Talk:Optimus Minor
From MediaWiki
I know I introduced a new concept with putting toy bio sections under fiction, but frequently, toy bio info contradicts other fictions, and therefore doesn't belong in the introductory paragraph. For axample, Minor's toy bio discribes him as having trouble controlling his savage animal side, but this is not displayed in the IDW comics, AND in IDW he is not a product of Megatron's cloning experiments. Is there an inherent incompatibility between a Toy Bio section and this wiki? Why is it bad to have a toy bio section? --Crockalley 15:05, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
- I agree with Crockalley: in the event where a character has a bio that doesn't match-up with his cartoon/comic portrayal, I think it is entirely appropriate to have separate section to cover that under the fiction heading. --KilMichaelMcC 17:26, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
- Seconded. It makes sense when necessary. Also, sometimes bios have events that dont' belong int he bio proper. (Optimus Prime's battle int he Mirtonian constellation, for sinstance, does not belong in his main bio.) -Derik 17:55, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
- Thirded. Also, can we be more aggressive about source-citing in the intro paragraph? Whenever an intro is longer than a sentence or two, I start to doubt its relevance. For instance, I'll see a bunch of suspiciously-highly-detailed info about some Nebulan's personality and history, and I'll wonder: Did this come from a Marvel TFU profile, a DW profile, an actual story, a tech-spec bio, what? As a rule, I think that ANY piece of info that only exists in one place should be confined to its continuity of origin. But, if that's too extreme a policy, then there should be citations of some sort within the intro. - Jackpot 18:58, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
- I agree. I often find myself wondering where a lot of this information comes from. If it's not under a heading in the fiction section, there's often no clues as to the information's origin. --Crockalley 19:12, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
- Thirded. Also, can we be more aggressive about source-citing in the intro paragraph? Whenever an intro is longer than a sentence or two, I start to doubt its relevance. For instance, I'll see a bunch of suspiciously-highly-detailed info about some Nebulan's personality and history, and I'll wonder: Did this come from a Marvel TFU profile, a DW profile, an actual story, a tech-spec bio, what? As a rule, I think that ANY piece of info that only exists in one place should be confined to its continuity of origin. But, if that's too extreme a policy, then there should be citations of some sort within the intro. - Jackpot 18:58, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
- I think that, unless we have another contradictory source, the assumption is that information is universal, which feels right to me. But getting more strict about inclusing a 'sources cited' section might not be bad. (Not necessarily footnoted, in most case that level fo distinction is unnecessary.) -Derik 19:42, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
- And my assumption regarding TF fiction is that if something is stated in only one continuity, then it's not necessarily applicable to the others. It can be, but presenting it as though it's universal limits the possibilities of all the other continuities. For instance, Soundwave. His intro-paragraph presents the backstabbing-opportunist-who-everybody-hates-and-distrusts aspect of his tech-spec bio as though it applies universally. Yet there's little to no sign of that in his cartoon portrayal. He MIGHT be blackmailing other 'Cons "off-camera," but he could also be as straightforward as he seems. In fact, the "Animated continuity" section has to specifically mention he "only infrequently exhibit[ed] any traits that could be consider[ed] to be in line with his tech spec." So if it wasn't universal, why was it in the intro? I think tech-spec bios should get their own "Fiction" subsection, and for that matter, comic profiles should be separately called out within their continuities.
