Talk:Lio Convoy in Imminent Danger!
Were thbey called 'Matrices of Leadership'? I know A convoy gets a matrixcx upon achieving the rank of Hyperconvoy, but was this actual term ever used? Proper-noun-like? -Derik 22:12, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
Not really, but in the Japanese language there is no such thing as plurals. "Matrices" is the plural for "Matrix", right? So I was trying to go with proper English. I *want* to write an article for the Japanese Beast Wars era Matrix system, but we can't settle on what to call it. They were called "Matrix of Leadership", but since they weren't THE Matrix of Leadership, the admins don't want that info in the Matrix of Leadership article. So what should I call it? --DrSpengler 22:18, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
They're a Leadership Matrix. ; ) -Derik 23:47, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
You win this round. --DrSpengler 00:44, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
RUN, you fools!
It's "run" in the movie. It's "fly" in the book. They're both correct. Ergo we default to what the original editor wanted, said editor being User:Derik, unless he pops up to say otherwise. -- Repowers 16:40, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
- I'm no LOTR fan by any stretch of the imagination. I don't know from nothing. But a quick google shows me that there's actually quite a bit of debate over whether or not he says "fly" or "run" in the movie. It's been pointed out to me that the script for the movie says "fly"... - McFeely, not signed in
- Well I'll be damned, you're right. It's hard to distinguish, but he actually does say "fly". I AM DISHONORED! -- Repowers 17:26, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Reverted Deletion
Dear Interrobang,
Please don't just delete whole subsections like that, which someone (me) has obviously put some time into writing, quote-transcribing and fact-checking. If you think it is incorrect, or lacks merit, fine. But when it's a substantial little chunk of contribution, I think it would at least be polite to raise the issue first rather than just unilaterally vanishing it, don't you?
As to the issue at hand, I think your assessment that the BWII catalogue is noncanon is debatable. It's been included in the Beast Wars Megs article for ages with no notes to that effect. If you have additional information which supports your claim to noncanon (and really, what in Japan is noncanon these days?), please include it in the relevant article, and discuss it here.
Regarding the messy Japanese timeline... well, ditto, basically. The point of the section I wrote it that it is thoroughly unclear WHICH Megatron the Predacons were searching for. Unless you have some new information to add, I don't see the basis for your deletion.
If you feel you have a reasonable justification, please outline it here. In the meantime, I have reverted your deletion, as well as the brief one you removed from G1 Megs' article.
PacifistPrimePP 06:14, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
- For goodness sake, you just deleted it again! Will you please be a grown-up and discuss this?
- For starters, you are asserting that this is all on the basis of the catalogue: IT ISN'T. If you watch the movie it is genuinely ambiguous as to which Megatron they're talking about, even if you completely ignore the catalogue. On that basis alone it merits inculsion.
- Some reasonable discussion next time, if you please.
- PacifistPrimePP 06:22, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
- The issue is that you're making an entire section of pointless filler when "Whether Galvatron meant Generation 1 or Beast Wars Megatron is unknown." was more than sufficient enough. You then proceeded to push your opinion that G1 Megatron was intended because of a toy catalog that was so obscure that they either ignored or overlooked it when putting Beast Wars II thousands of years after Beast Wars in the official timeline.
- You "putting some time" in it is irrelevant. The only concern is whether it's appropriate, which is isn't.
- Amusing how you insist me to be "a grow-up", though. Please don't pretend that you're better than me, certainly not when you're edit warring over a section that was entirely your creation. —Interrobang 06:31, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
