This idea is getting some traction over on the Tonka GoBots page, so I thought I'd replicate the discussion here. It's certainly a big enough change that it should get broad exposure. --Jimsorenson 11:44, 17 October 2009 (EDT)
A note should be said in the [GoBots] article about canon. What is canon? I'm guessing it is like G.I. Joe: the whole universe is canon, but only the bits that appear in Transformers fiction is MediaWiki-noteworthy. Or is it like crossovers such as Star Wars: only the bits that appear in Transformers fiction are canon. Or (I don't think so) does Hasbro's purchase of them retroactively drag everything in, cartoon and all, as a "continuity family"? - Starfield 17:07, 6 April 2009 (EDT)
Personally, I think that the GoBots should be covered here IN FULL.Khajidha 00:19, 7 April 2009 (EDT)
It is indeed like G.I. Joe or Death's Head, where the only stories that count for the purposes of our wiki are the ones that include Transformers.--ItsWalky 00:20, 7 April 2009 (EDT)
I'm not sure I agree. The Gobots cartoon has effectively been subsumed, in whole, into the Transformers mythos. This is a fundamentally different case than Death's Head, who left the Transformers multiverse explicitly, or G.I. Joe, which has implicitly diverged. Due to the legalities surrounding GoBots, the only licensed future stories set in the Gobots multiverse will be Transformers stories. We could certainly choose to catalog the 65 episodes and one movie of Gobots as effectively another Transformers continuity family, which it basically is. I'm not sure what the downside would be to that, other than it'll take a while for it to be up to the wiki's usual standards. I'd be happy enough to go through and start with character pages and episode guides though. --Jimsorenson 23:10, 16 October 2009 (EDT)
And just to throw it out there for reference, Counter-X is probably our best source for GoBots research on the entire interwebs. --DrSpengler 23:31, 16 October 2009 (EDT)
I, uh, I'm not sure that really fits the TF Wiki's "mission statement." I mean, this is a Transformers wiki. We shouldn't start making ourselves cover entire other properties just because there was a crossover. --ItsWalky 12:24, 17 October 2009 (EDT)
Depth of coverage?
As much as I'd fap to the idea of having full-blown GoBots coverage on this wiki, I'd just like to get straight how deep we'd go with the coverage. Would we cover just the cartoon? Would we also cover the Robo Machine comics published in the UK? Would we do articles for each character along with complete toy write ups? Just curious. I wouldn't mind slogging through the cartoons myself, or maybe even calling dibs on the Rock Lords movie, but I'd just like to know exactly how much GoBots we'd be willing to cover.
Also, would we be able to cover the toys, or just the fiction? -- Semysane 23:47, 16 October 2009 (EDT)
I think that we'd only cover the part of GoBots that are canon for Transformers. That'd be the cartoon, basically. IMO, the toys (as something owned by Bandai) are outside of that purview. Things like Machine-Robo and associated fiction have not been brought into the Transformers canon and pretty much cannot be officially, legally, brought in. --Jimsorenson 00:35, 17 October 2009 (EDT)
Machine-Robo etc would probably fall under the same classification as Diaclone and Microchange, ie general mention but little detail. I am confused by your statement that "the toys (as something owned by Bandai) are outside of that purview." Taking that statement at face value the original Jetfire, Roadbuster and Whirl toys shouldn't be here either. Khajidha 18:35, 17 October 2009 (EDT)
Not at all. Those toys were all released as Transformers. Other Takatoku and Bandai toys wouldn't be fair game, and aren't. The reason that the GoBots CARTOON can be on this wiki is that it was effectively bought by Hasbro when they acquired Tonka, and then integrated into the Transformers universe by licensed stories like Withered Hope. There has been no comparable action regarding GoBot toys. They were licensed to Tonka by Bandai. That license has long since expired. Hasbro has no claim on those toys, and there has never been any attempt to integrate the toys into the Transformers multiverse. At least, that's the way I see it. --Jimsorenson 19:32, 17 October 2009 (EDT)
Okay, now I understand your point. For the other side, it seems to me that the toys are the source for the cartoon; if one is fair game for this wiki so is the other. Since this site is not part of Hasbro, the licensing is irrelevant. That is, while Hasbro can't use the toys; we (as archivists) are free to use them. Khajidha 20:19, 17 October 2009 (EDT)
Some initial chime-ins
If we can do it up to our usual standards, I'm for it. I just think it's a metric assload of material to be adding.--RosicrucianTalk 00:00, 17 October 2009 (EDT)
Hey, we've all got plenty of time. What's one more metric assload? --DrSpengler 00:06, 17 October 2009 (EDT)
I welcome the challenge. --Jimsorenson 00:35, 17 October 2009 (EDT)
I could definitely help out. (Dibs on swooping in and taking care of any spelling or punctuation mistakes.) ---Blackout- 11:49, 17 October 2009 (EDT)
I'm a little indecisive - the entire point of Withered Hope, etc. was that the GoBots exist OUTSIDE of the TF universe. While a given number of GoBots have since moved in, until further notice, it's unclear how many GoBots actually have integrated into the larger TF milieu. Now, if someone from Hasbro said, even in passing, that the GoBots stories are now considered part of the TF multiverse, I'd be all for it. Maybe it's something to think about for BC or the next Q&A. Hooper_X 12:45, 17 October 2009 (EDT)
A while back there was a discussion where it was said that nothing that was once canon can be removed from canon later on, even by Hasbro. Is the reverse also true, can a block of fiction be retroactively added to canon that wasn't canon at the time? I'm thinking not really. I'm thinking only the glimpses of the GoBots universe in TF fiction belong. - Starfield 13:14, 17 October 2009 (EDT)
They're not really reciprocal arguments. Imagine this scenario: Hasbro kills off G2 and is soured on Transformers. They let their new acquisition, Kenner, start their own brand of Transforming robots, called Beast Wars, and they don't use the Transformers name in conjunction with it at all. No mention of Cybertron. No character named Megatron - call him T-Wrecks. It'd effectively be a completely different toyline and cartoon, not 'canon' for Transformers. The whole first season happens, more or less as we saw but without Starscream or the few mentions of past continuity. It's a big hit, so Hasbro decides to add the Transformers logo to the Beast Wars packaging. Then the second season starts up, and lo and behold, they make a big plot point out of The Ark, and the Predacons being descended from Decepticons. They would have changed the status of the S1 stories from non-canon to canon for Transformers.
Now imagine that it wasn't until Beast Machines that this transition happened. Different logo, different writers, but a continuity of characters and ideas. It'd STILL retroactively pull all of the Beast Wars into Transformers canon. So, sure, stories can be retroactively made canon. Hell, what about this scenario - Alignment is republished by IDW, under the Transformers banner. Boom - non-canon becomes canon, just like that.
It's possible, is all I'm saying. --Jimsorenson 13:25, 17 October 2009 (EDT)
It's totally feasible, I'm just not sure it's actually HAPPENED with the GoBots material yet. Hooper_X 13:41, 17 October 2009 (EDT)
Yeah, my thought too. I don't really have a problem per se with the idea, it's just that I don't think GoBots is officially Transformers canon as a whole; just some individual characters that have shown up. Kind of like how various Marvel characters have been shown to be a part of canon, but we don't go and then write up the entire universe they hail from. --Jeysie 17:24, 17 October 2009 (EDT)
But... but... when I was a kid GoBots were decidedly not Transformers. Back in the '80's that was kind of a big deal. Not a logical argument, I know. If Alignment were published as a Transformers story, sure it would be canon. If the GoBots cartoon were published as a Transformers story it would be canon. The Beast Wars example is interesting. - Starfield 13:49, 17 October 2009 (EDT)
*IS* GoBots Canon for Transformers though?
Yeah. Honestly, I don't know about this... at least, not now. There's still a lot of TF stuff that needs deeper exploration and suchlike, including Club materials. I'd think a focus on those things before we delve deep into GoBots' non-TF-direct stuff would be in order. --M Sipher 14:45, 17 October 2009 (EDT)
I share this thought. I think if people have enough time to be writing up a bunch of GoBot stuff, surely it's better spent (for now, at least) on writing up the TF stuff we already know we need? --Jeysie 17:24, 17 October 2009 (EDT)
There is no need to have articles here for Defendor, Destroyer, Tank, Fytor, Hans-Cuff, Jeeper Creeper, Wrexx, Pincer, Pumper, Vamp, Creepy, and probably 99.1% of all other GoBot characters and story events. We have the e-Hobby team, Withered Hope, the various Crashers and Cy-Kills and a few other circa-Dreamwave easter eggs, because they actually existed in some form in the TF multiverse. Trying to add in every other character that never did anything and doesn't matter just because we can would be about as fruitful and necessary as adding in every other G.I.Joe character ever that also never appeared here. That Eskimo Quinn dude could always use another write-up, right? --Thylacine 2000 17:51, 17 October 2009 (EDT)
Im free, I'll do the GoBots. --206.253.51.107 21:14, 17 October 2009 (EDT)
Yeah, I'm not sure how the GoBots non-TF backstory is any more canon to TFs than the entirety of GI Joe, or Death's Head's other stories, or Spiderman comics, or X-Men, or the Incredible Hulk, or... -- Repowers 22:07, 17 October 2009 (EDT)
Leaving the above joking around aside, the difference between GoBots and the other crossovers is that GoBots is tending towards convergence, where as all the other cases listed are tending towards divergence. Gobots has been, de facto, merged into the Transformers line. It started with Transformers names and lines named GoBots. Then GoBots names and likenesses started to show up, again and again. Then toys were made to represent specific GoBots. Stories were published involving GoBots, not just as new Transformers, but as GoBonaughts from their cartoon continuity entering the realms of Transformers.
This is a fundamentally different situation from the other crossovers. Death's Head started out in Transformers (leaving High Noon Tex aside) but then left for another multiverse. G.I. Joe started out in the same multiverse, really, but has slowly but surely diverged to the point where future crossovers cannot exist as a part of the main lines. The Marvel stuff, again, very briefly started out in the same multiverse (rather, the TF comic briefly started out in the Marvel universe before diverging.)
That's the real underlying reason. GoBots are being absorbed into Transformers, literally (by the acquisition of Tonka) and figuratively (as seen in Withered Hopes.) That GoBots are about a civil war between shapechanging robots (well, cyborgs, but then, Beast Wars were cyborgs too) means that it works very well thematically. That all future official GoBots stories will come from Hasbro or its licensees makes it work on a practical level. It's a finite amount of non-Transformers-branded story to catalog, a mere 65 episodes, 1 movie and some 100 characters of note. If we assume maybe 2 extra characters or devices of interest per episode, that's about 300 articles. With the 10,000 we already have, that's hardly a daunting task. Heck, it even benefits Hasbro. It gives them easier access to the information and trademarks that they've already acquired, and thus lets them better protect their intellectual property.
Basically, that means that we CAN choose to catalog GoBots. The precedent is there in the form of the Beastformers. That doesn't necessarily mean we SHOULD, but we have the option. I for one would like to exercise that option, but only if enough people think it's a good idea. --Jimsorenson 00:52, 18 October 2009 (EDT)
Marvel Continutiy side-discussion
All of Marvel 616 is totally contained within the IDW G1 continuity! Wolverine sure didn't warp from that reality to his own later on. --ItsWalky 22:39, 17 October 2009 (EDT)
Wolverine appears in three solo titles, four team books, and a spattering of guest appearances every month. If there isn't SOME kind of reality warping that helps him get around, I'd be surprised. --Xaaron 23:24, 17 October 2009 (EDT)
For me, it's like kinda minor continuity within the 616 reality, since there are too many contradictory. --TX55TALK 23:48, 17 October 2009 (EDT)
Who owns what Vis-à-vis rights
How much of GoBots Hasbro owns, I thought, was subject to debate. Heck, Sipher and Trent go out of their way to not mention anybody in Withered Hope that either didn't have a Hasbro-owned name or wasn't based on a Transformers figure. That's why we have "Doctor B" instead of Doctor Braxus, why they name Leader One and not Cykill, and why they describe Turbo but do not name him. This indicates that the GoBots cartoon, as a whole, is not something that the "Withered Hope" story itself declares is open to us.
Hasbro owns Tonka... but does that really mean they now own the CotGB cartoon? They may just own some trademarks and some likenesses. That whole situation is kind of an intellectual property clusterfuck. Bandai owns the toys, Hanna Barbara may still retain rights to portions of the show, and Hasbro probably owns what little remains. --ItsWalky 01:25, 18 October 2009 (EDT)
That's a really good point. I got the impression from the IDW editors that it's all on the table, but then it hasn't come up much in my books (yet) so that hasn't been put to the test. Sipher, could you shed some light on the process? Did you restrict your use of terms because of a Hasbro missive, or was that you being proactively cautious? --Jimsorenson 03:46, 18 October 2009 (EDT)
Legally it could be an abandoned copyright. Transformers has spent the last several years walking along the train tracks to go poke it with a stick in increasingly invasive ways... and it (or whoever owns it) has not reacted as we've had Transformers toys released that are Go-Bots characters, featured them in increasingly-large roles in Transformers stories, slowly transitioning to full-on (albeit minor) characters instead of cameos, taken measures to lock out their copyrights... and finally openly acknowledging "yes, we consider Go-Bots part of our multiverse, and intend to use them." It's not even a separate universe-- the rock lords stuff is showing up in the same universe as Cybertron. (In Multiple universes, right?)
Whoever owns Go-Bots seems to have just given up. Go-Bots was never popular enough for a DVD set, even during the Maximum Nostalgia period. And with Hasbro owning their trademarks-- not just character names but the name of the damn line and species-- it's functionally impossible for them to market Go-Bots as a nostalgia property. When they didn't bring Machine Rescue Robo over to the U.S., the last real hope of a revival or relaunch died. (and most fundamentally... He-Man and Thunercats died. If they can't sustain revivals, Go-Bots doesn't stand a chance. The perception that all nostalgia properties are money-mines seems to have finally died out.) They just... what are they going to ever do with the part they own? Convention-exclusive comics that can't even be called "Go-Bots," it'd have to be "Guardians vs. Renegades" or "Challenge of the Guard-Bots"?
In theory all the Go-Bots we're getting is a new universe that may resemble some past incarnation, but is actually based on the cardback bios... or something. (Which I don't think we actually have the rights to either... or maybe as part of the packaging they were part of the rights Kenner owned-- I dunno.)
(Someone who knows more than I do about Go-Bots could probably figure out better than I who owns what part of the brand, which has been sawed up and redistributed like one of Dexter Morgan's victims.)
Critical point: The 'abandoned copyright' thing I said above? It's a theoretical classification. No one relies on that, ever. It's even worse than Fair use. It is incredibly hard to abandon a copyright simply through neglect-- it basically requires an explicit declaration by all owners that they choose to do so, so all of the above theoretical musings are just that-- legal theory, and the law operates differently in a vacuum than it does in the real world.
This would make a good question to ask in our Hasbro Q&A. Not who owns Go-Bots... they won't answer that because it's too legally fraught. Ask a simple question like "we know you got the trademarks via Kenner... does that include the cardback bios?" (Because I'd like to be able to fill out the Narliphant page using its go-bots bio.)
Hypothetical aside-- remember the "Duck Dodgers meets the Green Lantern Corps" episode a few years ago? I'm not entirely sure, but I think WB could have had him meet the Go-Bots. Drop him into the full-on Hanna Barbera cartoon, using the names under a grandfather clause like Captain Marvel. ...they just have no reason to-- the trademarks effectively lock out their ability to create a new cartoon, sell toys, etc etc etc. I'm just pointing out how screwed up the rights are. -Derik 13:06, 19 October 2009 (EDT)
Interesting musings. The missing piece, though, is what kind of agreements Tonka structured with Hanna-Barbara, which have since passed to Hasbro and Warner Brothers, respectively. It's well known that Hasbro was savvy-enough to put legal agreements in place that ensured that new elements introduced in Transformers fiction continued to belong to Hasbro. Hence the manoeuvrings of Marvel with characters like Circuit Breaker and Death's Head. I don't know how Tonka structured their agreements, but that'll have a huge impact on where the rights stand now. I'm not sure, thought, that the failure to use 'Gobotron' for Dead-End had anything to do with legal wrangling.--Jimsorenson 20:38, 19 October 2009 (EDT)
Sorry if I'm beating a dead horse here, I'm just rather interested in the whole situation. I went and dug up the posted copyright notice for GoBots. Note that the actual episodes ARE indeed copyright Hanna-Barbera. On the other hand, GoBot names, characters and property is definitely copyright Tonka corp. So, the episodes themselves may not be kosher. The characters, and especially the character names, should be fair game.--Jimsorenson 02:36, 20 October 2009 (EDT)
If we do come to the conclusion that the GoBots cartoon is fair game for us, I think we should go ahead and do it. As to why someone would "waste their time" on GoBots stuff when they have regular TF stuff they could write about, well, a few reasons. First, they might have access to the GoBots episodes but not a lot of TF stuff. Second, they might decide a lot of people would be willing to write TF, but GoBots, not so many. Third, they might be more a fan of GoBots and use this as an "adoptive wiki" for the show instead of starting a brand new one just for the GoBots. Thanos6 03:40, 20 October 2009 (EDT)
Ok, so by that image Jim has established that GoBot names and most importantly characters are definately Hasbro's and the Toon epsisodes themselves are pretty certainly not. It seems the logical thing to do then would be to include GoBot characters in this wiki when they appear in TF material. Cover the characters personality and personal backstory in their main bio paragraphs at the top of of the page, as that IS their character. But leave the "Fiction" section for things that happen in TF stories or are atleast referenced there. That fits the way the material is owned AND the interests of the wiki. --76.28.72.27 08:20, 20 October 2009 (EDT)
Anonymous McBunchanumbers pretty much sums up how I feel about it. The GoBot characters and the GoBots property are Hasbro's now, but the cartoon isn't (and I wonder about the other ancillary stuff - there was a GoBots Magazine that I remember seeing as a kid, it was done by the same people who did the official He-Man Magazine, and that's without getting into the Machine Men stuff). Cover what Hasbro owns and has acknowledged owning, leave out what isn't available. Hooper_X 08:59, 20 October 2009 (EDT)
ETA: The GoBots Magazine was published by a company that now is owned by Time Warner. So it looks like most, if not all, of the ancillary GoBots media is owned by TW. Hooper_X 10:02, 20 October 2009 (EDT)
I think the problem hinges on what we mean by official. Do we mean "owned by Hasbro/Tomy" or just "produced under license from Hasbro/Tomy". For TFs those are basically the same thing, for GBs they are two different things. The first would exclude all the toys and media from the classic GoBots, leaving only those appearances under the TFs banner. The second definition would include the toys and media as they were produced under license from Tonka or by Tonka under license from Bandai. Khajidha 10:27, 20 October 2009 (EDT)
Not exactly the same thing - while Hasbro always had the ability to make any derivative work they pleased from the G1 cartoon (hence the Marvel comic quickly adopting the cartoon models, and the various toys along the way - compare to He-Man, where Mattel can't touch any of the Filmation cartoon designs), they only acquired the cartoon itself in the past couple of years. I don't think they even own the actual BW, BM, RID and TFA cartoons now, and they certainly don't own the 2007 and 2009 movies. - SanityOrMadness 19:42, 20 October 2009 (EDT)
The Tick is a better example. There's the "base license," which includes all the character, setup and the story of the original 12 issues.
This was the basis for the cartoon.
When FOX went to make the live-action Tick, they licensed the base-license again-- the character, setup and original 12 issues-- and discoverered they did NOT have the rights to the characters that only appeared in the cartoon.
This is like that, except that the "base license" is much smaller-- the characters, names, likenesses and (presumably) their cardback bios. (Possibly also a series bible.) No fiction at all.
And that's assuming that Hasbro even owns all of that... I thought it was just the Trademarks, but the increased willingness to reference Go-Bots material in recent years, beyond the "nudge-nudge, wink-wink" level would seem to indicate that Hasbro believes they have a right to the characters, not just the trademarks. -Derik 11:20, 20 October 2009 (EDT)
What Derik said, Khajidha. Basically, this wiki covers things officially Transformers. That includes things owned by Hasbro and things made under license from Hasbro. There is no transitive property for things now owned by Hasbro but made under license from the previous owner. Though, Derik, I'll point out that we don't actually KNOW the Ts & Cs of the GoBots license. It's possible that Tonka had even more draconian license terms than Hasbro. The characters, names and property is just about the most conservative case possible. Which, as 'sharecroppers' on Hasbro's farm, is probably the safest position for us to take, barring new information.--Jimsorenson 11:42, 20 October 2009 (EDT)
The G.I. Joe Counter-Example
The thing is, G.I. Joe is also owned by Hasbro. What makes GoBots different from Joe? --ItsWalky 10:37, 20 October 2009 (EDT)
See my above argument starting with "Leaving the above joking around aside." --Jimsorenson 11:42, 20 October 2009 (EDT)
In the future any GoBots appearances are likely to be under a TF banner. They are not likely to carry their own franchise again. GIJoe is likely to continue making many appearances apart from TFs. TF/Joe stories are going to be rare, TF/GB stories are going to be the norm. Khajidha 10:48, 20 October 2009 (EDT)
Canon or not-canon
So that just means Hasbro owns the characters, names, etc. like they own G.I. Joe. The way I see it, that says nothing of the TF canonicity of those things. TF canon is TF fiction. The characters, names, etc. are not TF fiction. As the characters are used in TF fiction, they get into canon. What we need is a TF profile book with all of them in there. It shouldn't really matter to us who owns what. We cover Spider-Man's comic appearance and Roadbuster's toy because they were in TF fiction. - Starfield 11:35, 20 October 2009 (EDT)
Hasbro ownership lays the foundation for POSSIBLE inclusion. It was further stories that pulled the GoBots multiverse into the Transformers multiverse.--Jimsorenson 11:42, 20 October 2009 (EDT)
Possible inclusion does not equal actual inclusion - let's say Hasbro made a TF of one of the Air Raiders vehicles - would that warrant adding the Air Raiders as a concept to the Wiki? Does the Allspark Almanac mentioning the existence of the Darkling Lords of Prysmos require us to do a full entry on the Visionaries universe? Right now, we limit our coverage of "Darkling Lords of Prysmos" to "There are these dudes called the Darkling Lords and they live somewhere called Prysmos." Even though we all know WHO they actually are and WHY they matter, it's not immediately relevant to TF fiction. If Leoric or whoever were to show up in a future TF story, we'd do a page for him, but not necessarily for Merklynn or any of the other Visionaries characters, unless they appear in the story too. Hooper_X 12:22, 20 October 2009 (EDT)
Agreed, 100%. However, for reasons sketched out above, I feel that criteria HAS been hit for GoBots. A mere throw-away reference is one thing. A crossover is more, but still not enough. A years-long pattern of name usage, toy creation and eventually official stories that specifically pull the existing GoBots fictional universe into the Transformers multiverse is something else.--Jimsorenson 18:47, 20 October 2009 (EDT)
Eh. Even if that's true, I still kind of think it's a waste of time. Write up whatever GoBot characters/items and referenced stories show up in TF fiction, and that's it. I really don't see why we need any more than that, as that's all that is required to be informed about Transformers fiction, and that's ultimately what we're here for. A full-on GoBot wiki is a nice idea, but... really not our purview. Maybe if folks wanted to start a sister wiki instead? *shrug* --Jeysie 18:58, 20 October 2009 (EDT)
Damnit, Jeysie, way to reply while I was replying! Withered Hope brings the GoBots into the TF canon, but it does so by explicitly saying they exist outside that canon - they're unknown to the Transtechs (whose entire POINT is that they know everything), etc. As it stands, I think the current setup is an adequate compromise. We cover the GoBots characters/concepts that have appeared in TF fiction, but the rest are beyond our purview until such a point as something happens to integrate the two franchises (which I figure will happen, eventually (current most likely scenario in my mind: Someone at IDW introduces GoBotron, full of GoBots, and then promptly blows it up/has Unicron eat it/some other puerile "joke." Second most likely: We finally get a sequel to "Withered Hope" that somehow merges the realities - or retcons that there IS a variant TF universe where the GB stuff happened, we've just never seen it until now.) Or eventually Hasbro just does something akin to the Matt Trakker figure from the Joe line, where it's mentioned in passing that "Oh yeah, MASK was part of the Joe universe all along, we're just now connecting the dots." At that point, I'd be totally cool with it. Hooper_X 19:02, 20 October 2009 (EDT)
There's a certain driving frustration behind this (one which I share,) the Go-Bots aren't ever gonna get a proper wiki, and the cartoon will never be cataloged unless it's done here.
...yet you could say the same of G.I. Joe, and no one's suggesting we go back and start adding every G.I. Joe comic, cartoon, etc.
The question unique to GoBots is the possibility that they have been, essentially, "folded into" the Transformers property to a degree greater than Inhumanoids (a dead property which TF references, but which remains separate.) But we don't know that that's happened, that it legally can happen, and what part(s) of GoBots TF Hasbro does own.
And even if we knew that... it does not automatically follow that we'd treat it as part of the TF Franchise for documentary purposes. Or that we wouldn't. There'd have to be a discussion about it.
The TF Multiverse (Which you could really call the Hasbro Brands Multiverse, incorporating TF, Joe, Jem, Visionaries etc...) is the 5th largest fictional shared-universe every created. (And it keeps gobbling up other franchises-- G.I. Joe has annexed MASK and Action Man in recent years.) There has to be a sane limit on how far outside the Transformers franchise you 'follow' information... otherwise we end up documenting C.O.P.S. episodes. And of the 4 fictional multiverses larger than TF... TF has crossed over with 2 of them! (Marvel and Star Wars.) And Marvel has crossed over with the other two. (DC and Star Trek.)
So... yeah. Knowing our limits is important. (I'm not even opposed to documenting Go-Bots... they're certainly closer to TF than anything else... but I'd want to have a serious discussion of the implications first.) -Derik 19:10, 20 October 2009 (EDT)
Marvelverse side-discussion redux
Hell, given that Marvel published a SW comic for ten years or so, you could argue that Marvel and SW are part of the SAME multiverse. Thanos6 19:20, 20 October 2009 (EDT)
Not even all Marvel's wholly-owned stories are in the same multiverse (I'm serious - Marvel have multiple multiverses. Thank you Mark Greunwald) - the New Universe in particular is explicitly in a separate multiverse which works by slightly different laws. The "big" Marvel/DC stories (Marvel vs. DC, Amalgam and JLA/Avengers) worked on a similar principle, although some of the smaller (Spider-Man/Batman, etc - along with Image crossovers like Spider-Man/Badrock. Again not joking on that one) crossovers just played the "imagine they lived in the same universe" game. [New Avengers/Transformers was an example of the latter].
Marvel's most significant overlap on that front is actually with Doctor Who - besides Death's Head, who met the Seventh Doctor at least three times, there's been several references to characters meeting The Doctor, and a Doctor Who Magazine (published by Marvel UK at the time) comic story which included a multiverse-spanning splash page included the "Spider-Man recognises the Burglar" panel from Amazing Fantasy #15. - SanityOrMadness 19:42, 20 October 2009 (EDT)
IIRC, one of the Access minis clarified that sometimes universes (even between multiverses) simply collide and temporarily overlap, or a character crosses from one to another. (Crossover, present-overlap, full-history-overlap, amalgamation.) The first 3 just... happen, naturally, and usually sort themselves out, though it's Access's job to help unsnarl them. (It's a bit like icebergs colliding. In a low-speed collision, there's some mashing-effect on the border, but they'll separate themselves out eventually... more or less.)
And in fairness to Grunewald... his multiple-multiverses thing seems more like a recognition of the fact "it's harder to cross from some realities than others." Earth 616 does not "border" the DCU in the same way it borders Earth-712 (Squadron Supreme's Earth.) In both Earth-616 and 712, there are Skrulls, a Sorcerer Supreme etc etc etc... the larger metaphysical "structure" of the universe is the same, regardless of the surface expression. But in the DCU (and the New Universe) they are fundamentally different.
The reality which has emerged is that while a Multiverse may have a certain fixed scope (1,000,000+ Earths in the Marvel Multiverse, 52 in the DC, 15,000,000,000,000,000 in the TF Multiverse) a universe can belong to more than 1 multiverse at a time-- like sitting in the overlap area of a venn diagram. -Derik 20:06, 20 October 2009 (EDT)
IIRC, the robot (Cyril?) who answered the letters page in the Marvel UK SW comics showed up in Robo-Capers --Emvee 18:27, 27 October 2009 (EDT)
There ARE multiple singularities in the MMverse. Stuff like the Living Tribunal, Otherworld, etc. They're just above it all/extradimensional locations/non-hostile. Galactus and even (most of?) the abstracts aren't (and the abstracts don't actually interact anyway, they use intrauniveral things called m-bodies to act for them). Mammalian Verisimilitude 22:34, 27 October 2009 (EDT)
Multiverse side-discussion
Buuuuut then we get into multiverse vs. omniverse, which I think we agreed some time back to avoid for the sanity of the wiki.--RosicrucianTalk 20:43, 20 October 2009 (EDT)
DC and Marvel both lack an Axiom Nexus for a reason. They desperately want to avoid dealing with this.
No sane Multiverse has an Axiom Nexus. Hub realities like this are almost always confined to micro-fiction dealing with the Omniverse... because in a large functioning multiverse, they create incredible long-term headaches.
I have to believe there's a sticky-note in Marvel's Editor-in-chief's office saying "Don't let anyone destroy the TVA," because it's their only multiversal singularity, and they've (somehow) managed to avoid screwing it up-- despite employing writers and editors that don't understand their own Multiverse. Example: The supervillain behind Avengers: Disasembled was Steve Rogers. Yes, even on Earth-616, it's just that no one ever figured it out here. Oopsie! -Derik 21:11, 20 October 2009 (EDT)
Derik, I gotta ask, you being you, how did you arrive at 15 quadrillion universes for Transformers? The highest number we saw was in the DW Armada comic at about 76 million. Even given that they found Optimus in a random universe, the expectation would be that they'd have to search about half of the realities to find him, which puts the figure at around 152 million. Granted, that's not a hard and fast figure, but with numbers that large (and the assumption that each reality was as likely as the next to contain their universe's Optimus Prime), it's likely to be close.--Jimsorenson 21:03, 20 October 2009 (EDT)
Do you know that there are more than fifteen quadrillion concurrent universes? It's true!Bug Bite, "Games of Deception"
I arrived at it by remember a direct and explicit quite by someone who's actually a traveler from outside the Transformers multiverse, and thus in an even better position to know the length and breadth of it than the poor Transtechs, who think there are only 75 million, and are doubtless in for a Rude Surprise someday.
I suppose arguably you could say the Hasbro Brand Megaverse is 15Q, and the TF Multiverse is 75M... but that would require making a delineation between multiverse and megaverse that, while fairly clear in regard to other fictions and whose structures TF mirrors, is not explicitly laid out in TF fiction itself. (A Multiverse is defined by a touchstone that exists in all realities. A M'Kran Crystal, an 11th-dimensional snowflake, a "Cybertron, stable axis of the Multiverse...")
And of course, one is never entirely sure... was Bug Bite aware of the existence of negative-polarity universes?
(I tend to think that the Transtechs are simply vastly underestimating the size of the multiverse-- Bug Bite seemed to have a fair idea how the TF Multiverse worked, and there was some in-continuity reason why the Transtechs underestimating things make sense I'm currently blanking on. So assume there are 15Q, possibly 30Q universes with Cybertron in it.) -Derik 21:29, 20 October 2009 (EDT)
Ah. I knew there was a reason. Though, at the time I read it, I took his quote to mean that there were 15 quadrillion realities in the Omniverse. One point of contention - the trantechs cataloged about 16 million realities. The 76 million figure listed on the web site comes from backtracking from the Armadaverse. And given that there was an episode of GoBots, "Transfer Point", where the guardians traveled to a universe where Guardians were evil and Renegades good, I think Bug Bite is probably well aware of negative polarity universes. --Jimsorenson 21:39, 20 October 2009 (EDT)
Ah, thank you, yes, the Transtechs being aware of fewer realities than demonstrably exist in the Armada comic was the reason I think they've got their heads up their afts.
(Splitting... this section is far too long to not be sub-divided.) The number discrepancy between the Techs' catalog and the Armada search is not intentional. Frankly, "Worlds Collide" was so fucking forgettable, well, we forgot that bit of it. Had we remembered, the number stated in WH would have been far, far, far higher than Armada's. --M Sipher 03:01, 21 October 2009 (EDT)
And 15 quadrillion cannot be the number of universes in the Omniverse, because by definition the Omniverse contains everything ever, and Heinlen wrote about an Omniverse with 10.3 Octillion universes. The 15 quadrillion can be a Megaverse which Bug Bite has mistaken for the whole of the Omniverse, but not the thing itself. (The Heinlen Omniverse model is the largest AFAIK, and it shows up a lot in fringe fiction dabbling with the Omniverse. It pretty much has to have been used by Marvel or someone Marvel's crossed over with at some point.)
And good point about the negative universe. Bug Bite may have indeed been referring to a Megaverse with his number-- a "local group" in astronomical terms, which means that number would include realities not part of the TF Multiverse. But that really just means we have no idea how big the TF Multiverse is. If 15Q is the containing set, the minimum set is 75M, and the group who's supposed to know what's going on only thinks there's 16M.
15 Quadrillion concurrent universes doesn't necessarily preclude 10.3 octillion TOTAL universes. Concurrent just means "existing at the same time." We know that a couple million in the TF multiverse *alone* have come to an end. Of the 10.3 octillion total, how many have ended? How many are yet to come into existence? How many exist for seconds, minutes, moments, and are gone? If Forest is to be believed, the Fallen creates those all the fucking time. They exist, then they don't, like someone save-scumming a video game. Just the actions of multiversal singularities who exist and act nonlinearly would suggest that there'd be a shitfuckton of these hi-then-die little timestreams. Hooper_X 22:24, 20 October 2009 (EDT)
Why do we care about what Heinlein says, again? —Interrobang 15:37, 21 October 2009 (EDT)
*IS* GoBots Canon for Transformers though, Redux.
I think my stance is... we document anything officially branded as Transformers toys or fiction, and what characters/concepts are contained within. So unless the GoBots cartoon (or toys, or whole line in general, or whatever) is ever officially stated as being Transformers fiction specifically, we should stick to only documenting what shows up in Transformers fiction. Otherwise, as previous posts indicate, we could start getting really crazy in what we should be documenting, especially since there's still significant amounts of definitely official TF stuff that needs writing up. --Jeysie 19:47, 20 October 2009 (EDT)
lost count:A years-long pattern of name usage, toy creation and eventually official stories that specifically pull the existing GoBots fictional universe into the Transformers multiverse is something else
The thing with "years-long patterns" is that you can never tell when they're over. Looking backwards across 17 years, yeah, there have been an awful lot of GoBots references in TF, and there will probably be more, but the only one of real consequence was Withered Hope and so far that just appears to be a one-off. We always hold off on including material that hasn't come true yet--unconfirmed rumors and stolen toy protos and such--so what is the difference between that and holding off on writing the TFWiki Jeeper Creeper article until after he appears, if he ever actually does?--Thylacine 2000 21:19, 20 October 2009 (EDT)
I'm not saying that we should document him because he might appear. My contention is that this pattern, culminating in a story that effectively says that yes, the GoBots universe DOES exist somewhere in the Transformers Multiverse, pulls the GoBots universe retroactively into the Transformers Multiverse. I'm saying it's ALREADY happened. --Jimsorenson 21:52, 20 October 2009 (EDT)
Yes, but there's still lots of non-TF things that are technically part of the TF universe that we still don't document in full because not all of their bits are official TF fiction or toys. --Jeysie 21:58, 20 October 2009 (EDT)
And I'd say that GoBots is sufficiently different from them that they warrant inclusion. I'm having a hard time understanding what the 'cost' of adding in GoBots would be. I don't buy the camel's nose arguments here - if we decide GoBots are close enough and interesting enough to document, it doesn't force us to then add C.O.P.S. The benefits, on the other hand, are multitude. It brings us more pageviews, allows Transformers creators more access to this material and in general enriches the universe. If it costs us a few (hundred) hours of editorial time, is that bad? We may get new editors or more activity out of our existing ones. (Oh, and Thy, I don't think I'd call seven toys (almost eight, but for the rights) no consequence. Games of Deception was a solidly GoBot story as well.) --Jimsorenson 22:13, 20 October 2009 (EDT)
See, this totally is the "camel's nose" thing you just said it wouldn't be: seven or eight GoBots involved in two or three TF stories is now the rationale for adding at least 90 other characters, 65 episodes, and a feature-length movie that are of no significance whatsoever to the TF mythos. Even if we could magically press a button and have it all appear instantly at no effort--they still just wouldn't belong here. We don't know what "future stories" may ever exist, and longstanding precedent on this wiki has been that we don't base our coverage on future assumptions--even revelations of future facts through unofficial sources when we all know full well it is actually true, and that's certainly not the case here. While it may indeed be cosmically unfair for GoBots to have been so generally forgotten and without a wiki of their own, that really isn't necessarily our problem. I really think it would dilute the spirit of what we've put together here. It is canonically established that Visionaries takes place in the same universe as Animated--and frankly I suspect more people read the book in which that notion appeared than read Withered Hope. I think I can rather confidently predict that any future Visionaries story material would consist of more TF references like that and not an actual freestanding Visionaries revival. Withered Hope says the GoBots stories are being "folded" into TFs, but the Almanac says all the Visionaries stories were already taking place on a normal planet that existed normally in the Animated universe. There is at least as valid a reason to add Abraxas the Sun Imp to this wiki as there is for Zod the Super Gobot.--Thylacine 2000 22:41, 20 October 2009 (EDT)
Jim and Jeysie engage in a truly pointless argument (sorry, everyone)
The cost kinds of boils down to...
This is a Transformers wiki. So far our purview has been limited to only official Transformers-branded merchandise and fiction, and we're hardly lacking for material to write up within that limitation. I see no reason to "dilute" our focus, or open up a can of worms of people with other pet fave universes connected to TF trying to argue for us writing up those franchises too.
Bringing in editors that are only interested in documenting GoBots (or other non-TF) material doesn't do us any favors, and having our existing editors working on it just takes time away from all of the Transformers-focused articles still left unmade/finished.
My thought: If people really, really want to write up GoBots stuff, just start a sister wiki somewhere. Best of both worlds, IMHO. That way it can really document all of the GoBots stuff (whereas if we forever have only a limited GoBots writeup here, that will either end up discouraging anyone who ever wants to start a more comprehensive wiki, or result in pointless duplication), and we can just do what we do with Star Wars/GI Joe and write up only what's relevant to TF here and provide links to the other wiki. --Jeysie 22:28, 20 October 2009 (EDT)
OK. I'm seeing two objections. Stop me if I'm unfairly characterizing them.
1: Time writing GoBots articles could be spent writing up Transformers articles.
2: Saying 'yes' to GoBots, which is admittedly a boundary case in terms of scope, means that someone may come along and argue about some other universe.
For point one, I think Thanos6 had a very good counter-argument. Most non-document Transformers stuff is pretty esoteric at this point. If you're not a paying member of the club, you won't have access to that sort of fiction. ARE there any other large swaths of fiction not covered? Some of our editors, myself included, have more access to GoBots material than Transformers material. I'm hardly alone in this, though I am the apparent champion. Rosicrucian, DrSpengler, BlackOut, and Khajidha have all expressed a willingness. There are some high-caliber editors here.
For point two, again, I just don't find it compelling. We shouldn't cover material because someone might someday start an argument about something else? Really? I can pretty much guarantee that if we don't do GoBots now we'll have another discussion about it within the next year when more GoBots stuff comes out. (That's not a reason to go forward with it, I'm just pointing out the futility of this argument.)
The visionaries counter-example is kind of a strawman anyway, Thy. The Almanac states that
1: There is a place called Prysmos
2: Some group lives there called the Darkling Lords
3: Speaking like the Angry Archer might be useful for dealing with them
You see how that's pretty different from a story set in their cartoon universe, where they use an existing technology to travel to our realm. As well as 7 or 8 toys. And another ten or so appearances throughout multiple continuities. AND another story featuring explicit GoBots characters. --Jimsorenson 10:12, 21 October 2009 (EDT)
Re: Point one: There's still a large number of Generation 1 characters who need their Sunbow cartoon fiction sections written up. And there's also missing Animated and Movie-related info out there. And that's just for starters. There's far more than just the esoteric stuff that needs writing up.
Re: Point two: If we're going to write up GoBots merely because it's a part of the TF universe, then we'd at least need to do the same for GI Joe, Marvel, and Star Wars as well. If anything, Marvel and Star Wars would have priority because they actually factor heavily into officially-branded Transformers merchandise. I find the argument about which franchise will have more official TF fiction than another completely irrelevant as we don't care (in terms of editing) what a franchise does or doesn't do outside of how it's interacted with Transformers.
Nor is what it will or won't do relevant either, as GI Joe at least already has a large chunk of existing fiction that would make it important enough to worry about regardless of whether it ever gets more TF-oriented fiction.
I'm not biased against GoBots or anything, I just think we shouldn't be writing up anything not directly related to officially-branded Transformers stuff. We simply don't need to in order to be successful at our "mission" of providing info on all things TF. Maybe if Hasbro ever has a brain fit and decides to stop making new TF stuff, and we finish writing up all of the existing stuff, we might need to expand our scope to stay viable, but that point isn't any time soon that I'm aware of. --Jeysie 18:07, 21 October 2009 (EDT)
Look, I don't want to be a dick about this or anything, but no. You are just flat-out wrong about that. We are not obligated to do anything. We can make exceptions. We can make judgment calls. We could, if we were so inclined, decide that the G.I. Joe Sunbow cartoon belongs in the wiki but the G.I. Joe comic doesn't. We could decide that ALL of G.I. Joe belongs in the wiki but M.A.S.K. (which has been subsumed into G.I. Joe) doesn't. We're not automatons.
And that's ASIDE from all the specific arguments I've made above about why GoBots are different. And I've got some new ones, which are hardly relevant given that I'm throwing my weight behind the compromise solution, but ... Withered Hope was NOT a cross-over story. It was a Transformers-branded story, not a co-branded one. That makes a difference, or we could deign it to. You've got a good six solidly Transformers characters, with toys and everything, showing up in a Transformers non-crossover story. And yet, that story is a sequel to, and set in the universe of, the Challenge of the GoBots cartoon. In effect, that pulls in the entirety of the Challenge of the GoBots cartoon in a way that a co-branded story might not.
And finally, you state that "I just think we shouldn't be writing up anything not directly related to officially-branded Transformers stuff." Well, GoBots is clearly 'DIRECTLY related to officially-branded Transformers stuff'. If 'related' is you criteria, then we've already met it.--Jimsorenson 12:34, 22 October 2009 (EDT)
It's less a matter of obligation and more that all of your arguments to include GoBot material here exactly apply to GI Joe, etc. as well. (Sorry, but IMHO none of your arguments make GoBots remotely different in ways that are at all relevant.) Ergo, if we decided to suddenly catalog non-TF GoBots stuff here, it would be completely and utterly arbitrary to not include all non-TF GI Joe, etc. stuff as well. And I think it's really pointless to actually include lots of non-TF stuff like that when it is completely unnecessary to understand the TF stuff that is our main focus (since we already cover non-TF concepts to what is enough to understand their place within TF fiction), and we're not lacking for material to add yet.
And, no, GoBot is not directly related to officially-branded Transformers stuff. The GoBot cartoon is, AFAIK, not officially-branded Transformers fiction. Only some of the GoBot characters are officially branded TF toys. Only some of the GoBot characters and concepts show up in Transformers-branded fiction. And... again, we already cover those toys and concepts that do show up in a sufficient enough manner to understand their place within Transformers-branded fiction and merchandise.
Basically, if the remaining GoBots fiction and toys ever become officially branded as being Transformers, then IMHO it'll therefore be appropriate to include.
Otherwise, I really think that the separate sister wiki idea is the way to go for a lot of reasons. It benefits GoBot fans in that they can catalog everything GoBots, not just what is "Hasbro-OK", and it benefits us in not taking our focus away from Transformers. There's really no downside there. --Jeysie 18:38, 22 October 2009 (EDT)
You do realize what the word 'related' means, right? Are you arguing that something needs to be related to officially branded Transformers fiction, or that it needs to be itself branded as part of the Transformers fiction. Those are two different positions. You're stating one position and then, as far as I can tell, arguing for another one. It's making your whole position schizophrenic and hard to decipher.--Jimsorenson 18:47, 22 October 2009 (EDT)
I'm stating I feel that it has to actually be a part of Transformers fiction or toys, or directly relevant and related to it like our out-of-universe articles on concepts regards the fandom and various aspects of creating and purchasing Transformers toys. Sorry if I fail to see what's so utterly difficult to comprehend about that. --Jeysie 19:01, 22 October 2009 (EDT)
So, you'd be in favor of removing Megatron's appearance in G.I. Joe #138, because that wasn't branded Transformers?--Jimsorenson 19:04, 22 October 2009 (EDT)
Er... last I knew, GI Joe #138 was officially considered a part of the Transformers-branded Generation 2 comic series, so I fail to see how that's relevant.
But in any case, my point is not at all hard to comprehend unless you're deliberately trying to be contrary. In which case, go talk to someone who hasn't had their patience for such things leeched out by the fandom already. I'm tired of being piled on that way because people can't just read what I wrote instead of putting words in my mouth or playing dumb. --Jeysie 19:18, 22 October 2009 (EDT)
I don't see a Transformers logo on this coverI'm not playing dumb. I'm looking at your position - that only fiction that is 'officially branded Transformers fiction' and trying to poke holes in it. It's a totally legitimate strategy. So, looking at this picture, and actually reading the entire book, you won't find any Transformers logos or copyright notices. So, I assume you're going to champion its removal from this wiki, right? Or that you're going to modify your position.
And, as an aside, if you're tired of people who 'can't just read what [you] wrote', maybe the problem is you and not all the people out there who can't seem to exactly puzzle out the positions you so passionately argue for.
(The REALLY sad thing is, this argument is TOTALLY MOOT, since we both voted the SAME WAY on the compromise position.) Exasperatedly yours, Jimsorenson 19:26, 22 October 2009 (EDT)
We label it as "G.I. Joe Starring Snake-Eyes, Featuring Transformers: Generation 2 #138". It follows directly from a Transformers story. That set of GI Joe comics, according to our articles, then leads directly into the Generation 2 comic. It seems from our write-up to thus be a direct part of a Transformers-branded storyline. If that's not the case, then I would argue it doesn't have a place here.
Whereas the GoBots cartoon and the non-TF toys have zip to do with any TF-branded fiction or toys AFAIK. They're not considered a direct part of any TF storyline I know of. I don't have to watch or own any part of it to understand any TF story I know of. It's at best tangentially-related, and quite frankly there's a lot of stuff that's tangentially related to TF if we're going to go down that road, since that brings us right back to GI Joe, Star Wars, Marvel, etc.
And, no, I'm pretty sure the problem is people who can't simply read what I wrote and take it at face value. I fail to see what's so difficult about "If it's not a part of or directly related to official Transformers-branded toys or fiction, IMHO it's not our purview." I mean, it's one sentence, it looks like English, it seems straightforward. If you want to add your own things into it that I didn't say, then you've only got yourself to blame if you're confused, not me. --Jeysie 19:47, 22 October 2009 (EDT)
Addendum: But yeah, I realize it's moot. Just... hurgh. Tired of almost every attempt to have a debate on something in this fandom being an exercise in frustration. :P --Jeysie 20:10, 22 October 2009 (EDT)
We label it that, but it's not called that. Just LOOK at the cover! It follow three other G.I. Joes issues telling the same story and cameos a Transformer who had appeared in other Transformers stories, though in a different body. But it's not ITSELF a Transformers branded story. So, are you now changing your criteria so that non-transformers branded stories are sometimes ok for inclusion under some circumstances? Because that's NOT what you wrote earlier.
(I'm not trying to insinuate anything ... it was YOU who brought up the idea that you've had many other people before have similar problems with your positions. Maybe the whole world IS crazy and you're the only sane one ... it's possible, I guess.) --Jimsorenson 20:13, 22 October 2009 (EDT)
My criterion still stands as "a part of or directly related to official Transformers-branded toys or fiction". I, at least, would classify being a direct part of a Transformers-branded storyline (if it is in fact such-I have only our write-up to go by) as fitting that criterion. In that, you have to know/read it in order to not be missing part of a Transformers storyline.
(And, well, I've had TF fans have similar problems. Very seldom had the same problems in other fandoms.) --Jeysie 20:27, 22 October 2009 (EDT)
So, in your view, a non-branded story that leads into an official Transformers-branded storyline meets your criteria of 'directly related.' Well, boom, we're done. Challenge of the GoBots leads into an official Transformers-branded storyline, Withered Hope. So, I'm glad that you've come around to my way of thinking. --Jimsorenson 20:30, 22 October 2009 (EDT)
No, in my view, one of two things:
The GoBots cartoon is in no way a direct part of the plot of Withered Hope any more than the storyline of the universe Jackpot and Hubcap came from is a direct part of the plot of Gone Too Far, or all of Bulletbike's previous exploits are a direct part of I, Lowtech, or what have you. In contrast, it seems like the GI Joe and Generation 2 comics are actually all one single storyline all directly related. If you don't read the GI Joe comics, you're actually missing part of the plot of the storyline.
It's kind of like, say, imagine that All Hail Megatron had its first six issues branded as a non-TF story, and the last six branded as Transformers fiction. Even though it ended up branded as two different things, it's all directly related as one storyline. In contrast, while any story with Spiderman or another Marvel character in it obviously thus has that Marvel universe as part its background somehow, only that specific character and the aspects of him that furthered the story are relevant to our view of the fiction, not the entire extra universe he's a part of.
Or alternatively, if we did argue that anything that leads into a TF storyline even just as background is fair game, that still, again, applies to far more franchises than just GoBots, so there's still nothing special about that franchise that warrants singling out. Sorry, but your attempt at twisting my meaning around still isn't working. So, why not just go ahead and accept what I said at face value and call it a day? It'd certainly make my day happier. --Jeysie 21:14, 22 October 2009 (EDT)
Have you actually read Withered Hope or the G.I. Joe story in question, or even watched CotG? CotG has a LOT more to do with Withered Hope than G.I. Joe #138 has to do with the rest of the story that follows. Actually, G.I. Joe #138 is part 4 of a 4 part story that is a prequel to G.I. Joe #139-142, a 4 part co-branded Transformers/G.I.Joe story. Meanwhile, Withered Hope made reference to, and relied on, GoBots characters and technologies extensively. The Astro-Beam, the Dimensional Interfacer, specific character traits and backgrounds. I'm not trying to twist your meaning, I'm trying to parse it. There's a difference. I'm willing to accept that you don't like GoBots as a part of this wiki. I'm just not willing to accept that you have a logical, consistent reason for it that doesn't exclude other parts of the fiction. Then again, if you're not actually familiar with the fiction in question (and you've admitted that you haven't even read the G.I. Joe unbranded story), then that might explain a few things. --Jimsorenson 21:56, 22 October 2009 (EDT)
Actually, this is totally, utterly pointless. I don't care that your viewpoint is not internally consistent. I'm bowing out of this argument. Post whatever you like in rebuttal, and just assume that I disagree with you.--Jimsorenson 21:58, 22 October 2009 (EDT)
Yes, I've read Withered Hope; I didn't see any difference between the GoBots technology vs. pretty much any other technology from TF fiction insofar as understanding enough to get the story. Or how getting a feel for the GoBots characters was any different than getting a feel for Cryotek or Crystal Widow or any of the other TransTech characters that have pretty much only gotten their characterization through the prose stories. I didn't feel like, "Well, this makes zero sense/feels like I'm missing part of the plot unless I've seen the GoBots cartoon."
"Actually, G.I. Joe #138 is part 4 of a 4 part story that is a prequel to G.I. Joe #139-142, a 4 part co-branded Transformers/G.I.Joe story."
So, er. Is that different than something like Infiltration #0?
And, my viewpoint is perfectly consistent, as evidenced by the fact that I'm pretty much ending up finding myself having to repeat myself over and over again because nothing you've said contradicts my point. Again, the only reason you're confused is because you keep inventing your own meanings and whatnot that I didn't actually say instead of paying attention to what I did. I doubt most people are going to find anything remotely confusing about "branded as or directly related to TF fiction/toys" because most people aren't doing mental gymnastics to find a convoluted way that something that's "nice but not absolutely important" background info at best and a cameo at worst is somehow important to know to understand some TF fiction. Sheesh. --Jeysie 22:19, 22 October 2009 (EDT)
GoBots as a Multiversal Entity
How is this different than the G.I. Joe cartoon being in the same continuity as the TF one? -Derik 22:04, 20 October 2009 (EDT)
I feel like I've answered this. It's different because it's thematically closer to Transformers (civil war between alien robots and all that) AND because we can be about 99% sure that all future GoBots stories will be Transformers stories, whereas we can also be certain that the vast majority of G.I. Joe stories will not be Transformers stories. Also, G.I. Joe is a MUCH larger universe than the GoBots universe. Documenting it would take a lot more work. Maybe if Hasbro stops making new Transformers stories it would be worth it for us to go back and fill out that portion of the Transformers universe, but we haven't come close to hitting that point yet.--Jimsorenson 22:13, 20 October 2009 (EDT)
the only one of real consequence was Withered Hope
Which was a direct sequel to the toy-only fiction of the Go-bot 6-pack bios. Also "Games of Deception."
Also, you're discussing "Go-Bots" like their universe is a multiversal singularity. It'snot. With Bug Bites running around, it's probably safe to assume that Fracture actually is Crasher too. Who knows... maybe all the Cy-Kills are Cy-Kill? The Go-Bot diaspora does seem to have scattered them across all points of the multiverse.
(It's not like Go-bots was ever 1 universe. They had comics, right? And storybooks, and audio adventures, and a negative universe...) -Derik 22:16, 20 October 2009 (EDT)
But we already cover all those characters you named, precisely because they had fully-realized appearances in TF fiction. We weren't just assuming them into existence by weight of related characters who had come before.--Thylacine 2000 22:41, 20 October 2009 (EDT)
(de-indenting) The problem is that if you treat Go-bots as part of the TF Multiverse, it doesn't create the amount of work you're describing. We're not just documenting it's characters, or it's episodes... we're also documenting storybooks, audio adventures, coloring books...
...plus the need for their own disambiguation, backstory, history... if the Go-Bots cartoon is "really" part of the TF Multiverse, then that means its description of the negative universe should be valid and binding for Transformers.
But I don't think the Go-Bots cartoon is necessarily part of the TF Multiverse. Quite aside from the fact it's owned by someone else... I think it's more likely what we're seeing are "new" Go-Bots universes similar to what's been seen before, but distinct from them. (Similar to how every post-BW G1 story includes Sparks-- because they're new G1 universes that adhere to how the TF Universe works.) So if the Go-Bots negative universe episode says that negative universes are shadow-universes that are 1:1 reflections of positive ones (as in the Xenaverse) that doesn't have to apply for the TF version of the multiverse... because the cartoon is not "canon" in the same way a TF Coloring book is.
And God damn it, if we're gonna take our rules for how negative universes work from outside the TF canon, it's gonna be from the goddamn G.I. Joe cartoon, not the goddamn Go-Bots! What are you, a communist? -Derik 22:34, 20 October 2009 (EDT)
I don't think we should pretend that the characters that do appear in TF fiction are blank slates. We could fill in bio type information but then act like the TF story is there first and only fictional appearance. The same might be true of characters that haven't appeared in TF fiction. No matter what, all the GoBot characters are assumed to exist in the TFGoBot continuity (no matter what that continuity looks like), right? Maybe bio-only pages for those guys? - Starfield 22:53, 20 October 2009 (EDT)
Ultra Magnus seems not to have existed at all in Marvel US continuity. Presuming that all Go-bots exist in any single reality is... presumptuous. -Derik 23:37, 20 October 2009 (EDT)
Actually, for reason above (arrived at in the "Who owns what Vis-à-vis rights" section), I'm with Starfield. I think that this wiki should, at least for the moment, only cover the parts of GoBots that Hasbro owns. That means that, while you're ABSOLUTELY RIGHT about GoBots having its own universe of coloring books and negative universes and whatnot, we could ONLY cover the characters. The fiction sections would have to remain blank, until and unless they show up in licensed Transformers media. (Or, of course, the two multiverses converge more.) This gives us AND our corporate landlord the maximum possible benefit while limiting our scope of work to a mere, I dunno, 90 characters. More than 10% of which have already shown up here. --Jimsorenson 10:20, 21 October 2009 (EDT)
A potential solution
We were talking about this in WiiGii! (omg hivemind) and while I don't think anyone is opposed to a wiki for GB info, grandfathering it all into THIS wiki seems a bit beyond the stated scope. One suggestion was to do a separate GB wiki, hosted on THIS wiki's servers, as a side project - the GoBots Wiki, presented by TFWiki, if you will. When necessary, they would share information, link back reflexively, share userbase, etc. If the stated event comes to pass where Hasbro or someone says "Yeah, all that GoBot stuff happened somewhere in the TF multiverse" then fuck it, we roll the whole thing back in. Given how unlikely that seems to be as per the conversations above, a dedicated GB wiki run as an official side-project of TFWiki is probably the best outcome I can think of. Hooper_X 11:24, 21 October 2009 (EDT)
I don't know how much work it'd be to set up and run (less than ours, due to the limited scope, but certainly some work) but I do like the idea on the whole and would definately contribute to such a wiki should it be born. (ZacWilliam, who really needs to log back in one of these days)--76.28.72.27 11:31, 21 October 2009 (EDT)
I could get behind that as a compromise.--Jimsorenson 11:54, 21 October 2009 (EDT)
If you guys created a separate GoBots wiki, I would gleefully contribute as much as I contribute here. Wouldn't be too hard, either, since a good chunk of the episodes are available online and Counter X has scans of most of the really hard to find comics from the US and the UK. --DrSpengler 13:02, 21 October 2009 (EDT)
I'd be for it as well. We'd need an inter-wiki linking schema-- "gobots:" and "transformers:" seem dangerous-- there's gonna be articles called "Transformers: Subtitle", which makes that... um... potentially fraught. How about "w:gb:" vs. "w:tf:"? That mirrors the interwiki linkign schema used by Wikia to cross-link their sites, and is nicely distinct. -Derik 12:30, 21 October 2009 (EDT)
Honestly, I was about to suggest that myself, but I've been highly distracted as of late. Seems like the best solution to me... plus, it's a perfect excuse to haul out the GoBots bin and do extensive photoshoots of those. Of course, the big question... what do we name the band? GBWIKI to keep with TFWIKI's theme? That's where I'm leaning. --M Sipher 12:38, 21 October 2009 (EDT)
Hrm... the toyline was just "GoBots," but the cartoon was "Challenge of the GoBots"... ah! But there were GoBot ancillary materials (like storybooks) not branded COTG, but simply "GoBots."
There is no clear delineation that corresponds to the portion of the brand Hasbro may own. Calling it "Challenge..." would implicitly limit it to the cartoon and exclude other things. "GoBots" is probaby what we want to hit. So yeah-- "GBWiki" since the reason we're "TF" instead of "Transformers" is to avoid Hasbro's trademark-- and they do own the trademark on "GoBots." -Derik 12:43, 21 October 2009 (EDT)
I could likely whip up a take on the GoBots logo for it when I get home.--RosicrucianTalk 12:49, 21 October 2009 (EDT)
I am particularly thinking: "GOBOTS - MIGHTY ROBOTS, MIGHTY WIKI" as the tagline.--RosicrucianTalk 12:56, 21 October 2009 (EDT)
"Challenge of the GoBoxes!" Naahh, of course not. I just wanted to say it. --DrSpengler 13:07, 21 October 2009 (EDT)
On that note, it wouldn't be hard at all to throw together a version of the Go Boxes using the GB logo's "GO" instead of our usual Prime-trailer-inspired one. --M Sipher 13:15, 21 October 2009 (EDT)
Heheheheheheheheh. -M Sipher 13:12, 21 October 2009 (EDT)
"w3" is arbitrary... sub-domains won't actually overlap the file-structure of the existing wiki. (But I feel like installing multiple wikis on one db-server might require a prefix.) Sub-domain feels like a good idea-- both because it's free, and because it enforces our co-branding. Anyway, I'm throwing those parameters out.
There seems to be consensus on this, but if we genuinely intend to spin off another wiki, I feel like there should probably be a formal community vote on the matter. You know-- since TFWiki isn't run by a cabal of #wiggii members?
Say... Measure passage requires 50% of voting editors and 2/3 of voting administrators voting "yea"-- with at least 1/3 of all administrators participating in the vote? -Derik 13:11, 21 October 2009 (EDT)
How many admins to we have?--Jimsorenson 13:14, 21 October 2009 (EDT)
I count nine. How many are actually active right now is another matter. Also, we need to do this. GoBots won't get a wiki at all otherwise. ---Blackout- 13:37, 21 October 2009 (EDT)
Yeah, it'd require at least 3. Which is reasonable, given that TFWiki has some fairly inactive admins. (In a proper 'security council' scenario you'd want 6 of 9 admins participating for any measure to pass. 3 of 9 with at least 2 yea just ensures minimal oversight.) -Derik 13:40, 21 October 2009 (EDT)
Hopefully, we won't need a "security council" anytime soon. ---Blackout- 13:44, 21 October 2009 (EDT)
We don't have a lot of big votes like this one. AFAIK, the move from Wiki and re-licencing have been it.
The admin-requirement really only exists to keep a bunch of editors from proposing something silly/crazy on a dead weekend and declaring it passed. (Not that the community would go along with it, but having a bare-minimum administrator rubberstamp requirement heads off potential mischief.) At least, this was the arbitrary requirement I came up with when we passed the relicensing vote, since I'm not an admin and I was the one proposing it, it seemed important as a means to establish the legitimacy of the vote. (We only got 3 admin voting for that... it was in the middle of convention season and half our people were gone.) -Derik 13:54, 21 October 2009 (EDT)
Is this what we think we want to do? -Derik 13:54, 21 October 2009 (EDT)
Those links link to wikia. Odd. - Starfield 14:00, 21 October 2009 (EDT)
Yes, very odd. KILL THEM NOW. ---Blackout- 14:06, 21 October 2009 (EDT)
On an interwiki schema... why not just [[tfwiki:*]] and [[gbwiki;*]]? It has the advantage of simplicity. - Mammalian Verisimilitude 13:48, 21 October 2009 (EDT)
Yeah, to me this seems the easiest to remember.--RosicrucianTalk 13:55, 21 October 2009 (EDT)
*shrug* Forward-compatability? Site names are fine for everything we link to now, but a future sister-site could overlap existing article names. Frankly, my real motivation is that w:subject: names mean I could type "w:starwars:" instead of constantly misspelling "wookieepedia:" (I always forget the double-e.) -Derik 14:12, 21 October 2009 (EDT)
And yeah, I think "w:name:" is currently set to link to wikia. Hrm. "ss:subject:"? (Sister-site?) "p:subject:"? (partner.)
Wikipedia has a buttload of arbitrary prefixes for interwiki linking. A single consistent schema seems better. -Derik 14:12, 21 October 2009 (EDT)
Actually, this would seem to be a good opportunity to kill all the wikia interwiki links (except for the link-exchange deal with Wookieepedia). If a wikia page must be linked to, let it be an external (nofollow) link.
And the proposed gbwiki would be a sister/subproject, not a true external wiki like [[Wikipedia:*]] (and note the lack of a secondary prefix there). - Mammalian Verisimilitude 15:04, 21 October 2009 (EDT)
Regards an interwiki schema, why not just "h" for "Hasbro"? h:tf: and h:gb: And I second killing all of the wikia links except for Wookieepedia. --Jeysie 18:41, 22 October 2009 (EDT)
Not to be a bummer,I love the idea of a GoBot sister wiki, sounds like a lot of fun creating and reading, but an important point has been raised in the Allspark discussion of this: Can we afford it? Our Wiki apparently dosen't always quite pay for itself ad-wise and is basically kept afloat by Walky. Yes, a GoBot wiki would be smaller (and hopefully cheaper) but it also would likely be less popular a draw for adds. (GBs being much less mainstream than TFs now are). Again, it just seemed like a point that should be raised before we dive into the cool project... --ZacWilliam 14:28, 21 October 2009 (EDT)
Well, I offered to make a donation in that thread. Walky said that this wiki costs around $160 a month to maintain, with around $130 being covered by the ads, with those numbers fluctuating every month, obviously. A GoBots wiki would be only a fraction of the size of thise wiki, even when 100% completed in every way imaginable. With ads factored in, about how much do you think we'd need a month to cover the remainder? I could throw in $10 to $20 every month or thereabouts, and if a handful of people sporadically felt the urge to donate equal or less, you think we'd be covered or at least took the brunt of the financial burden off of Walky's shoulders?
If we CAN do a GoBots wiki, it'd be nice if money wasn't what kept us from making it happen. But hey, I understand that that's the way the world goes 'round and all. Just sayin' that if a fraction of us skipped McDonald's once a month and gave that fiver to the wiki, we might be more or less financially secure. --DrSpengler 15:04, 21 October 2009 (EDT)
Of course, we could just run the theoretical Gobots wiki on the same server, with the same ad boxes. Unless somehow we got a MASSIVE spike in traffic from Gobots fans that aren't Transformers fans (which I am somehow not seeing), it would probably work out to be exactly the same. (Not to discourage anyone from helping the wiki financially. You can do that also and it would help regardless. I'm just sayin'.) --Suki Brits 16:06, 21 October 2009 (EDT)
This is good news. This would be ideal, if possible.--RosicrucianTalk 16:14, 21 October 2009 (EDT)
What about a donation drive? We could have a meter on the frontpage, and after the donations reach an amount that could keep the wiki afloat for a while, we could launch GBWiki. -- Semysane 16:17, 21 October 2009 (EDT)
Opposition
Do we have the time or "manpower" for this? This wiki still needs a lot of work. For example, The Unicron Trilogy articles (especially Armada Mini-Cons) and the Beast Wars/Machines are more or less still a mess, and not up to the standards of more recent articles or more frequently-updated articles. I think we should work on getting these pretty important eras of Transformers up to scratch before our more frequent contributors divert (some) of their attention and free time to GoBots. And yes, I have recently put work into updating Armada and Beast Wars articles where possible, since our other members are most ably handling everything else. And no, I'm not suggesting the wiki should be work, I just think we should get this into order before we start doing something else. Maybe it's my probable Aspergers talking. --FFN 07:50, 22 October 2009 (EDT)
You're assuming that people who would be working on this have any real knowledge or familiarity with UT materials. Someone may absolutely hate Armada/Energon/Cybertron and have no material to add there, but have much material to add to GoBots. Khajidha 08:17, 22 October 2009 (EDT)
From what I've seen, a good number of the people in this discussion or have discussed it elsewhere are those who have no problem with the UT or actually like it. But there's also Beast Wars - if everybody here likes BW, why are the articles so bad? :p I mean, if I was a newcomer to Transformers (or a returning fan because of the movies), I'd be pretty dissapointed if I came here looking for information about this "Beast Wars" other fans are always raving about. --FFN 08:25, 22 October 2009 (EDT)
At one point finishing all the BW or G1/RiD articles seemed like a pipe dream. Effort over time did it.
Frankly, I think the potential for such a split to draw in new editors outweighs the negatives of potentially splitting people's attention. -Derik 08:29, 22 October 2009 (EDT)
Yeah, maybe I'm worrying over nothing, and of course, I can't make people do things they don't feel like doing. Still, concerns are concerns. --FFN 08:37, 22 October 2009 (EDT)
Wasn't trying to say that any particular person hated UT or BW, just that the assumption that the editors who would be working on GB would be drawn away from other parts is not necessarily true. Some people may become more active on mainstream TF articles even while working on GB articles. Something different often energizes people, and that energy can carry over to other things.
Yeah, you can't force people to work on articles that don't interest them. If the spirit moves them to work on BW and UT they will. Adding a GoBot "section"/sister-wik wouldn't stop anything from happening (especially if it isn't happening to begin with). And it might just draw in new contributers or set someone off on a wiki-fying binge that gets a bunch of TF stuff done too. (ZacWilliam, logged out again, dumb laptop)--76.28.72.27 08:52, 22 October 2009 (EDT)
People will work on what interests them. People doing productive work in one area will naturally discover other areas to focus on. Broadening our scope thusly will most likely bring in new editors, or at least reinvigorate old ones. Frankly, the whole argument that we shouldn't allow our editors to work on what they want in the hopes that they work on what someone else wants them to do is pretty flawed. --Jimsorenson 12:18, 22 October 2009 (EDT)
Oh come on, this is like not letting a kid eat dessert until he's finished his broccoli. "You want GoBots? Well you can't have em until you finish your Unicron Trilogy!" "But I haaaaate the Unicrooon Trilogyyyyy!" "STOP WHINING!" --DrSpengler 12:34, 22 October 2009 (EDT)
Hell, the original The Transformers cartoon episodes still need a crapton of work (basically, if the Errors sections aren't several screens long, then we aren't doing our job!) Still, I don't see why any of that should stop us. Manpower may not be infinite, but it's not fixed, either; a wider net of subject area will likely attract a few more editors. And people who would work on UT stuff will probably do it anyway sooner or later, even if they do get distracted by GoBots for a while. -- Repowers 20:52, 22 October 2009 (EDT)
You'll ALL see once I complete these sections by myself and spend hundreds of dollars importing DVD sets* for shows that I don't like YOU'LL ALL SEE!
*This is a lie. --FFN 16:59, 24 October 2009 (EDT)
The Vote
Well, um, let's do this thing.
Jim Sorenson, votes aye.
I'm in support of this.--RosicrucianTalk 12:27, 22 October 2009 (EDT)
I support this. ---Blackout- 12:29, 22 October 2009 (EDT)
YES. I'm all for it. --DrSpengler 12:31, 22 October 2009 (EDT)
Go for yes, if there are no major problems. --TX55TALK 12:51, 22 October 2009 (EDT)
Oh hell yes. A GoBot wiki sounds awesome, and how much time/manpower can that really take? There's a really tiny amount of GB stuff compared to TF, after all. -Mazenoise 12:53, 22 October 2009 (EDT)
Definatly a Yes, if we don't do it who will? --ZacWilliam 13:19, 22 October 2009 (EDT)
Aye. This place is volunteer-based, let people work on what they want. --Cattleprod
Why the hell not?Hooper_X 15:07, 22 October 2009 (EDT)
I say Go for GoBots. - Semysane 15:09, 22 October 2009 (EDT)
User:Derik votes to affirm the proposed extension. -Derik 15:18, 22 October 2009 (EDT)
Sure, why the heck not? I doubt I'll have much hand in it, but it's a good thing to have, and it would definitely be unique! - Chris McFeely 15:42, 22 October 2009 (EDT)
Another yes here. --Apoc 16:10, 22 October 2009 (EDT)
Now that it seems to be its own entity, I am now in support of this addition. --Bluestreak7 16:35, 22 October 2009 (EDT)
Yes. Best of all worlds for everyone, IMHO. (Although I personally won't end up contributing to it.) --Jeysie 18:42, 22 October 2009 (EDT)
Why the hell not. -- Dark T Zeratul 20:36, 22 October 2009 (EDT)
A GoBots wiki? Yeeeeeess. (have you ever noticed how people always try to transcribe BW Megatron's "Yes" with a lot of Ss? But it's not the 'S' that he stretches; it's the short 'E' sound. "Yesssssssssssssss" would be like a snake hissing. I suppose it's in reaction to the English rule that turns two consecutive Es into a long E sound. "Yees!" ) -- Repowers 20:58, 22 October 2009 (EDT)
That's technically a long "i" sound. Sure to whatever we're voting for! —Interrobang 15:21, 23 October 2009 (EDT)
Fo' shizzle. --M Sipher 22:21, 22 October 2009 (EDT)
Aye me hearties!Thanos6 06:31, 23 October 2009 (EDT)
Yep (and M.A.S.K. has been subsumed into GI Joe somebody said? Since when?) Drmick 13:31, 23 October 2009 (EDT)
Matt Trakker got a Joe toy this year and the bio card featured the revelation that VENOM was a sub-unit of COBRA and that MASK works for GI Joe. --DrSpengler 13:35, 23 October 2009 (EDT)
Yes. (If MASK is part of G.I. Joe, we'll just have to eventually make another sister wiki for G.I.Joe, and then that wiki can have its own sister wiki for MASK. It'll be Tfwiki's cousin wiki. lol.)--Ascendron 14:03, 23 October 2009 (EDT)
G. I. Joe has a Wiki, it's just not well maintained.--MCRG Again 15:26, 23 October 2009 (EDT)
Well, if there's that many people who want to work on the thing, Yes for me.--MCRG Again 15:26, 23 October 2009 (EDT)
Results
OK, I'm calling this thing. With 27 votes for yes and 0 votes for no, including votes from four admins, there is clearly overwhelming (unanimous, in fact) support for this endeavor. Awesome. Technical-minded folks, what are the next steps from here?
(Just for fun, let's see ... 88K! If this discussion were an article, it'd be the 16th largest on the site, so it's actually longer than 99.8% of the content we've produced.)--Jimsorenson 16:43, 24 October 2009 (EDT)
Sweet. And, we really probably should archive this whole discussion as a "topic" thingy, I think... --Jeysie 19:23, 24 October 2009 (EDT)
Yeah: this discussion is giving insane length warnings. ---Blackout- 09:20, 25 October 2009 (EDT)
Seriously, what are the next steps we need to take? --Jimsorenson 13:30, 26 October 2009 (EDT)
I believe it waits on Scout and McFly having the time to set up the changes on our server. (Which, since I think that might involve Squid configuration might take awhile.)
If people want to get started I suppose I could set up a placeholder mediawiki install on my domain, and when GBWiki-proper was ready I'd just hand them a database backup. -Derik 13:57, 26 October 2009 (EDT)
Would you be willing? I think keeping the momentum going while enthusiasm is high is a good idea. --Jimsorenson 14:30, 26 October 2009 (EDT)
Sure. I'll set it up this evening. -Derik 14:54, 26 October 2009 (EDT)
Per request, a temporary home while TFwiki's hosts get their ducks in a line. gbwiki.covertutopia.com/ -Derik 20:48, 26 October 2009 (EDT)
Getting Under Way
Random thoughts: 1) Do we know for sure the "tech folk" (whoever they are) have seen this discussion, vote and result and are working on it, or planning to? I only ask cause I'm not sure who exactly "they" are and I don't remember seeing anyone saying anything like "we're on it". 2)Once things are definately underway, shound there not be an announcement or link on this side of the wiki somehere letting folks know about the new section/sister open for editting? And if yes, where would be good? --ZacWilliam 08:05, 28 October 2009 (EDT)
I think it's a good idea, once we finalize some of the real basic stuff over on GBWiki's end. As it stands, we don't even really have a skeleton over there - there's a "list of Go-Bots episodes" page and that's about it. I think we need to get at least a rudimentary framework hung up - both in the sense of A: at least some stub articles for major characters and stories and a general "franchise overview" page to direct people around the site and B: getting all our formatting templates put into motion (character appearance boxes, episode navigation, etc.) At this point, I wouldn't really want to announce it on the front page because there isn't anything there to look at. Hooper_X 09:35, 28 October 2009 (EDT)
Why does gb.tfwiki.net redirect to transformers wikia? --ItsWalky 12:32, 28 October 2009 (EDT)
I'm guessing it's an artifact of when tfwiki.net originally pointed to Wikia. Any subdomain you type in other than www goes to Wikia right now, apparently.--RosicrucianTalk 12:35, 28 October 2009 (EDT)
It's fixed! --67.149.197.71 12:56, 28 October 2009 (EDT)
