Talk:Reaching the Omega Point
From MediaWiki
The, uh, time travel section here is completely speculation. It's... it's a nice theory, but I don't think it belongs here, especially so prominently. --ItsWalky 17:45, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
- I was just about to say the same thing. I am very uncomfortable with all this conjecture. --Crockalley 17:49, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
- Okay, I understood your most of your edits, Walky, but I think Interrobang's hack-and-slash has seriously gone too far. 'Omega Point' is one of the most convoluted and hard-to-read stories in TF fiction, and if I weren't familiar with it, I would certainly appreciate some analysis in an article about it. If what I wrote was factually wrong or excessively hypothetical, then fine (and I'll grant the latter on a few things in there). But most of what Interrobang cut was either connecting the dots of the basic story logic or flat-out recapping. I'm tempted to just paste it back in and say, "No, it's NOT that speculative," but that doesn't get us anywhere. So where's the line? What counts as "speculation," and ultimately who's the judge? And, since it seems to be a cardinal sin around here, why isn't there a policy laid down anywhere? Or have I missed it? - Jackpot 21:31, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
- "If Derik speculates, it's bad." Generally. Speculation is a much bigger sin to CrockAlley here, who likes to delete anything I write with "possibly" in it. But seriously, if something is a major point of contention in the fandom, we should lay it out. Derik's original write-up went too far, IMO, creating a doublecrossing motive for Unicron that really did not exist in the original treatment. Ascribing motives to characters which were not implied is something I want to avoid. --ItsWalky 22:01, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
- Um, you're probably talking about MY write-up, not Derik's. I don't think Derik actually wrote that much of this article. And, yeah, the Uni-motivation thing was one of the elements I was willing to give way on for being excessively hypothetical. But look at what's been deleted since your edits a couple of weeks ago. I don't understand why, say, the round-up of where the various characters stand post-Omega-Point is too speculative to exist in this Wiki. Sure, a lot of it isn't explicitly stated in the story, but that's kind of the point. The story is confusingly written and barely wraps itself up. I see it as a service to the reader to untangle the web and go, "Logically, here's who still exists, who doesn't, and where they probably are. And how it does and doesn't still intermesh with the Beast Wars." If I've gotten things WRONG, okay, sure, let's change it. But I think what I wrote was sound enough to fly.
- Again: who decides this? What's our standard on this Wiki? - Jackpot 22:24, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
- "If Derik speculates, it's bad." Generally. Speculation is a much bigger sin to CrockAlley here, who likes to delete anything I write with "possibly" in it. But seriously, if something is a major point of contention in the fandom, we should lay it out. Derik's original write-up went too far, IMO, creating a doublecrossing motive for Unicron that really did not exist in the original treatment. Ascribing motives to characters which were not implied is something I want to avoid. --ItsWalky 22:01, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
- Okay, I understood your most of your edits, Walky, but I think Interrobang's hack-and-slash has seriously gone too far. 'Omega Point' is one of the most convoluted and hard-to-read stories in TF fiction, and if I weren't familiar with it, I would certainly appreciate some analysis in an article about it. If what I wrote was factually wrong or excessively hypothetical, then fine (and I'll grant the latter on a few things in there). But most of what Interrobang cut was either connecting the dots of the basic story logic or flat-out recapping. I'm tempted to just paste it back in and say, "No, it's NOT that speculative," but that doesn't get us anywhere. So where's the line? What counts as "speculation," and ultimately who's the judge? And, since it seems to be a cardinal sin around here, why isn't there a policy laid down anywhere? Or have I missed it? - Jackpot 21:31, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
