I fail to see any logic at all in assuming that the toy that belongs to the other incarnations we just declared as different still applies.

Now, if you wanted to argue that either this incarnation of Goldbug isn't different enough to separate out, or that we should separate out more (or all) different incarnations, those points would have some logic and consistency to it. But "we consider this character separate for its own page by fiction yet it's somehow still the same toy as the characters we just separated it from" just seems doofy to me unless there's some sort of actual canon support for the assumption.

Especially since we don't need to include toy info to fulfill the basic requirements of a character page, so there's nothing forcing us to add it, as opposed to leaving it off until we're sure we're being factual instead of fanon. This isn't like the "nameless character" situation, for instance, where we're forced to make something up just so we can create the page. --Jeysie 19:47, 9 August 2009 (EDT)

I see no difference between Goldbug (IDW) and Goldbug (G1), vis a vis the state of his toy. If you think we need an 'official declaration' that the Goldbug (IDW) character belongs to the 1987 Goldbug toy to be valid, then that requirement should apply to the Goldbug (G1) toy. You've made a moderately compelling (but flawed, IMO) case that the toy might not apply to both characters, but you haven't even come close to coming up with an argument as to why the toy belongs with one more than the other. --Jimsorenson 19:52, 9 August 2009 (EDT)

I had an edit-conflict with Jim there, but I was going to say basically the same thing in a single sentence: What are your standards for figuring out if a toy "applies" to a character? - Jackpot 20:24, 9 August 2009 (EDT)

Basically, if we declare various incarnations of a character concept to be similar enough to belong on the same page, then that means the various toys that belong to that singular character concept are also similar enough to belong to those various character incarnations.

Conversely, if we feel that a character incarnation is different enough to warrant its own page, then that logically means that it should be considered also separate from the toys that belong to the characters it's not the same as.

But, saying that fictionally they're different but toy-wise the same is inconsistent and illogical to me unless there's fictional support that says the toy is still the same. And there is no such support, in this instance.

If you feel that IDW Goldbug isn't different enough to warrant excluding his toy even though we have no fictional support that it's the same, then IMHO that's an argument from you that IDW Goldbug isn't different enough to be split off from the other Goldbugs to begin with, not an argument to put the toy on this separate page.

I'm all about being consistent unless there's actual evidence of inconsistency, not just mere assumption.

(Ironically, I think that toy Goldbug probably is IDW Goldbug as a pure fanon thing. I just think there's no outright canon evidence yet, and thus it's inappropriate to put it on the wiki.) --Jeysie 20:31, 9 August 2009 (EDT)

We're going in circles here. Even IF we grant the argument that separating out the character works, for whatever reason, where's your canon evidence that the toy belongs over on the Goldbug (G1) side of things? All your arguments are reciprocal, applying equally well to both articles. I can say that it's just your 'fanon' that the Goldbug 1987 toy belongs with the Goldbug (G1) article.--Jimsorenson 20:39, 9 August 2009 (EDT)

I'm sorry, but I'm still not hearing a definition from you as to how you figure out if a toy "belongs" to a character. All I'm hearing is that you think it's logically dissonant to break IDW-Goldbug off from the older incarnations while accepting the toy contemporary to those incarnations as representative of the new guy. Is it the time factor that you think defines it? I'm at a loss.

But maybe part the problem you're seeing here is that, as I described above, there is an essential irrationality to how we've separated these pages. If we were being totally logical, either IDW-Goldbug would be on Bumblebee (G1) (like IDW-Galvy is on the same page with previous, Megatronny incarnations), or all the Goldbug info would be on a single Goldbug (G1) page separate from Bumblebee (like how Megatron (G1) has no Galvatron info on it). But both of those options, while logical, are unduly inconvenient. So we have this middle-ground setup that satisfies convenience but isn't fully consistent with policy. And, in trying to apply policy arguments to the toy question, I think you're correctly seeing that something is illogical, but the toy is kind of caught in your crossfire when the central issue is elsewhere. Once one accepts the central illogic...ity of the setup, I think the toy question resolves itself in favor of inclusion.

- Jackpot 20:54, 9 August 2009 (EDT)

Er... my definition of "how a toy belongs to a character" is that it was officially stated to belong to a certain character concept, and we consider a given fictional character incarnation to also belong to that concept.

So, if Hasbro officially declares a toy to be some form of "G1 Bumblebee", and we consider various fictional character incarnations to be G1 Bumblebee, therefore, by our existing wiki structuring, the toys and the characters go together.

But if we say that one Bumblebee incarnation isn't the same as the other ones, then we must also say that it is not the same as the toys that belong to the other ones either, unless the same fiction that caused us to separate the characters says the toy is the same anyway.

So I repeatedly made my argument of how I'd match up toys; you just didn't pay attention to what I said.

And, I agree there is sort of an inconsistency there, but the bulk of the problem is solved by stating that, if this incarnation of Goldbug is different enough for its own page, it therefore is well and truly separate in all aspects unless the canon gives a reason to think otherwise. There's zero logic to me in separating out the fiction but not the toys without some canon evidence we should be doing it differently. --Jeysie 21:14, 9 August 2009 (EDT)

Edit: So it may be "fanon" that 1987 Goldbug goes with Goldbug (G1), but if so, it's the wiki's fanon, not mine. --Jeysie 21:17, 9 August 2009 (EDT)

Well, then, it's simple. Hasbro officially declared the 1987 Throttlebot toy to be Goldbug, and so has IDW declared the character in Spotlight: Metroplex to be Goldbug. The parentheticals, it's been repeatedly stated, are NOT a part of the character's name or identity, merely a convenience so that we can have different articles about different concepts sharing a name. We could just as easily call the IDW Goldbug article name Goldbug (G1) and call the other one Goldbug (Bumblebee). It wouldn't, and shouldn't, make any difference to the article itself. --Jimsorenson 21:33, 9 August 2009 (EDT)

It makes sense insofar that we've considered this Goldbug to be different from every other Goldbug. So the toys either belong to the other Goldbugs or to this Goldbug, but not to both, unless the fiction that caused us to declare them separate them says otherwise. Otherwise, your argument is that we shouldn't have separated them out to begin with.

My argument basically boils down to: either they're separate or they're not, so make up your mind please, unless official say-so forces us to be betwixt-and-between. --Jeysie 22:08, 9 August 2009 (EDT)

If it had to come down to just one, I'd vote IDW Goldbug. He has no claim to any other toys, but a legitimate claim to this one. Fortunately, that's a false dichotomy. One COULD put IDW Goldbug with the rest of the Goldbug stuff. Or, one could make Goldbug its own page, separate from Bumblebee. Either way, the toy issue goes away. It just so happens that it's fairly convenient to do it this way, on a number of levels. But the wiki is an artificial construct, a collection of knowledge and organizational principles that doesn't actually bind the fiction at all. In this case, the underlying organizational principles make it smarter and more convenient to put the fiction in two different places. But the fact is that, should we (and we easily could) choose to separate Goldbug from Bumblebee we would include the Goldbug toy on that page. Should we choose to put IDW Goldbug on the Bumblebee page, and we easily could, we'd include the toy on that page. Choosing to split the difference to make everyone's life easier doesn't require us to throw common sense out the window and make a false choice for the one place a toy has to go. --Jimsorenson 23:04, 9 August 2009 (EDT)

See, that makes sense. If all the Goldbugs belong on a separate page, then the Goldbug toys logically belong there too. And if IDW Goldbug is actually not different enough to be separate from Bee's page, that means he's not separate enough from the toys either. Now you're getting it. There's zero that's common sense to me about "Well, he's totally separate except for the bits that he's arbitrarily not based on our non-canon assumptions."

And, I dunno, to me, just leaving the toy info off is a perfectly easy way to do things. Why is having it on the page remotely a big deal? --Jeysie 23:40, 9 August 2009 (EDT)

This whole page makes my brain hurt. Of course a single toy can belong to two characters, or even to two different iterations of the same character. Jesus Christ. What is this bullshit, and why are we wasting our time with it? --ItsWalky 23:24, 9 August 2009 (EDT)

Well, yeah, there's stuff that gets officially repurposed all the time that we list on the wiki. We don't list fanon repurposing, though, AFAIK.

So it's not the mere idea of repurposing that's the issue, it's whether in this instance it's canon repurposing or not. --Jeysie 23:40, 9 August 2009 (EDT)

How EXACTLY are the IDW comics "unofficial"? Jesus Fucking Shitty Christ, why is EVERY stupid and retarded and horrible super-ass-long-fucking pointless argument on this wiki involving YOU? JESUS CHRIST. Can I just delete this damn page? Can I delete HER? --ItsWalky 15:48, 10 August 2009 (EDT)

"But, saying that fictionally they're different but toy-wise the same is inconsistent and illogical to me..." Just to throw a wrench into this argument, the idea that the same toy can have two characters is a pretty big part of why nearly every single Japan-only G1 character has two pages. Personally, I'd favor the Galvatron approach: move all Goldbug stuff to a Goldbug (G1) page and reference to/from Bumblebee (G1). Since that doesn't seem likely to happen, I think leaving the page as-is is the next best thing. You're right, if you want to get REALLY technical, there's nothing officially stating that the Goldbug in IDW is the same as the original toy. Conversely, however, there's nothing stating he ISN'T, either, and I personally think that would be the bigger assumption to make. -- Dark T Zeratul 02:33, 10 August 2009 (EDT)

I'd call the assumption with no official support the bigger assumption, personally.

And again, I have no problem with the idea of one toy being two different characters if it's got canon support somewhere. It's the latter thing that's my grumbling issue, not the former.

I guess it's that I tend to be a literal "if it ain't on the page, it ain't on the stage" sort of person when it comes to reading canon. I got my own fanon theories same as anyone, but we're not here to catalog that. --Jeysie 02:54, 10 August 2009 (EDT)

*bangs head on wall*

IF THE TOY WAS RE-PURPOSED TO REPRESENT A SECOND CHARACTER IT MEANS IT'S TECH-SPEC WOULD NOT COUNT TOWARD THE SECOND CHARACTER.

THIS IS EXACTLY WHAT YOU WANT, AND YOU ARE ARGUING AGAINST IT. -Derik 04:48, 13 August 2009 (EDT)

(resetting the quote indents 'cause it's getting unwieldy) How EXACTLY are the IDW comics "unofficial"?

Whoa there, cowboy. Nobody's calling IDW unofficial. They're saying that equating the alien bodyform IDW Goldbug, who is definitely not Bumblebee, with the Earthen bodyform Goldbug toy, which definitely IS Bumblebee, is of questionable canonicity -- IDW Goldbug to date has not looked like that toy. No one official has made that leap of repurposing explicit thus far.

As for me, I'd rather just see a "see main article" link to the Goldbug section of "Bumblebee (G1)/toys" or whatever it is, but that's mostly because I strenuously oppose copy-paste repeats of identical text on different pages. -- Repowers 16:13, 10 August 2009 (EDT)

I feel pretty comfortable assuming the other Throttlebots' bios apply to them unless something were to conflict with them. IDW Goldbug? I don't know who he is. I considered putting the Category:Spies tag on the page, but I don't know if he is a spy. He doesn't appear to be an "espionage director." HOS Bumblebee was pretty close to G1 Bumblebee, actually. There wasn't anything that jumped out at me that would make me say, "Bumblebee wouldn't act like that." IDW Sunstreaker was very Sunstreaker-esque, so I don't know what you mean. He became a Headmaster? Well that is just imagining what would happen if G1 Sunstreaker became a Headmaster. Many Headmasters aren't Headmasters in IDW but have the same personality. - Starfield 18:36, 9 August 2009 (EDT)

No offense, Jeysie, because I respect your judgments and opinions, but I think we're locked in a static argument here. For whatever reason, you think putting Goldbug's toy on Goldbug's page is fanon, while Jackpot and I strongly disagree. (I think that ItsWalkey and Dark T Zeratu agree with Jackpot and I, but I'm less comfortable definitively saying so.) I think that at this point, barring some new viewpoints, we're going to have to agree to disagree. I feel I've answered your arguments, I'm sure you feel you've answered mine. I'm going to bow out the discussion until and unless it goes in a new direction and I'm able to contribute constructively, trusting that my position is clear. --Jimsorenson 09:34, 10 August 2009 (EDT)

Well, I think Walky and Zeratul mistakenly think it's a matter of being against putting repurposing on the wiki, when I'm just against putting non-canon repurposing on the wiki. I just feel something should either be completely separate or not when we have only our judgement to go on... Hasbro's the only folks who get to have their cake and eat it too, so to speak.

You guys have zero canon evidence that Goldbug's toy represents IDW Goldbug, therefore the appropriate thing is to simply leave it off until we're sure, as it's not required for the basic needs of a character page. I'd rather leave info out than put up info we don't absolutely need and don't know is accurate or not. Him being a "comic-only character" is perfectly fine. --Jeysie 10:52, 10 August 2009 (EDT)

Jim, I think the issue is that so far, Goldbug's only had one body. If he comes to earth, I'd expect him to be the toy body, but until he fictionally appears in this body in an issue of the comics, I don't think it's time to add the toy. A note referencing the toy, and the fact his body doesn't match is something more accurate, I think User:Eire 22.34 Aug 10 09 (UTC)

But based on that logic, shouldn't all the Throttlebots be given separate IDW pages that don't include the toys, since non of them have appeared in bodies identical to the toys? I'm sure there's characters whose sole fictional appearances feature non-toy Cycbertronian modes. I don't see how this character could be interpreted as anything BUT IDW's representation of the 1987 toy of the same name. - Cattleprod 19:36, 10 August 2009 (EDT)

To defend the opposing viewpoint, none of the other Throttlebots were rebuilt versions of other characters. Antimatter 19:44, 10 August 2009 (EDT)

Except there's no case of what is usually another version of them existing in this universe. So it's just a new version of the characters (by that logic, we'd have an individual article for War Within characters that didn't show up in later issues). Goldbug, whole other situation User:Eire 01,0 Aug 11 09 (UTC)

Move to "Goldbug (G1)"?

In the discussion above, it occurred to me that the reason this page seems awkward and counterintuitive is that it breaks policy for the sake of convenience. IDW-Goldbug is a G1-franchise Goldbug, so he should go on Goldbug (G1). Unfortunately, that happens to redirect to Bumblebee (G1), who is a separate individual in the IDW-verse, so we'd have to have two different write-ups in the same series-section. And if we pulled all the Goldbug info out of Bumblebee (G1) and put it in Goldbug (G1), just reading Bumblebee's story would require bouncing back and forth between articles with little benefit. So we've arrived at the current situation, which I think is the most expedient but certainly feels "off," especially when you bring the toy into the equation. Jeysie has been the most vocal about it, but she wasn't the only one who objected.

So I've made a sandbox to test a new proposal: Make Goldbug (G1) its own page, but just put links back to Bumblebee (G1) in the relevant sections. Goldbug (IDW) would redirect to Goldbug (G1), where the Goldbug toy can exist with no objections. Bumblebee (G1) can remain unchanged, other than adding a link to Goldbug (G1) for propriety. We may or may not remove the Goldbug toy from Bumblebee (G1)/toys; I don't really care one way or t'other.

The only disadvantage I see to this proposal is that someone searching for the Goldbug-who-is-Bumblebee will get a single extra click added to their path. But, hey, maybe they didn't know Goldbug was a separate individual in one continuity, and they'll learn something! It seems a small price to pay to make this page a little less counterintuitive and controversial, and more in-line with policy.

- Jackpot 13:06, 10 August 2009 (EDT)

That makes a lot of sense. - Starfield 13:12, 10 August 2009 (EDT)

To me, it makes no sense at all. Goldbug is only a separate guy in IDW. The current article title makes perfect sense. --KilMichaelMcC 13:14, 10 August 2009 (EDT)

Then, by your logic, we should have a separate "Galvatron (IDW)" article. Maybe you agree with that, but until that happens, precedent is against your position. - Jackpot 13:17, 10 August 2009 (EDT)

We are starting to trip over some of our own past rationalizations. Galvatron (G1) includes vintage G1 Galvatron who was rebuilt from Megatron, IDW Galvatron who had nothing to do with Megatron, and Henkei Galvatron who was just a temporarily-on-drugs Megatron. Cheetor (BW) includes Henkei Cheetor who is the size of a G1 character living in a G1-ish era on modern Earth when the entire Beast era never happened. Airazor (BW) for some reason includes TransTech Airazor, who came from a whole different dimension where, again, probably the Beast era never happened. If era and even identity of origin no longer matters so much, then sure as heck IDW Goldbug ought to be acknowledged as being G1 Goldbug. They look the same and do basically the same thing in basically the same story--that's been good enough for us in the past. (Note that even by that standard I still don't think H-Cheetor and TT-Airazor "work", but, whatever, let's just pick one way and be consistent with it). --Thylacine 2000 14:06, 10 August 2009 (EDT)

"...Henkei Galvatron who was just a temporarily-on-drugs Megatron" just has me in snicker fits.

Ahem. That aside, Thy brings up a good couple points on IDW Galvie and H-Cheets (we could also toss in H-Dinobot for additional measure). --Lonegamer78 14:32, 10 August 2009 (EDT)

I'd just like to point out that "TransTech" Airazor is not a Transcendent Technomorph. So far, there isn't one of those. The "TransTech" Airazor is a Maximal from some other "low-tech" universe... where the Beast Era very likely DID happen since she's a Maximal. --M Sipher 18:19, 10 August 2009 (EDT)

OH MY GOOD GOD JESUS, GUYS. Are you LOOKING for things to complicate this decidedly non-complicated article with? I want to punch you all in the kidneys!! - Chris McFeely 14:23, 10 August 2009 (EDT)

I will sooner eat a live rat than support this move. ---Blackout- 14:24, 10 August 2009 (EDT)

Is there really that much difference between the proposal and the current article? It's just enough additional content to make it kosher with policy, but doesn't make the reading experience fundamentally different. I don't understand the hostility. - Jackpot 14:30, 10 August 2009 (EDT)

Here is what I say. We do a vote. Let the people decide what to do. ---Blackout- 14:35, 10 August 2009 (EDT)

One more thing to think about—linking to Goldbug. If an article is linking to something Goldbug did in the Marvel comics or cartoon, would it link to "Goldbug (G1)" or "Bumblebee (G1)|Goldbug"? - Starfield 16:55, 10 August 2009 (EDT)

I would think wherever the information is. So, if my proposal were enacted, the latter. (Which means that nothing would change from the current state, in that regard.) - Jackpot 17:01, 10 August 2009 (EDT)

Chris is right. This is vastly over-complicating a very simple issue. Bumblebee is in every other continuity Goldbug. The two were never fictionally portrayed as separate characters. Galvatron is separate because he IS a separate character in most fictions (he sees himself as a new person unlike Goldbug). Which is why keeping IDW Galvatron in the main article works, although as I said, I'd prefer IDW Galv got his own article but I get why he was put in the first one (new continuity I get it). IDW Goldbug is exactly the same as Galvatron II. A version of the character wholly separate from the original. So give him his own article (I wouldn't leave in the toy, not until/if he gets an earth mode), keep his fiction separate and leave all the fiction relating to the Goldbug who used to be 'Bee alone. You're overly, overly complicating this. Just put a note in Bee's idw section to check here for IDW GoldbugUSer:Eire 22.27 10 Aug 09 (UTC)

It's funny - there have been lots of suggestions thrown around in the vote-tally remarks, and I'm sure everyone considers his or her own choice the "simple" one while everyone else is making it "complicated." I understand why you and some other people think the current setup is "simple," but I think its supposed simplicity is making the top-level policy questions MORE complicated. That's what I'm ultimately trying to manage here. For what it's worth, I actually agree with you about Galvatron, in that if this debate ends in favor of Goldbug (IDW), then I think the same logic demands a "Galvatron (IDW)" too. There's even a debate over on Talk:Nemesis Prime (G1) that I think would be affected, settling that question in favor of separate "Nemesis Prime (Alternators)" and "Nemesis Prime (Universe 2008)" articles. But, ah, let's not get ahead of ourselves... - Jackpot 17:44, 10 August 2009 (EDT)

I view it more like Hot Rod / Rodimus Prime. In many continuities Hot Rod is Rodimus Prime, and in fact goes back-and-forth between that identity. it makes no sense to make them separate articles.

But if IDW were to introduce a version of Rodimus Prime who was a separate character from Hot Rod, we'd give him an article at "Rodimus Prime (G1)".

And frankly, Galvatron is not an example that de-complicates things. The "Galvatron (G1)" article covers the Marvel UK Galvatron (who was made from Straxus) but not Galvatron II (Marvel US) who was made from Megatron. That's a mind-boggling bit of insanity... OTOH, like Cyclonus... in a certain sense it doesn't seem to really matter, that much, who became Galatron. Galvatron is Galvatron. -Derik 18:26, 10 August 2009 (EDT)

I think Derik has hit the nail on the head here. The Bumblebee/Goldbug relationship is identical to the Hot Rod/Rodimus Prime relationship. They both are cases of the same character having two different bodies and ranks commensurate with those bodies. This is exactly the way we should be looking at it. --Tigerpaw28 20:04, 10 August 2009 (EDT)

Also like Wing Dagger / Wing Saber and Tidal Wave / Mirage and Cyclonus / Snow Cat.... but unfortunately none of those examples are much help because none of them have the identity-inconsistency that Goldbug now has. This is new ground we're treading here, a new precedent to set. If there was suddenly a non-Hot-Rod Rodimus Prime or a non-Tidal-Wave Mirage or whatever, we would be faced with the exact same question and the exact same debate. What I'm trying to do in my proposal is strike a middle ground that doesn't conflict with the Galvatron precedent or the meaning of our parentheticals, while also acknowledging that the Bumblebee/Goldbug relationship is way tighter than with Megatron/Galvatron. - Jackpot 20:19, 10 August 2009 (EDT)

Vote Tally

• -Blackout- opposes the move, as Goldbug is only a different person in IDW, and he is Bumblebee in all other continuities, thus, we would just be overcomplicating this.
• Jackpot votes to move to "Goldbug (G1)" according to this model, which is basically the same content with some links to Bumblebee (G1), but doesn't throw a wrench into existing policy as the current page does.
• KilMichaelMcC, who is a bit unsure about calling for a vote on this at this stage of discussion, votes no to moving. It ain't broke, so let's not go fixing it.
• Chris McFeely will murder you all. Also, no on the move.
• Antimatter, knowing full well his opinion means jack squat, votes move to Goldbug (G1), keep the toy on the page, and add his information from the comics and the cartoon to the page.
• Emvee quite likes Jackpot's page and throws his vote behind that.
• Cattleprod, who feels passionate about this issue for some reason, votes to keep IDW Goldbug separate and to keep the toy info on his page. Links to the relevant sections of Bumblebee's story info are okay though. Jackpot's suggestion is definitely preferable to moving Goldbug's Sunbow and Marvel info OFF of Bumblebee's page.
• Dark_T_Zeratul wants to move all Goldbug information to Goldbug (G1), but wants to see the toy on this page if it doesn't get moved
• Eire thinks a move is entirely pointless. Just add a note to the Bumblebee IDW section at the top "For IDW's version of Goldbug, see Goldbug (IDW)", and would support the same for IDW Galvatron, since we've got Galvatron II
• User:Mazenoise opposes the move and also wonders if making IDW Goldbug a separate character is a deliberate choice or if the writer didn't know Goldbug = Bumblebee, considering how bad these comics have been lately..
• Detour votes no on the move.
• User:Derik votes we move this to "Goldbug (G1)" with a top-level link under the bio- "In some continuities Goldbug is a new form of Bumblebee. For those version of Goldbug, See Bumblebee (G1)"
• Jimsorenson likes Derik's proposal, though mostly just wants to see the toy remain on wherever the IDW Goldbug info ends up. (Slight change of position from before.)
• User:Metal Gear NOIZE agrees with Eire.
• Dead Metal opposes the move and face-palms himself over how ridicules this is and likes Eire's idea is awesome and should be made, same should be made for the Insecticon Swarm. Dead Metal 16:53, 10 August 2009 (EDT)
• User:Starfield votes "yes" on the move.
• M Sipher wants to take a pillowcase full of bar soap to you all. No on the move, yes to adding Erie's note in the IDW section of Bee's page, and no on the G1 toy being on IDW Goldbug's page until IDW Goldbug actually shows up as a goddamn VW.
• Jeysie agrees with everything Sipher said. Including the pillowcase full of bar soap.
• Rosicrucian thinks this should stay at its current namespace, and thinks with the upcoming Coda story that IDW Galvatron deserves similar treatment.--Rosicrucian^Talk 16:26, 11 August 2009 (EDT)

Vote Results

Oi, what a mess. Since the voting has been up for a day, and we've had no new votes for over 12 hours, I'm tallying this badboy. 12 votes for no on the move, 6 votes for yes (in some form or other). Additionally, there are 3 votes to keep the toy on the page, 2 to remove it. Long story short, the consensus seems to be ... leave the page exactly as it is right now. This was a giant debate and the result is, no change at all. Joy!

The only non-Goldbug idea that came up in the voting was separating out IDW Galvatron from regular Galvatron. IMO, that'd need it's own consensus over on Galvatron's page. --Jimsorenson 16:06, 11 August 2009 (EDT)

I'm not a fan of calling for up-and-down-votes without discussion. There needs to be a serious discussion about what to do about Galvatron, not just a vote. -Derik 16:15, 11 August 2009 (EDT)

Let me clarify. I wasn't calling for a vote at all. I was saying that, IMO, the above discussion / vote is NOT directly applicable to Galvatron, so he should have his own discussion before any action is taken. --Jimsorenson 16:18, 11 August 2009 (EDT)

Agreed. We're to a point where having the Galvatron discussion for the umpteenth time probably won't get shouted down by the usual suspects.--Rosicrucian^Talk 16:28, 11 August 2009 (EDT)

How do you get 6, Jim? I count 7 in favor of moving and 11 12 (with Rosicrucian's new vote) in favor of staying. With individual opinions about details all across the freaking map. I definitely think inertia wins the day here, but it's nowhere near consensus. I hope everyone who yelled and cussed at me for making it "complicated" can see that obviously this is a deeper issue than they want it to be, given the diversity of opinions. I also agree with Derik that calling early votes just means things will be decided by the bigger mob, not by reason.

THIS IS WHY POLICY MATTERS. If we take everything as a unique case and never look for consistent principles, every debate is going to be a slugfest about what "feels" right by each person's intuition with no way to find a common-ground conclusion. I'm glad that at least a few people are looking at the big picture and considering how to make our choice here jibe with other cases. In the end, I'd love to see some policy-refinement come out of this, and I even have some thoughts on how, but I'm going to hold off for a while and let the dust settle. Hopefully most folks will be in a more reasonable mood later.

- Jackpot 16:43, 11 August 2009 (EDT)

A Generalized IDW Character Split?

I think a lot of our recent big discussions have had a common theme: that we're finding the gaps in our "every character from a G1 continuity family gets lumped together" policy. It doesn't work when it lumps Alternators Nemesis Prime with Classicsverse Nemesis Prime, it doesn't work especially well for Goldbug, and it probably doesn't work overly well in our current treatment of IDW Galvatron. So yes, I do think we'll have some foundations for policy here when the dust finally settles.--Rosicrucian^Talk 16:46, 11 August 2009 (EDT)

Yeah, I definitely think you're on the right track. I'd also like to throw Scorponok (G1) in the mix, since I personally think his North American and Japanese portrayals are different enough to warrant separation. (Probably Fortress Maximus (G1) too.) If we're going to start splitting more hairs than we have in the past, we need to consider as many borderline cases as we can to find common principles. - Jackpot 16:55, 11 August 2009 (EDT)

Hearts of Steel characters are almost definitely applicable. Heck, even though we had that discussion before I'd say they're an easier decision to split off.--Rosicrucian^Talk 17:05, 11 August 2009 (EDT)

I really do think we should split articles for characters that are basically the same but very different from the original or oversees incarnation. And I kinda vote for the idw incarnations being split off and carry the HOS stuff on them too. Dead Metal 17:10, 11 August 2009 (EDT)

I mentioned it on the Galvatron page, but I figure it's applicable in this discussion too (perhaps moreso, given the direction it's taking): completely alternate universe takes like Hearts of Steel notwithstanding, either we move all of the IDW characters to their own pages, or we keep them all on G1. Stop with this bullshit of picking and choosing based on arbitrary reasoning (and really, it IS pretty arbitrary - many of the arguments made for removing the toy information from this page can be made about dozens of characters in just about every continuity). It doesn't follow policy, it doesn't follow standards, and it's confusing as hell. -- Dark T Zeratul 18:12, 11 August 2009 (EDT)

"either we move all of the IDW characters to their own pages"

This had better be a joke. Also, the idea of giving characters who appear in HOS individual pages? NO. And shame on you for even thinking it. Splitting every character to appear in an IDW book is possibly the most fucking stupid idea I've ever heard proposed on this wiki. --M Sipher 18:23, 11 August 2009 (EDT)

What Sipher said. --ItsWalky 18:25, 11 August 2009 (EDT)

I've heard stupider ideas... I'm just blanking on them now.

Here's my problem-- "Goldbug (IDW)" means that if any future fiction writes a non-Bumblebee Goldbug, we end up with another article named "Goldbug (Image)" or "Goldbug (Devils Due)." Normally those would just be sections on a Goldbug character page.

This is basically splitting out a character section in a publisher-specific way, which is why I think it should be "(G1)". -Derik 18:33, 11 August 2009 (EDT)

I agree, it's ridiculous. But picking and choosing certain IDW characters for their own pages just because one or two people think they're a little TOO different is even more ridiculous. I mean, come on. We were seriously arguing about whether or not Goldbug's toy should be on Goldbug's page just because he happens to not be Bumblebee for once (a trend IDW has been showing since Spotlight: Galvatron) and because his single appearance just so happened to have a different vehicle mode because he wasn't on Earth. And NOW we're debating on whether or not Galvatron gets his own page because he just happens to not be Megatron in this continuity. As I and others have said, it's all about consistency. So either we CONSISTENTLY put all the IDW characters on (IDW) pages, or we CONSISTENTLY put them all on (G1) pages. Trying to go halfsies and put some on G1 and some on IDW based on personal preference and interpretation is absurd. -- Dark T Zeratul 18:39, 11 August 2009 (EDT)

Actually, I was arguing that, if a character is separate enough to get his own page, he's also separate enough that we can't assume the toys for the character(s) we just separated from automatically still apply. Whether a character is separate enough to get his own page or not is an entirely different question. --Jeysie 19:07, 11 August 2009 (EDT)

I don't think it's accurate to say we're "picking and choosing certain IDW characters for their own pages just because one or two people think they're a little TOO different." After examining the situation, I'm convinced that Goldbug-separate-from-Bumblebee does need his own page. The question is simply what the page should be named.

A question which has been clouded by issues of disambiguation-by-continuity-family vs. by-publisher, what the definition of 'repurposing' is, how much sway tech-specs have, how to handle characters who change their names, and (I think) at least some desire to punish IDW for this pointless retcon by de-legitimizing their character. (I have no idea if Jeysie feels that way... but *I* certainly feel an urge to be petty about it.) But those are all page-internal matters. What decision (if any) is made in regard to them does not affect what name the page will ultimately have... it's just that the original discussion has exploded into a storm of all these side-issue. (Which in turn have offered an opportunity to re-open old debates about other pages, etc.)

It'll all work out. There will be shouting matches and crazy examples, Hoop will insult your mom and I will make a fool of myself at least three times before we eventually work our way back to actual discussion and (probably) discover that somewhere in all the snarling an actual consensus we can all agree on has formed and the wiki can move forward.

It's a stupid system, but it does eventually work. -Derik 02:22, 13 August 2009 (EDT)

Hearts of Steel?! WHY? There's NOTHING different about the characters themselves -- just the timing of when they arrive on Earth. If you were going to write up the intro paragraph for a HOS Bumblebee, what would you write that would be ANY different than G1 Bumblebee? The answer should be "nothing", and that's a pretty good litmus test right there. -- Repowers 10:08, 12 August 2009 (EDT)

WOW. I never figured that it'd come to this. OK, deep breath. I think that Derik's point about 'if there is a future Goldbug who isn't Bumblebee' is an excellent one, vis a vis *IF* he's going to live in his own article, it should be at a sensible name. I also couldn't agree more with M Sipher and ItsWalky about the absurdity of trying to break out *EVERY* IDW version of each character. Pretty soon we're going to have a different article for every possible iteration of every character, and that's lunacy. --Jimsorenson 19:05, 11 August 2009 (EDT)

Yeah, I've gotta say, Derik's point about possible future non-Bumblebee Goldbug's is a good one, and certainly the most convincing argument yet. I would say, however, that generally speaking, we don't base our disambigs around what MIGHT happen - if we did that, everything would have a disambig, even the guys who don't need one, because they MIGHT in the future. I'm still sticking with "Leave it where it is for now," and move it if Derik's hypothetical comes to pass. 100% with Sipher, Walky, Jim and whoever on the notion of splitting off IDW or HOS or anything like that. That's just dumb, guy. - Chris McFeely 19:42, 11 August 2009 (EDT)

And that's why I favor a Goldbug (G1) article. Whether or not the Goldbug-as-Bumblebee info is moved there or if the page simply links to Bumblebee for those continuities is another issue and is a discussion that could probably be saved for that page when it gets made. -- Dark T Zeratul 19:44, 11 August 2009 (EDT)

I love you, Dark T Zeratul, and I WILL have your babies, whether you like it or not.

Chris, I would agree with you except for that what you might think "isn't broken" is actually setting a very real, potentially very bad precedent right now that's having immediate effects. The fact that the debate is spreading to Galvatron (G1) and beyond is no accident. We're sending mixed signals by keeping the article the way it is, and it WILL keep causing problems. Derik's hypothetical is very useful: It exposes the key flaw. My solution is simple, clean, and affirms the current system, nipping lots of potential policy problems in the bud.

- Jackpot 19:56, 11 August 2009 (EDT)

Ever wonder if they write the comics with this kind of thing in mind?

"Just what can we do that'll screw up their classification system a bit more?"

"I know, we'll add another Fasttrack and a Dropshot, then we'll make Goldbug a whole new character! They'll be arguing over those parenthicals for weeks!"

"Excellent. Our work here is done."

Sometimes kinda seems that way. Just sayin'. --Emvee 19:36, 11 August 2009 (EDT)

"If we ever got another Sideays, technically we'd have to move this one to Sideways (RID)" was a recurring joke. (I think it even ended up on our Disambiguation policy page as an example.) Then Hasbro slapped the name on a character with literally 30 seconds of screentime.

I'm not saying it's a conspiracy or 'nuthin... bit it's enough to make you stop and think. -Derik 20:26, 11 August 2009 (EDT)

Somehow, I don't think they put basically any thought into such things. I mean, really, does Goldbug do anything in the comic that virtually any other random Autobot couldn't? Would the story really be any different with only five Throttlebots and Rollbar in charge? It feels like a "just do the first thing that pops into the head that sounds kinda cool". --M Sipher 19:44, 11 August 2009 (EDT)

Sadly, that could probably be applied to a great number of characters in a great number of stories. A few are very well fleshed out, and most are fairly generic. Either way, this was clearly intended to be the same Goldbug rather than an entirely new character. The only exception is that he didn't used to be Bumblebee, which as I pointed out earlier is an ongoing trend with IDW (Galvatron and Cyclonus so far, and probably Scourge when/if he shows up). -- Dark T Zeratul 19:48, 11 August 2009 (EDT)

Oh if they were doing it intentionally, they could do much much worse than that. "Oh, hey, here's G1 Demolishor! Now we're going to heavily imply he's actually UT Demolishor displaced from his own universe! No, wait, he's Shattered Glass Demolishor? Ah, we're just screwin with ya. he really is G1 Demolishor" --abates 19:53, 11 August 2009 (EDT)

Emvee, they're not trying to fuck with us. I assure you, everyone at IDW is just trying to tell fun, interesting stories. And if that sometimes results in giant arguments among us, well, so be it. I think there's a bit of tendency among us, as editors, to think that somehow our understanding of how the TF Universe is organized is binding in some way. It's not. We're just categorizing what's being produced. That's why I think Jeysie's interpretation of toys or no toys on this page were so off-base - because us breaking out Goldbug in IDW ORGANIZATIONALLY from Goldbug in earlier continuities was a construct OF OURS. It didn't reflect any underlying "reality" of the character.

Basically, we sometimes need to get off our collective high horses a bit. (All of us, myself included.) --Jimsorenson 20:05, 11 August 2009 (EDT)

Yeah, in the end there are really only two concerns we should have here:

• Is the result we end up with going to make the information easy to find for our readers?
• If we develop a standard to go with it, is it easy for editors to apply in a pinch?

Otherwise we can argue 'till we're blue in the face about the content creators "making work for us," but it ultimately doesn't matter regarding the goals any good wiki should have.--Rosicrucian^Talk 20:09, 11 August 2009 (EDT)

Over on the IDW boards, there was a complaint about how vague Bumper's death in Megatron Origin was, and I was filled with a horrible dread that the plan is to reveal Goldbug as the resurrected Bumper. If I worked at IDW and wanted to make trouble here, that would be my number one priority. - Cattleprod 20:21, 11 August 2009 (EDT)

I'll be sure to mention that to Andy. --Jimsorenson 20:29, 11 August 2009 (EDT)

Having just re-read the issue, I find Hubcap more likely. *thumbs up* -Derik 02:19, 12 August 2009 (EDT)

Now that I've read over the "discussion" regarding Goldbug, I'm kicking myself on not asking Andy regarding Goldbug's status during SDCC. *facepalm* --Lonegamer78 03:01, 12 August 2009 (EDT)

Yeah, I know Jim, it's just that it does feel s bit like that sometimes. And I know if I was writing the comics, it's the sort of thing I'd do because I'm a bit evil :) --Emvee 03:41, 12 August 2009 (EDT)

..."Goldbug (G1)/IDW comic continuity"? Just throwing that out there. —Interrobang 02:23, 12 August 2009 (EDT)

Goldbug 2? Dead Metal 02:44, 12 August 2009 (EDT)

*throws it back* -Derik 02:45, 12 August 2009 (EDT)

Changed Intro

This is getting completely stupid. Even if some people think his toy somehow applies, assuming his old tech spec applies is definitely fanon. Can we possibly please stick to, y'know, writing about what actually happened in canon and stop making stuff up? --Jeysie 20:06, 12 August 2009 (EDT)

IF this page stays here, then I agree; the fiction should be taken exclusively from his IDW appearances. -- Dark T Zeratul 21:50, 12 August 2009 (EDT)

Yes, Derik, it's not like you're well known for pulling stuff out of your ass based on completely stretching fanon interpretations of things or anything. Now, if someone with a better track record wants to make a case to me... (I can rebut every one of your footnotes if you really want. But just one instance off-hand, Goldbug even says himself that he's optimistic, and it's Sixshot specifically that makes him apprehensive, so how do you get he's "gloomy" out of that. As if Sixshot doesn't make everybody apprehensive?) --Jeysie 22:38, 12 August 2009 (EDT)

Dearest Jeysie,

Per your request, I have sourced my revision of Goldbug's bio. As you can see, about 85% of it came directly from the issue itself. (Which would have been obvious if you'd bothered to compare the text to the issue instead of just deleting it with a claim that I was drawing from his tech-spec.)
The other 15% comes from his tech-spec. I don't think you have a consensus to back your conviction that The 1987 toy isn't a representation of IDW Goldbug, so it's fair play. If you want to argue that Goldbug's fuel efficiency and underwater capabilities are "inherited" from Bumblebee and thus he would not have them if he was never Bumblebee... well I disagree, but I might be willing to be convinced on the subject. If, however, you want to argue that the tech-spec can't count because the toy doesn't belong on the page (I'm not putting words in your mouth, it's merely an inference fromt he fact you attempted to remove the toy only to have your edit reverted, and have insisted 4 times on this talk page that the toy should be removed or should not count because "There's no official statement that toy Goldbug = IDW Goldbug.") it appears to me that this matter is still up for debate, and I don't think you should be treating it like a settled matter.

cordial as always,

-Derik

I can rebut every one of your footnotes if you really want.

...seriously, you can rebut footnote #1 on my revision? The one citing that the character's name is Goldbug?

(I want to see this.)

Very well, I accept your challenge! If you can refute footnote #1, then I will not only go with your version of the article, but I will also support your initiative to remove Goldbug's toy from the page! -Derik 22:57, 12 August 2009 (EDT)

• 'I knew the lab's work was important because the other Throttlebots and I were there as couriers to keep the work from falling into enemy's hands.', 'There's no one faster or better at evading the enemy than us [...]' 'We were never in the command center, kept separate to keep the work secret.' '...we're the only survivors of a mission I never even have clearance to know about.' - covered in the current intro.
• 'Adaptable to underwater, cold and hot environments. Can withstand temperatures from -150 to 180 degrees Fahrenheit.', 'Inversion of 'Realizes what others think of him isn't nearly as important as what he thinks of himself.', 'Inversion of Excellent fuel efficiency; 2 1/2 times better than the next best Throttlebot.' based Goldbug's 1987 tech-spec. - Not applicable, since there's no canon evidence that his techspec still applies, toy or no toy.
• Neither snow, nor rain, nor heat, nor gloom of night stays these couriers from the swift completion of their appointed rounds. Herodotus on the Persian system of military couriers ~2500 years ago, The Histories - You're kidding? Out-of-Transformers source, thus not applicable.
• 'I try to keep my optimism on max, but this is Sixshot.' 'We should be dead. All of us...' 'Goldbug's despairing internal monologue is a sharp contrast to what his resolute spoken dialog throughout "Spotlight: Metroplex.' - Again, he's generally optimistic, it's just Sixshot specifically that makes him nervous because Sixshot makes everyone nervous (especially after you've already seen him blow up a space station).
• The only order Goldbug gives in "Spotlight: Metroplex" is to "hold [the shuttle] steady" as it's crashing and "roll for it" when the Throttlebots scramble to escape Sixshot. (Besides, what use does a unit of couriers have for a commander? It's not like they work in teams.) - Fanon supposition. At best it's an Error or Trivia.
• 'All of the Throttlebots except the notably slow Wideload display these jets on pages 4+7 of "Spotlight: Metroplex"' - Just because they have jets doesn't mean we know what they do/are for unless the fiction says so.

But I guess this changed into the "let's write up random fanon supposition" wiki when I wasn't looking? Like I said, considering your track record on pages like Omniverse, SG Ruckus, that weird BW thing you pulled out of thin air, and a multitude of other instances, you'll pardon me if I don't take your supposition seriously. But if anyone else has a good case... --Jeysie 23:03, 12 August 2009 (EDT)

Addendum: The rest of it is random quotes that could be read a number of different ways, or, in the case of Footnote 1, you being a smartass, which I have no patience for. --Jeysie 23:09, 12 August 2009 (EDT)

*phew* Man, I'm glad you decided to be pissy about this!

See, I didn't realize until after I posted my challenge that you had actually only promised to rebut all my footnotes, not refute them. A rebuttal is just a response, it wouldn't even have to be logical or proove anything; you could have said "This character is not named Goldbug because he could actually be Scourge in disguise" and I would have been honor bound to support your re-vision of the page and lobby for the toy's removal.

(I would have done it too. I'm a man of my word.) -Derik 23:25, 12 August 2009 (EDT)

It's a rebuttal because I'm willing to entertain the idea that my finding your footnote "proof" extremely dubious is actually incorrect. Provided it's proven to me in a logical and straightforward manner. If you had responded here with a civil logical comment on why you felt your intro (that you even stated in your summary was based at least partly on his tech specs) was nevertheless applicable, we could have a nice, productive conversation.

I'm not unreasonable to people who act reasonably. But if you're going to be a smartass, I've got no problems with being pissy about it. The TF fandom has tried my patience for dealing with that sort of crap at this point. --Jeysie 23:39, 12 August 2009 (EDT)

Oh no no... I'm not disagreeing about that. What you presented was definitely a rebuttal to footnotes 2, 3, 4, 5, 8, 9, 10, 11 and 20. I do not argue with that.

However when I accepted your challenge, it was specific to you rebutting footnote #1, which you (thankfully) passed on. -Derik 00:03, 13 August 2009 (EDT)

Considering I'd be very disappointed if you supported me without genuinely agreeing with my stance, I'm not particularly fussed either way. --Jeysie 00:21, 13 August 2009 (EDT)

Why not? I can argue for things I don't agree with now. That's healthy, it's part of being able to see things from another people's perspective.

For example; I could argue that because S:M Goldbug:

• Has a different color scheme, not present in the toy or any previous character model, more akin to the original Bumblebee model;
• Possesses a transformation scheme completely unlike the 1987 toy;
• Has a pelvis based on G1 Jazz and G1 Sideswipe's Sunbow animation models;
• Is 'more redesigned' than any of the other Throttlebots in S:M, possessing more anomalous details;
• Does not match his tech-spec in function, attitude, role or relation to G1 Bumblebee;

...that S:M Goldbug is not based on the 1987 toy, but is in fact a new character-design melange'd from several toys, character models and characterizations that while inspired by the 1987 toy much as Shattered Glass Goldbug is... can not actually said to be an incarnation of that same character.

I don't find that argument particularly compelling... but I have to admit that when you start rattling off all the influences that seem to have gone into the character and all the ways he doesn't draw from anything that came before, there are enough accumulated bits to give me pause. If you made a strong enough case beyond these 'bits about why this character should be treated that way... I might allow myself to be persuaded.

The thing is... you're not doing that. I don't feel a lot of give-and-take in your arguments or revisions. You can't just say "no" without dialoging There has be be give on both sides for there to be consensus. This is not a game of "I advance my perspective, and it is 100% correct or 100% incorrect. Let us stage an up-or-down vote."

And when you "rebutted every one of my footnotes", you didn't bother to present arguments against 6, 7, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18 or 19-- but you still felt free to remove the portion that states he's "gloomy on the inside but presents a more up-beat joking public face." I mean-- fergods sake. It's right there, he was experiencing doubts that the Autobots had already lost the war prior to Sixshot's attack.

And SUFFERING SHAD, did you actually say that "Just because the Throttlebots have jets doesn't mean we can say they make them go fast"?

FUCK. THAT. SHIT. If you're going to insult me at least offer a disingenuous argument like "how do we know those aren't the afterimages of running lights?"

Here's a mind blowing concept; how about saying- "I see where you're going with those jets Derik, but I think you're going too far to say for certain that they're short-range, or that they're for evasion. That needs to be eased that back a bit before I'm comfortable with it." You know-- try building consensus from different point of views instead of slapping down everyone's but your own?

I'm not placing the burden on you do do the work of resolving this, but when you simply revert my edits and say "keep your fannon shit out of the article" and followup with a point-by-point rebuttal that basically says "I wholly reject your reality and deny that your edits have any basis at all" you are leaving no ground for discussion.

I don't think you're "playing nice" with your fellow editors. And it's extremely irritating.

It's working against you too. You've been arguing that it's "inappropriate for the wiki" to include the Goldbug toy in this article for 4 days... and getting very little traction with users who feel that removing it would remove relevant information. I think you'd get a much better response if you suggested moving the toy to the trivia section like we do with some characters when it's not clear a toy can be legitimately said to 'be' someone. (You know; a compromise! As in 'give and take.' As in 'consensus.') I might be willing to entertain the suggestion if for no other reason than I think your fixation on this point is blocking anyone else from moving forward with this article.

We've been arguing about it for four days and until I took a whack at his bio this afternoon the entire article consisted of "Goldbug is the leader of the Throttlebots" and some {{stub}} tags! Be part of the process or get out of the way. -Derik 02:00, 13 August 2009 (EDT)

I'm more than willing to allow for compromise when I think I might be wrong on something. I'm actually not sure if I could make a good argument or not that if by wiki standards Goldbug even should be separated from Bumblebee, or if every G1 Goldbug should be on the same page, so I actually have no real opinion on that aspect of things.

What I am saying, and have been saying all along is that, if we decide, according to the fiction, that a character is different enough to be separated, then I think that means that we have to choose whether a toy belongs or not on the new page also based on the fiction. I would take that stance on any particular situation that brought it up; it just happened to be this one.

It's not my problem if other people didn't write up a certain thing. I've had other things I've been working on. And other folks could have easily reverted my edit saying they thought you were right, or posted on the talk page here saying as much. But they haven't yet.

When I altered your edits you could have made a civil argument here stating why you thought you were right. Instead you reinstated it with a ridiculous footnote thing to make a smartass point. So you'll pardon me if I feel no need to sugarcoat things to spare your feelings. I think what you posted was fan supposition and I find your justifications dubious, and I feel no need to pretend to feel otherwise. If other people think I'm wrong and overrule me, so be it. But all I've heard so far is you being smart alecky and throwing fits, which makes me even less inclined to be nice to you.

Not to mention that making all this dumb fuss over a bit of info that's not even remotely important enough to put on the page if we can't verify it makes me want to borrow Sipher's bag of soap. --Jeysie 02:42, 13 August 2009 (EDT)

you reinstated it with a ridiculous footnote thing to make a smartass point.

Your original note on the reversion was, and I quote: "...where did you get *any* of that from his actual fiction appearance?"

Sounds like a request to provide citation to me. And more to the point, it sounds like your original basis for the reversion was that I was drawing from the toy tech-spec, and you don't think the toy counts, therefore I'm not allowed to use it in the bio despite the general lack of support for your "the toy doesn't count" thing.

Also, if there is a pillowcase-beating in my future, may I respectfully request Irish Spring? -Derik 03:02, 13 August 2009 (EDT)

Because even if we decide the toy applies, that still doesn't prove that the tech spec applies. Especially considering that one, tech specs don't necessarily match fiction even when the toy does definitely match, and considering the fiction is the entire justification for the split to begin with, that's what we need to go by, not the toy. And two, considering that Goldbug's tech specs state he's got Bumblebee's mind, and at best we don't know if that's the case, and at worst we know that the writers have explicitly said he's not Bumblebee, that casts even more question on whether the rest of the tech spec bio necessarily applies or not.

(Sorry for all the "considerings".) --Jeysie 03:20, 13 August 2009 (EDT)

's not problem.

See-- I get that that's your argument. But momentarily bypassing whether or not the toy 'counts', I'm stuck on "even if we decide the toy applies, that still doesn't prove that the tech spec applies."

I don't think it works that way. Just because Beast Changer's tech-spec doesn't match the show doesn't mean that we doubt his tech-spec's information about his claws ability to rip through synthetic alloys or that his dragon scales are tougher than any Vehicon armor. If the toy is that character, its information still counts unless specifically contradicted.

The only time a tech-spec would completely not count is when a toy was repurposed as another character like Armorhide was as Huffer. Obviously Armorhide's tech-spec doesn't sound towards Huffer.

So what you're saying is that the G1 Goldbug toy was in fact repurposed for a character wholly unrelated to the original Goldbug... who is also named Goldbug, also a Throttlebot and is part of the same continuity.

The other option you're left with is that Goldbug is in fact a new character named Goldbug in the same continuity and the toy was not re-purposed as him... but instead it merely served as the same inspiration; like Mainframe (Animated) was inspired by Mainframe (G1), but the G1 toy is not a representation fo the Animated character (and this its tech-spec cannot simply be assumed to appear.)

All this other noise about the vagueness, clouding issues etc etc etc... is irrelevant. It's got to be one of those two for your argument to hold water.

And frankly, the first one is crazy, and while the second one is a bit more plausible, I'm honestly blanking on any instance of us doing the 'inspiration' thing within the same continuity family... it's pretty much limited to cross-family homages and unused Dialcone/Microman toys. And in any case, the toy would still go in the trivia section as inspiration, so you shouldn't really be arguing for it's wholesale removal.

Also, your statement that "There's no official statement that toy Goldbug = IDW Goldbug." is utterly meaningless. Your'e basically saying that unless a writer or editor posts "Yes, Chase was Chase the 1987 toy" we have to treat him as a separate character. No, just... no.

Look, if you want to argue for how you think this page should be, fine, do it. But understand that you are suggesting a very unusual treatment for this page, and the burden of proof is on you to convince people. That means constructing actual arguments, with supporting reasons. Not simply repeating "no, because I don't think it should be that way" again and again and again. Obstinance != convincing people.

Unless you start making actual arguments, I'm not listening to you anymore. -Derik 04:38, 13 August 2009 (EDT)

This Goldbug thing is so crazy. It's really either all or nothing on the toy/toy bio. On the one hand I'm thinking, he's Goldbug the Throttlebot. The tech spec has to apply. He has the mind of Bumblebee? OK. We don't know how it happened. Freak orbital jump accident like the Star Trek episode with two Rikers? They are machines, so maybe Bumblebee's mind was copied at some point? On the other hand, he seems to be just new character that happens to be named Goldbug and is a Throttlebot. It doesn't make sense to incorporate anything we know of the Bumblebee Goldbug. That is the most straightforward approach, but something in me is unwilling to just say the tech spec Goldbug simply doesn't exist, so I'm coming down on the side of that this Goldbug has Bumblebee's mind somehow, whether he knows it or not.

This is also why all the Goldbug stuff should be on one page, so we can just present Goldbug as the fiction does and let the reader make a determination from the facts. Having a separate IDW Goldbug page draws a line. Someone had an idea of a "Goldbug (G1)" page that simply links to Bumblebee's page where appropriate and I liked that idea a lot. - Starfield 00:35, 13 August 2009 (EDT)

I think "he's a new character that happens to be named Goldbug and is a Throttlebot" makes perfect sense, considering that the writers have said he's separate, Galvatron is handled pretty much the same way, and there's zip in IDW canon so far that I can recall off-hand that shows any hint of mind-copying (and why would they use it on Bumblebee, of all people?). I think people just need to accept that sometimes a duck is just a duck and that not everything needs to be connected. --Jeysie 00:43, 13 August 2009 (EDT)

Yea, that makes sense, except that if that is the case, I can't shake the idea that "tech spec Goldbug the Throttlebot" also exists, somewhere off-panel in the IDW universe. - Starfield

I still see the "Goldbug (G1) page linking to Bumblebee for the other continuities" as the easiest solution. It resolves the issue of the toy, it resolves the issue of the intro, and it resolves the issue of any potential future non-Bumblebee Goldbugs. -- Dark T Zeratul 01:38, 13 August 2009 (EDT)

"This page is 70 kilobytes long". I hate you all. —Interrobang 03:10, 13 August 2009 (EDT)

Well, the kids have to learn about Tekwar sooner or later. -Derik 04:25, 13 August 2009 (EDT)