Talk:Arcee (SG)

I don't want to make this edit myself and remove information, but does it really make sense to have a pic of an Elita-1 toy on an Arcee page? And then on Elita-1's page (http://tfwiki.net/wiki/Elita-One_%28SG%29) the toy isn't even listed, and instead we have a toy for a completely different character listed? (Override GTS) ? --Mathius 02:06, 6 June 2010 (EDT)

Learn about repurposing. --Detour 02:12, 6 June 2010 (EDT)

I know what repurposing is, but when you have an official Elita-1 toy, why isn't it under the Elita-1 character page? Makes zero sense at all. --Mathius 02:36, 6 June 2010 (EDT)

Because the goddamn toy is a goddamn repaint of a goddamn Arcee toy so it was goddamn repurposed as goddamn Arcee. --Detour 02:38, 6 June 2010 (EDT)

Are you like 2 or something that you have to act like that? Shattered glass isn't even official except for a few botcon exclusives, right? It's a "virtual" toyline. It doesn't even exist. I can repurpose characters all day long, that doesn't make them canon. --Mathius 02:44, 6 June 2010 (EDT)

You repurposing toys doesn't make it canon, but the authors of the official prose stories repurposing toys as various characters does. --Jeysie 02:47, 6 June 2010 (EDT)

Shattered Glass is official. Hasbro stamp of approval and everything. Just because you're too cheap to shell out the dough for membership doesn't make it fanfiction. --Detour 02:48, 6 June 2010 (EDT)

Shattered glass the franchise, prose, etc. IS, the toy isn't. Period. By that logic if Furman came around and propose RID ultra magnus as a repaint of Furman Prime it would be official. When they do an official repaint of the toy and offer it for sale or as an exclusive, then it's official. Until then it's just a digibash or an idea in someone's head. But I'm not arguing logic anymore with someone who just cusses and throws out insults. If you say an official Elita-One toy belongs on an Arcee page, who am I to argue that logic. --Mathius 02:52, 6 June 2010 (EDT)

It is official, actually, whether you find it silly or not. Especially when you consider that the repurposed characters either have descriptions or illustrations showing they're the toy in question. (Meanwhile, Furman's Primes don't.) --Jeysie 02:55, 6 June 2010 (EDT)

Hence why the Toy section mentions it's a repurposing. And yes, if Furman had RID Ultra Magnus show up in fiction under the moniker Furman Prime, and it happened in an official Hasbro-approved story (like what Shattered Glass happens to be), it would count. --Detour 02:58, 6 June 2010 (EDT)

The very definition of repurposing which you guys linked to points out that it's unofficial "The repurposed character has no official toy release of his own" http://tfwiki.net/wiki/Repurpose Now I suggest you look up the word Rhetoric. --Mathius 03:00, 6 June 2010 (EDT)

And I suggest you look up the term Arguing For Argument's Sake and then finish the quote from the article: "but the toy can take on double-duty representing both the character he was originally released as (the character on the box) and the repurposed character established later on in fiction." --Detour 03:03, 6 June 2010 (EDT)

"Rhetoric: The art or study of using language effectively and persuasively" (according to www.thefreedictionary.com). Aaaand how was that relevant to your argument, weak as it was? Bobpiecheese 03:12, 6 June 2010 (EDT)

I'm confused. Why are you saying the Elita 1 toy is not on the Elita 1 page when it clearly is? --abates 03:28, 6 June 2010 (EDT)

He was talking about the toy not appearing on Elita-1's SG page (which wouldn't make sense anyway, since SG Elita-1 doesn't look like that) --89.138.184.102 09:20, 6 June 2010 (EDT)

I'm acting like a dick? I'm not the one cussing and whining like a 2 year old throwing a tantrum. And if I was a dick I'd have just made the edit instead of discussing it first. I don't expect you guys to understand what the difference between a fanboy and a normal person is. It's built into the definition of a fanboy that you are incapable of understanding when you're in the wrong. You guys are like little kids sitting in the sandbox with your "repurposing" nonsense saying "Let's pretend that Hot Rod is bumblee because Hasbro didn't make one." Seriously? You claim there's no "cliche", but then you throw around the words "our" and "we" etc. etc. and talk about your "system" that "I don't understand." If your system works so well then what's with the glaring inconsistencies? (YOUR repurposing page says they're unofficial, but you argue here that they are official. Whatever) If people are continually trying to edit pages and you're locking them so they can't be editted, OBVIOUSLY they want the information there. But you don't want it there so it can't be. But there's no cliche. Whatever. --Mathius 14:25, 6 June 2010 (EDT)

The problem here isn't that we don't understand how we're in the wrong. The problem is that you only think we're wrong because you don't understand how things work and won't pay attention to our explanations trying to show you how they work.

As for the repurposing, Detour already explained that you didn't pay attention to the whole quote: "The repurposed character has no official toy release of his own, but the toy can take on double-duty representing both the character he was originally released as (the character on the box) and the repurposed character established later on in fiction."

On top of that, the descriptions in the prose and/or illustrations for the prose or comic clearly describe/show the character as being represented by that toy (since that's what the author/artist had in mind as being the official representation while doing their art/description).

So if you want to actually understand how things work and then see if something genuinely doesn't make sense, then drop the attitude and listen and then comment. --Jeysie 14:42, 6 June 2010 (EDT)

I read what Detour wrote. You fail to recognize that the rest of the quote doesn't change anything as far as logic is concern. And I read the 'prose' stories (with the exception of reunification), they have few illustrations in them. Again you fail to see your system doesn't work and your logic is distorted. You're arguing to me that this toy looks like this character, but your own wiki page says there is no official image of this person. In other words, you justified whatthis person should look like based on a textual description and are trying to argue with me the accuracy of what is essentially someone's interpretation of the text.

Does this phrase look familiar? "This character has no official visual representation whatsoever... yet, at least."

Another point to make is that part of the "guidelines" for this is to provide sources. Where are the sources for your "repurposed" pretend figures if they're "official" ?--Mathius 14:51, 6 June 2010 (EDT)

"In other words, you justified whatthis person should look like based on a textual description and are trying to argue with me the accuracy of what is essentially someone's interpretation of the text."

Well, yes, seeing as how the interpretation we're basing it on is the author's interpretation. Seeing as how both authors are active on the message boards and actively edit this wiki, so they can say, "Yes, that was the toy we were describing."

And, that phrase refers to characters who don't have an official illustration yet. They can still have an official textual description (and thus an official repurposed toy said description was based on). --Jeysie 15:08, 6 June 2010 (EDT)

Then where is the link, hm? Where is the source?

"What's important is that this information should have been cleared through official channels. Hasbro's website is a valid source, as is IDW's. Preorder and inventory listings from established retailers, such as Toys "R" Us or Amazon, are also fair game. Information revealed by individuals involved in the production of Transformers, if it's revealed in an "official" venue (such as a printed article or a convention panel) counts, but your behind-the-scenes talk with Aaron Archer at BotCon does not count. "--Mathius 15:19, 6 June 2010 (EDT)