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.

PacifistPrime PP 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.

PacifistPrime PP 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?

PacifistPrime PP 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.

PacifistPrime PP 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)