Admins, we desperately need a consistent policy on these guys. Ace, Hawk, Lady Jaye, Roadblock, Scarlett, Sergeant Slaughter, and Snake Eyes are not tagged as Comics-only characters, while the rest of the Joes are (save Flint, who's been in Transformers-branded animation and prose). None of the Cobras are tagged such, nor are the Lunartix or Atomic Man.

This issue also has implications for the Marvel and Star Wars characters. It's actually accurate to claim that Circuit Breaker, Death's Head, Joe Robertson, and U.S. 1 are Comics-only characters, but we need a consistent policy on Spider-Man and Nicholas. And if they're Comics-only characters, we need to go tag all the Star Wars guys as Toy-only characters. So let's figure this out. --Rotty 19:45, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, how are we defining comics-only then?
I thought we used it for characters in TF that've only appeared in comics. You propose to apply the term to non-TF characters. Since this (from my perspective) makes the category much less useful by cluttering it with things I DON'T want to see (when I click on the cat I wast TF's coic-only characters, not US-1 and Spider-man) I oppose must voice opposition to this plan. -Derik 21:37, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
Oh, wait- you werent' callign for them to be added to comic-only, you were calling for a consistent policy. My mistake. I think they should be dumped out of comics-only for the same reasons I stated above. They're external properties- I want that treated differently. -Derik 21:42, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
That's right. I don't know how we're defining comics-only here. There's been a disagreement around here going back to last year on whether we should pretend to be unaware of the existence of non-Transformers branded toys and media when giving articles category tags. I'm not "proposing to apply the term to non-TF characters". That's already been done. The question is whether or not we should pretend to be ignorant of someone like Sgt. Slaughter being a character in World Wrestling Entertainment and G.I. Joe cartoons and having toys. Right now, G.I. Joe characters are tagged randomly, while Cobra, Lunartix, and Star Wars characters are tagged for accuracy and Marvel characters in the "let's pretend" manner. We need a consistent policy. --Rotty 21:52, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
No pages should be categorized in a joking, "blindingly in-universe" fashion. Spider-man is not a comics-only character; while treating him as this amazing guy who only showed up once and which we know so little about is funny for the text of a page, his categories should not lie. G.I. Joe dudes (well, other than Firewall) are not comics-only characters. We link to freakin' YoJoe pages right there, so turning around and saying they were never toys would be ridiculous. --ItsWalky 21:58, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
Thank you Walky- I think this is the first time we firmly defined the limits of in-universeness, and this seems like a useful definition to proceed from. -Derik 22:02, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
Just to add a voice of dissent, I would still be in favor of listing Spider-Man, for example, in the "Comic-only characters" category, not as a joke or out of some desire to be clever, but because "comic-only character" is an entirely accurate description of his role within the world of Transformers. But, I think I'm probably gonna loose with that argument, huh? Oh well. --KilMichaelMcC 22:06, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
In addition to Walky's point, consider that if Hasbro made a future wave of Marvel Legends with Death's Head I in it and we had a policy of calling characters with toys "Comics-only" if said toys lack a Transformers logo on the package... well, we'd be actively unhelpful as an encyclopedia. --Rotty 23:48, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
Just you wait until Hasbro drops Marvel Transformers. -hx 01:57, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.