Talk:Lio Convoy in Imminent Danger

Were thbey called 'Matrices of Leadership'? I know A convoy gets a matrixcx upon achieving the rank of Hyperconvoy, but was this actual term ever used? Proper-noun-like? -Derik 22:12, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Not really, but in the Japanese language there is no such thing as plurals. "Matrices" is the plural for "Matrix", right? So I was trying to go with proper English. I *want* to write an article for the Japanese Beast Wars era Matrix system, but we can't settle on what to call it. They were called "Matrix of Leadership", but since they weren't THE Matrix of Leadership, the admins don't want that info in the Matrix of Leadership article. So what should I call it? --DrSpengler 22:18, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

They're a Leadership Matrix. ; ) -Derik 23:47, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

You win this round. --DrSpengler 00:44, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

RUN, you fools!

It's "run" in the movie. It's "fly" in the book. They're both correct. Ergo we default to what the original editor wanted, said editor being User:Derik, unless he pops up to say otherwise. -- Repowers 16:40, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm no LOTR fan by any stretch of the imagination. I don't know from nothing. But a quick google shows me that there's actually quite a bit of debate over whether or not he says "fly" or "run" in the movie. It's been pointed out to me that the script for the movie says "fly"... - McFeely, not signed in

Well I'll be damned, you're right. It's hard to distinguish, but he actually does say "fly". I AM DISHONORED! -- Repowers 17:26, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Reverted Deletion

Dear Interrobang,

Please don't just delete whole subsections like that, which someone (me) has obviously put some time into writing, quote-transcribing and fact-checking. If you think it is incorrect, or lacks merit, fine. But when it's a substantial little chunk of contribution, I think it would at least be polite to raise the issue first rather than just unilaterally vanishing it, don't you?

As to the issue at hand, I think your assessment that the BWII catalogue is noncanon is debatable. It's been included in the Beast Wars Megs article for ages with no notes to that effect. If you have additional information which supports your claim to noncanon (and really, what in Japan is noncanon these days?), please include it in the relevant article, and discuss it here.

Regarding the messy Japanese timeline... well, ditto, basically. The point of the section I wrote it that it is thoroughly unclear WHICH Megatron the Predacons were searching for. Unless you have some new information to add, I don't see the basis for your deletion.

If you feel you have a reasonable justification, please outline it here. In the meantime, I have reverted your deletion, as well as the brief one you removed from G1 Megs' article.

PacifistPrimePP 06:14, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

For goodness sake, you just deleted it again! Will you please be a grown-up and discuss this?

For starters, you are asserting that this is all on the basis of the catalogue: IT ISN'T. If you watch the movie it is genuinely ambiguous as to which Megatron they're talking about, even if you completely ignore the catalogue. On that basis alone it merits inculsion.

Some reasonable discussion next time, if you please.

PacifistPrimePP 06:22, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

The issue is that you're making an entire section of pointless filler when "Whether Galvatron meant Generation 1 or Beast Wars Megatron is unknown." was more than sufficient enough. You then proceeded to push your opinion that G1 Megatron was intended because of a toy catalog that was so obscure that they either ignored or overlooked it when putting Beast Wars II thousands of years after Beast Wars in the official timeline.

You "putting some time" in it is irrelevant. The only concern is whether it's appropriate, which is isn't.

Amusing how you insist me to be "a grow-up", though. Please don't pretend that you're better than me, certainly not when you're edit warring over a section that was entirely your creation. —Interrobang 06:31, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Sigh. Yes, I'm sure I'm terribly amusing, thank you. Your sarcasm is equally chucklesome, I'm sure. Your hostility, however, leaves me merely disappointed. I'm wasn't implying anything about being "better" than you; I don't even know you. So please don't put words in my mouth. Furthermore, I have never attempted to disguise the fact that I am defending my own contribution. Surely is permissible, is it not? My only serious objection to your behaviour was your immediate reversion of my restoration, without even the politeness of first discussing it in the appropriate forum (here), especially considering I'd explicitly invited you to do so.

Anyway, you and I are obviously heading into a complete discussional brick-wall situation here. Anyone else care to contribute or venture an opinion?

P.S. I would be prepared to (grudgingly) make the concession of shortening the section, including the removal of the last sentence which speculates about G1 Megs' weapon-mode, but I still don't agree that the whole subsection is irrelevant to the point of requiring deletion. Let's not forget which wiki we're on here, shall we?

P.P.S. I'm also still befuddled by your wholesale rejection of the catalogue fiction. It seems to me that actually quite a bit of Japanese canon is derived from minor magazine, text and packaging mini-fiction sources that would be considered apocryphal in the U.S. but count over there. I still don't see you offering any proof to back up your assertion that it is noncanon.

And, again, it has been featured in BW Megs' page for quite some time without objection... Anyone else have an opinion on this?

PacifistPrimePP 06:57, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Aaaaand now you've done it again, deleting it all and replacing it with one sentence. Charming. Anyone seeing a pattern here?

Here's an idea: How about we both leave it alone until some other people have two seconds to bring their opinons to the issue? Some manners wouldn't go astray either, might I add.

PacifistPrimePP 07:05, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

My point regarding the catalog is that A) it evidently doesn't matter to the Japanese or they wouldn't have put Beast Wars II in a later era (thus making it noncanon in that regard; as in, not part of continuity), so why should it matter in this case? And B) even if it's part of continuity, it doesn't rule out BW Megatron. It's a Japanese children's cartoon. It's not there to abide to something drummed up by marketers to sell toys (L@@K!!! Galvatron beat up Megatron! Buy his toy to bask in the awesomeness!). Beyond the catalog, your section has nothing but "maybe BW or maybe G1".

I'm sorry you feel incredible offense that your edits are being undone or changed, but this is a wiki. Everything is allowed to be edited by whether other editors see fit. If a new edit is contested, the answer generally is not to redo it over and over and insult the supposed maturity of the guy deleting it. —Interrobang 07:20, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Pacci— don't just keep reverting something someone else keeps reverting. Either try to bring your edits in line with the dissenting editor to form a consensus, or try and bring in other opinions to help form a consensus. This sectionw as much too long for the subject it addressed, I've trimmed it.

Interrobang- the 'BW2 and Neo are much later' thing is a retcon dating from 2007. Lots of other stuff published when BW2 was originally in production fits BW2 occurring at the same time much better. The canon says what it says- and when it contradicts itself you don't get to use the retcon to just dismiss the existence of the old understanding. -Derik 09:56, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Goddamnit. The point is that we have no way of knowing the movie's writers knew or cared about a toy catalog. The guys who made the timeline obviously didn't, despite even more obscure shit making it in. Do we expect the writers of the Generation 1 cartoon to care about "Reinforcements from Cybertron!"? —Interrobang 10:08, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

The catalog reflects the understanding in place at the time in Japan, which may reasonably be expected to be shared by the writers, even if they're not specifically aware of the catalog itself.

And more to the point- ti doesn't matter whether they care about the catalog's existance- we do. And in this case- it wasn't bvendign the article over backwards to mention it- it was mentioned in passing as one of many things that could clarify an ambiguous part of the movie- all of which point in the same direction. -Derik 10:20, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

The "understanding in place at the time in Japan" was "Galvatron once beat up Megatron"? —Interrobang 10:24, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

The "understanding in place at the time in Japan" was "BW and BW2 take place at more or less the same time, so it's possible for Galvatron and Megatron to have come to blows." Yes. As opposed to the 10-year-later retcon that they are separated by untold millennia of time. -Derik 10:30, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

How the Hell does one thing logically lead to the another? The point of contention is whether they did fight, not if it's "possible" they did. (Do you even have any other sources that state Beast Wars II happens at the same time as Beast Wars?)—Interrobang 10:38, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

"If a new edit is contested, the answer generally is not to redo it over."

―Interrobang

You, who self-rightiously declare Let the reader decide based on the facts instead of feeding them opinion, now know that by your butchering of others exits to excise and minimize elements of the canon your admit you dont' care for and don't think should count... you have transformed this from a two-sized argument presenting reasons why the movie could be referring to either G1 or BW Megs- into a 1-sided argument where every sentence supports it being G1 Megatron.

And while I personally believe that to be correct, it is incorrect to present the Movie as having done so. Hack.

Also, last time you kneejerk reverted, you erased a structural correction I made to the article outside of that section. -Derik 10:41, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I really don't want to argue, since I really can't make any discernible sense of your bullshit. But I'll try.

• "the canon your admit you dont' care for and don't think should count"

Where did I say this? Since you obviously have shitty reading comprehension, I'll explain, again. I'm saying it's likely that the writers didn't care for the catalog, and it's not canon (or "in continuity", if you prefer) according to the timeline. All your cries for "but it's canon" make no fucking sense, since the canon timeline shoots it out of the water. But you're apt to ignore the timeline because... you don't like it.

• "you have transformed this from a two-sized argument presenting reasons why the movie could be referring to either G1 or BW Megs- into a 1-sided argument where every sentence supports it being G1 Megatron."

It wasn't a one-sided argument for G1 Megatron before my edit? Coulda fucking fooled me. —Interrobang 10:57, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Everything is canon. The fact that Japan, 10 years after-the-fact imposed a giant retcon (with no supporting fiction, at all) wiping one official approved source out of continuity doesn't mean it no longer counts on this wiki.

And while all signs seem to point to it being G1 MEgs int he movie- the section used to at least acknowledge one argument why BW Megs would be a better fit. You deleted that- leaving just across-the-board pro-G1 citations. -Derik 11:06, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, everything is canon. That doesn't mean they all fit together or we can't acknowledge doubt that the writer was aware of it. And the point of my edits was to simply provide facts, not arguments, but whatever. I didn't have a particular issue with the "symmetry" bit. —Interrobang 11:24, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

But you nonetheless removed it in the process of rephrasing things to fit your predispositions.

Whetever. McFeely's edit is verbose- but it covers all the issues fairly. You feel the same? -Derik 11:35, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I removed it not because I had "predispositions" (nor did I do anything for such). I removed it because it wasn't a straight fact, unlike dialogue and events. I still disagree with "the greatest and most vicious Transformer in history" being an good indicator for G1 Megatron, considering the adulation Primal got in the same movie, but I just can't give a shit anymore. Out of curiosity, just what the Hell do you think my motivation is? —Interrobang 11:48, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

You then proceeded to push your opinion that G1 Megatron was intended because of a toy catalog that was so obscure that they either ignored or overlooked
My point regarding the catalog is that A) it evidently doesn't matter to the Japanese or they wouldn't have put Beast Wars II in a later era (thus making it noncanon in that regard; as in, not part of continuity)
Goddamnit. The point is that we have no way of knowing the movie's writers knew or cared about a toy catalog.

I think your motivation is that the toy catalog cheeses you off for some reason, so you were doign your damndest to remove any reference to it, or belittle its existance. And as much as you claim "I don't think 'the most viscious TF' necessarily refers to G1 Megs" was your motication, in Revision 157069 you completely ignored that section, instead focusing on the catalog to say A toy catalog states that Beast Wars Megatron and Galvatron were rivals, but whether the writers knew or cared about it isn't known. If me making assumptions about your motivations offends you- then I'm sorry. It is perhaps more accurate to say I object to your actions, which consistently have exised or minimized the catalog's place in canon-- including your first revision whose memo field unilaterally declared 'The catalog clearly isn't canon.' -Derik 12:04, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I didn't ignore the "greatest blah blah" part, as I removed the part where it was said to indicate G1 Megatron. I made it more open-ended, leaving it to the reader to decide whether it referred to BW or G1. As for the canon quibbles, I meant "not in canon (continuity) with the movie" and not a good indicator for what was intended in the movie. But we've argued enough. —Interrobang 12:40, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Um... wow.

And I thought it had got unpleasant when I was involved...! Seriously guys, what the hell?

I'm a passionate TransFan too, but this kind of mouth-frothing unpleasentness is just... something else. Truly uncalled for. I can't believe how vicious that all got.

Anyway, I for one am quite happy with the new version, which I take it is largely thanks to McFeely. Kudos, and gracias. I also think it includes a couple of very good new points, which serve to "stabilise" the argument a bit.

I have taken the liberty of adding a picture and making some very minor tweaks which I don't think substantively alter this new "consensus" version. I hope it doesn't re-ignite anything.

Okay, later guys. Get some rest. And, y'know, a lot of Valium.

Cheers, PacifistPrimePP 01:19, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

See, now I think it's too long again. :p And frankly, this section already links to the Galvatron article's section with the picture from the catalog. It (the picture) isn't exactly crying out for inclusion in this article. -Derik 01:32, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Um, really? Err... I thought I had added a sumtotal of less than a dozen new words, didn't I? I'm surprised that you think that's enough to suddenly make the article "too long again"...?

And does the picture really do any harm, especially given: a] the attempts to suppress all mention in this article of the catalogue's existence?, and b] it illustrates part of the argument?

PacifistPrimePP 01:42, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I also feel like it's a little too long now, but, I can live with it. I'm sorry I wasn't paying attention when this dispute went down; it looks like it's all settled so I'm not going to do anything, but I feel I must say that Interrobang's bahavior was highly inappropriate. Repeated reverts, ignoring requests for discussion, and a highly hostile tone throughout -- even cursing at Derik in edit summaries -- is all bad stuff. Take a "time out" next time, Interrobang, or I'll force you to. --Steve-o 22:01, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Little silly to single me out when hostility and edit warring is a product of both sides. —Interrobang 22:12, 4 March 2008 (UTC)