Talk:Generation 1 continuity family

From MediaWiki
Revision as of 18:44, 24 October 2009 by Interrobang (talk | contribs)
Jump to navigationJump to search

I thought it might be better to separate US and Japan out by columns, to visualize each better. Like this, only maybe without using the featuredchracters template.

(Numbers indicate order of appearance.)

United States Japan

- Starfield 09:17, 14 May 2009 (EDT)

I like the idea. ^^ --TX55TALK 10:08, 14 May 2009 (EDT)
Not bad. Although I'm wondering about Henkei's placement. I prefer that it's by itself, like CR originally was before Takara's retconning. Unless someone can give me an explanation as to why Henkei should be with the G1 continuity family, given how we have:
Somewhat unbelievably for Japan, it presents the Henkei! universe as a new continuity, rather than shoehorning it somewhere into the cartoon continuity.
...in the toyline page. --Lonegamer78 15:06, 14 May 2009 (EDT)
It is in the G1 Continuity family, but not the cartoon continuity. The characters are G1 characters in the new Henkei universe. - Starfield 15:11, 14 May 2009 (EDT)
...that'll do. --Lonegamer78 17:08, 14 May 2009 (EDT)

Wasn't Beast Machines called "Beast Wars Returns" in Japan? - SanityOrMadness 20:24, 22 May 2009 (EDT)

Franchise identifiers

Previously, for articles in Generation 1 cartoon fiction, the franchise identifier would be worded:

[...] from the cartoon portion of the Generation 1 continuity family.

However this article's disambig suggests that the Generation 1 bit should link to here, or possibly that it should be worded:

[...] from the cartoon portion of the The Transformers franchise in the Generation 1 continuity family.

But that seems a bit wordy. Comments? --abates 18:03, 22 May 2009 (EDT)

Well, that's how characters like Jhiaxus (G2), Rattrap, etc get treated. If you think that's wordy, look at the top of Optimus Primal. - SanityOrMadness 20:24, 22 May 2009 (EDT)
Rattrap doesn't have the "cartoon portion" bit because he's in multiple parts of the Beast Era. Chak and Una are a better representation of what I'm talking about, since they were only in the Beast Wars cartoon. If I have my logic right, their franchise identifier should read:
Chak and Una are a pair of protohumans from the cartoon portion of the Beast Wars franchise in the Generation 1 continuity family.
But hey, that's still shorter than Optimus Primal's identifier, so maybe it's not so wordy after all. :) --abates 06:22, 23 May 2009 (EDT)
I'm wary of saying something like "the cartoon portion of the xxxxx franchise" because oftentimes there are multiple series/continuities within a single medium in a franchise. For instance, "the comic portion of the Generation 1 franchise" is practically meaningless. Note Borebit's disambig-note, which just jumps straight to the continuity family. And really, since the series details are in the section-headers, I see no reason to get too specific. Franchise + continuity family is enough.
On a different note, you seem to be veering in the same direction as Starfield below, using "the The Transformers franchise" in place of what we currently call "the Generation 1 franchise". You can see the discussion below for my response, as well as Talk:Generation 1 (franchise) for more on that. I presume you're trying to avoid the awkwardness of saying "the Generation 1 portion of the Generation 1 continuity family," but I'm sure there's a way we could rephrase that. "The Generation 1 portion of the continuity family of the same name", perhaps?
One disambig-specific danger I see in saying "the The Transformers franchise" is that it confounds the meaning of our parentheticals. The "Swarm (G1)" debate firmly established that "(G1)" means the franchise, NOT NOT NOT the continuity family. So if we then reserve the term "Generation 1" for only the family in the disambig-note... we're giving the kind of mixed signals that will guarantee more of that kind of butt-hurt in the future.
- Jackpot 02:57, 3 June 2009 (EDT)
Yes, my referring to it as the "The Transformers franchise" was exactly to avoid the G1 portion of the G1 continuity family. Your "continuity family of the same name" wording works much better, without having to resort to "The Transformers franchise". --abates 04:23, 3 June 2009 (EDT)

Historical or retconned franchise identifiers.

Concerning Jackpot's edit. I like the original franchise identifiers in this list instead of the retconned ones. I think it is appropriate in this list to call them what they were at the time. It is like a historical record that way. - Starfield 22:52, 2 June 2009 (EDT)

I'll respond to the easy one first: I took "Transformers" off of "Transformers: Generation 2" because that's what we do with every series/franchise, and there's nothing special about G2 in that regard. It doesn't have anything to do with original names and retcons; it's just a convenient shorthand to avoid unnecessary clutter.
As for "The Transformers" vs. "Generation 1", I see where you're going with the original-name argument, but I think that that only truly applies to individual products (such as The Transformers (toyline) and The Transformers (cartoon)). The G1 franchise by its nature is a backwards-looking concept; before G2, the idea of a "franchise" as we're discussing it didn't really exist. There was no intermediary step between the brand and the products. When G2 appeared, it created a void behind itself at its own hierarchical layer. Then when the pre-G2 era started making a comeback in the form of e-Hobby exclusives and so forth, the term "Generation 1" gained official traction, and it smoothly filled the void of the nameless franchise-before-franchises. The way I see it, it's not really as though the franchise had an "original name" that "G1" has superseded; "G1" is filling a vacuum where nothing had existed at all. Moreover, when I see something labeled "The Transformers", I only think of things that ended fully with G2. But the franchise referred to in that link includes lots of stuff in the modern era, so I think the modern term "G1" is a better label.
Lastly, I think consistency within the wiki is important when we're dealing with such wide-spanning, multi-definitioned terms as "G1" and "The Transformers", so in this case I'd go with simplicity. I acknowledge that you were trying to give due respect to both terms in your wording, but I'm not sure it's worth it here.
- Jackpot 01:45, 3 June 2009 (EDT)


Article's title

I see no reason for the "continuity family" in this article's title to be in parenthesis. This article isn't about a thing called "Generation 1," it's about the "Generation 1 continuity family." I would suggest dropping the parenthesis. --KilMichaelMcC 02:56, 3 June 2009 (EDT)

That thought had been in the back of my head this whole time, but I have a tendency towards finickiness about my own articles, and I didn't want to push it by changing the title on a whim. Now that I've got somebody backing the idea up, though, I'll go ahead and do it. - Jackpot 03:00, 3 June 2009 (EDT)
Retrieved from "https://tfwiki.duckdns.org/index.php?title=Talk:Generation_1_continuity_family&oldid=382153"