Talk:B'Boom
From MediaWiki
Toy Bio
Very little about that toy bio reflects his appearance in The Gathering. Doesn't belong in intro bio. --Crockalley 03:09, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
- Dude, he barely has any lines. His appearance in The Gathering couldn't reflect his toy bio if they wanted to. There were FIVE MILLION CHARACTERS. --ItsWalky 03:19, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
- He was one of the main Maximal characters. He certainly didn't go running up and down trees in a rage like his toy bio says. He didn't use any of the weapons detailed in his toy bio. Dude. And we are once again we are in the situation of "where does this information come from?" Under the Toy Bio section, the info's origins are clear, but in the main bio section, it's like we made it up. --Crockalley 03:43, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
- I hereby suggest we remove Rhinox's profile, as his appearance in The Gathering did not touch on any of it. --ItsWalky 03:46, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
- All Crockalley is suggesting is that B'Boom's article be revised in the same fashion Optimus Minor's recently was, reflecting The Gathering as the primary portrayal of the character. Which, if he or someone else can put together a bio out of B'Boom's dialouge and activities in The Gathering, I see nothing wrong with. --KilMichaelMcC 04:54, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
- Yes, but Optimus Minor's personality in The Gathering conflicted with his bio. B'Boom's did not. There is nothing to suggest that he does not go into fits of rage. There was barely anything at all. He appeared more than most characters, but he still did very little of note. In the miniseries, of the Maximals only Razorclaw got any real characterization. I would keep B'Boom's tech spec information there until something directly conflicts it, like, say, the upcoming BW profile series. If you want, put a footnote link saying it's based on his toy bio. Until then, there's no point in removing it. --ItsWalky 05:14, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
- Okay, I get your argument now, and am persuaded by it. Would never have disagreed if you'd said all of that first instead of the sarcastic thing about Rhinox. --KilMichaelMcC 05:48, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
- Yes, but Optimus Minor's personality in The Gathering conflicted with his bio. B'Boom's did not. There is nothing to suggest that he does not go into fits of rage. There was barely anything at all. He appeared more than most characters, but he still did very little of note. In the miniseries, of the Maximals only Razorclaw got any real characterization. I would keep B'Boom's tech spec information there until something directly conflicts it, like, say, the upcoming BW profile series. If you want, put a footnote link saying it's based on his toy bio. Until then, there's no point in removing it. --ItsWalky 05:14, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
- All Crockalley is suggesting is that B'Boom's article be revised in the same fashion Optimus Minor's recently was, reflecting The Gathering as the primary portrayal of the character. Which, if he or someone else can put together a bio out of B'Boom's dialouge and activities in The Gathering, I see nothing wrong with. --KilMichaelMcC 04:54, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
- I hereby suggest we remove Rhinox's profile, as his appearance in The Gathering did not touch on any of it. --ItsWalky 03:46, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
- He was one of the main Maximal characters. He certainly didn't go running up and down trees in a rage like his toy bio says. He didn't use any of the weapons detailed in his toy bio. Dude. And we are once again we are in the situation of "where does this information come from?" Under the Toy Bio section, the info's origins are clear, but in the main bio section, it's like we made it up. --Crockalley 03:43, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
- That's not an appropriate use of footnotes though. On the internet, footnotes, like Endnotes in book, serve more to obscure than to reveal. Footnotes should be used to distinguish sources in interleaved entries.
- An italicised note at the end of the bio section woud serve better.
- Just littering your atticle with footnotes does not serve the reader. Especially when they're suppsoed to be links to a story. "Okay, I clicked on the little number, and it took me to a footnotes section. Great. Okay, so now i'll scroll all the way back up again and find out which number footnote i clicked on... this sucks. it's liek they're using footnotes, which are meant to provide clarifying notes, as general links or something."
- (that last scenario, admittedly, is more of a general gripe, and not spcifically applicable to this situation.)-Derik 05:49, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
- Um. In this circumstance, the footnote is exactly to provide a clarifying note. I don't know what you're on about. --ItsWalky 07:26, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
