Talk:Optimus Minor

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)

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. - Jackpot 20:14, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

In reply to you, Derik: If the info is under the heading "Marvel Comics", that's self explanatory. But there's a lot of info that's not under a heading, and in those cases, I think it would be appropriate to indicate a source. --Crockalley 20:51, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I think the best approach is this: If there is only one real portrayle of a character (say Bumblebee) that goes at the begining. If there are different portrayles given fairly equal establishment (say Blaster, Comic vrs. Toon) then there should just be a note up top and appropriate character profiles under the respective fiction sections. If (as with OP Minor here) there's one Major fictive portrayle (IDW where there's an actual story) but then one minor that disagrees (a few techspec lines) the Major should go at the top, and then in the fiction section should be a seperate Toy Bio entry with the differnt persona. Would that make sense? ZacWilliam 23:47, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree fully with this. A one-sentence opening for a character page just... looks bad if there's anything that could actually fill it. Besides, it'd hardly be the first time fiction and bio didn't line up completely. --M Sipher 23:56, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

It sounds like we have a fundamental difference in taste. Not only does a short opening not look bad to me, but like I said above, the longer it is, the less I trust it. I quickly begin to suspect that it's either paraphrased from a comic profile (which seem in most cases apocryphal to the actual stories) or cobbled together from multiple continuities into a whole that doesn't really exist in any (see Soundwave again). As for OpMinor in particular: Since he gets actual characterization in only one continuity, I don't think he needs an intro at ALL. Just weave his personality traits into his "IDW Comics" bio. The only reason I can think of for an intro to even exist is if the story-bio section is too long or complicated to expect an average Wiki-surfer to read. But that's certainly not the case here, and in the places where it is the case (such as, say, Optimus Prime), there are enough universal elements supported by all continuities to construct an unobjectionable, relevant intro. - Jackpot 03:13, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Agreed --Crockalley 00:09, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

From Teletraan I: The Transformers Wiki, a Wikia wiki.