Talk:Alignment

Glossary

I'm assuming this lists characters and concepts unique or original to this story, but I'm not 100% sure. Could someone add a note of clarification. Khajidha 16:02, 19 March 2010 (EDT)

Original to the story, or else the Stellar Galleries and Kolkular wouldn't be in there. I thought it was a shame not to offer some overview to the readers of the story's pseudocanon input to Transformers. Geewunling 16:10, 19 March 2010 (EDT)

Not a bad idea - mentioning them increases the likeliness of them being canonized in the future! - Chris McFeely 17:00, 19 March 2010 (EDT)

Which I'll admit was an underlying intent. I'd murder to get more of Direwolf, or maybe even see Killzone established as Killzone. Geewunling 17:06, 19 March 2010 (EDT)

Uh, is this -- "Writers of official media, feel free to canonize at will!" -- an okay thing for us to be saying? Would characters and other things created by Furman in a non-Hasbro-owned capacity not actually belong to Furman himself? Are they really free for other writers to use "at will," without his permission?--KilMichaelMcC 22:36, 19 March 2010 (EDT)

Remember, they're all derivative works based on Hasbro's intellectual property in the first place. The legalities are ... murky. Khajidha 23:23, 19 March 2010 (EDT)

Killzone

Okay then, Jim, please explain why my change was "bullshit." --KilMichaelMcC 21:08, 2 April 2010 (EDT)

And again, just because it's a coincidence doesn't negate the status of the name being canonized. I am having a hard time even understanding your objection to having Killzone link to Killzone, especially since they are both Decepticons, both in the same continuity family ... I mean, what more do you want? --Jimsorenson 21:09, 2 April 2010 (EDT)

For it to be intentional? I'm with Kil. I can't see this as a case of canonizing something when that's not what it was supposed to be. - Chris McFeely 21:14, 2 April 2010 (EDT)

Considering we have characters, even the same continuity family, that share both names and factions all the time, that means nothing at all. If Sipher and Troop created their own new character that's not intended to be the same character from Alignment, they're... not the same character. Plain and simple. --Jeysie 21:13, 2 April 2010 (EDT)

Authorial intent matters for almost nothing. Just because he wasn't designed to be the same character doesn't mean that he ISN'T the same character. Do we know that Kolkular as was mentioned in Alignment is exactly the same in Furman's head as it wound up in Dreamwave? In fact, I'll wager that it almost definitely isn't. He's not an artist, I'm sure that it looks much more like what was in Don's head than what was in Furman's head. In any event, has anyone asked him about it?--Jimsorenson 21:16, 2 April 2010 (EDT)

The Killzone in Alignment isn't in any continuity family! They aren't the same guy because one is a Furman fan character, the other is a canon character who shares his name by complete coincidence. If Furman wrote Killzone into a canon story it might be different. If someone else who had actually heard of Alignment's Killzone had purposefully written him into canon it would be a different story. But Sipher has stated that that is not the case, and a non-official character can't in any sense become canonized by coincidence. --KilMichaelMcC 21:16, 2 April 2010 (EDT)

Why not? Lots of stuff in Transformers comes about from coincidence and happenstance.--Jimsorenson 21:17, 2 April 2010 (EDT)

Also, if authorial intent apparently counts for so much, we should probably ask Furman if he'd retroactively consider them the same character.--Jimsorenson 21:20, 2 April 2010 (EDT)

Okay, I don't think I even really understand your argument, and I can't find any further way of putting forth my own without straight-up repeating what I've already said. So I'm not sure if I have anything else to add to the discussion at this point. --KilMichaelMcC 21:28, 2 April 2010 (EDT)

My argument is (rather, one of my arguments is) that Furman's viewpoint hasn't been consulted, and probably should.

Anyway, I'm probably just going to canonize the whole thing. Not only is it a good story, but it'll avoid silly arguments like this.--Jimsorenson 21:32, 2 April 2010 (EDT)

If an author creates a character intended to be their own unique separate character from any other character, then they're... a separate character. Period.

After all, Sipher and Troop could have easily named their character Stompy McKill or something, and then we wouldn't even be having this conversation because the literal only similarity between the characters that doesn't mean anything anyway (since, again, there's plenty of characters that have the same name that aren't the same character, even within the same continuity family) wouldn't exist.

About the only way we could ever consider them the same character is if some later canon story comes along and says they're the same. As of right now, though, all we have is author intent--which says that the canon character is not the same as the non-canon character. Your fan theories don't trump author's intent, sorry.

(And, sheesh. Canonizing it yourself just to win an argument in favor of your personal fan theories seems rather petty, IMHO.) --Jeysie 21:36, 2 April 2010 (EDT)

Actually, I'd consider canonizing this story to be, in a way, acknowledgment that I've lost THIS argument. I do think it should be canon, though, for reasons that have nothing at all to do with this argument.

BUT.

If authorial intent is that important, suppose I state that the Blackarachnia in my books is NOT the same Blackarachnia from Animated. She's my own fan character. From, I dunno, Energon. Would you move all the stuff from the Almanac about her over to a new Blackarachnia (Energon) page?--Jimsorenson 21:39, 2 April 2010 (EDT)

Okay, now see, this what I meant when I said I don't think I understand your arguments. What you just said is objectively not true. You did not create a new character named Blackarachnia whilst unaware that there already existed a character with that name in a prominent yet non-official story. --KilMichaelMcC 21:47, 2 April 2010 (EDT)

No, it's not a perfect mirror to this situation. But what I am doing is probing how important authorial intent is. My view is it matters for almost nothing, and I'm attempting to illustrate that. It shouldn't matter what Greg says about Killzone; that shouldn't be impacting this discussion AT ALL. If it does, then tell me why my authorial intent doesn't matter at all but his does.--Jimsorenson 21:49, 2 April 2010 (EDT)

Because in this case, there's literally nothing at all in canon that indicates the two Killzones are both the same character other than their name (which means absolutely nothing, as the character could have had any name, and two characters having the same name means nothing inherently connection-wise anyway), so we have to fall back on authorial intent.

Meanwhile, the Allspark Almanac is specifically labelled as being a guide to Animated, so all canon information within it points to that Blackarachnia being the Animated version as there's nothing to indicate she isn't, and everything to indicate she is. There's no need to fall back on authorial intent because the canon is clear and specific. --Jeysie 21:57, 2 April 2010 (EDT)

I guess I am just going to repeat myself after all: I don't believe that a non-official character can in any sense have a "canonization" by coincidence. In this particular instance, authorial intent matters to the extent that it provides us with relevant information, as it tells use whether or not it was a coincidence. --KilMichaelMcC 21:57, 2 April 2010 (EDT)

Yeah, this too. Canonization has to be on-purpose, IMHO. (I'm understanding why McFeely wants to kill us every so often.) --Jeysie 21:59, 2 April 2010 (EDT)

We'll have to agree to disagree, and since I'm in the minority, your edit should stand. But think about how we're going to (if we're going to?) disambiguate them after Alignment becomes canon ;) --Jimsorenson 22:00, 2 April 2010 (EDT)

I guess I just can't see how you can accidentally canonize something. If it's not on the page, it's not on the stage, so to speak. If you had anything at all in canon to support your theory other than a completely meaningless name coincidence (I know plenty of fans who accidentally name their OCs after canon characters even though the fan didn't know the canon character existed and they're clearly not meant to be the same character, so I'm not the least bit fazed by it happening to one of the pro authors), you might actually have a point worth considering.

And, it'd be Killzone (Classics) and Killzone (G2). --Jeysie 22:18, 2 April 2010 (EDT)

Would it? If I'm the one who canonizes Alignment in an Animated book? Certainly you'd know what MY Authorial Intent was ;) --Jimsorenson 22:24, 2 April 2010 (EDT)

*shrugs* I was going off Alignment being G2. So if you put Killzone in an Animated book, it'd be Killzone (Animated), just like your alter-ego is (Animated). ;)

BTW, if I am correct in remembering that the end of Gone Too Far takes place in the Classicsverse (I may not be, admittedly), does the fact that Classics and G2 are not compatible help this argument at all? --Jeysie 22:27, 2 April 2010 (EDT)

I don't think it impacts anything about this argument in any way.--Jimsorenson 22:30, 2 April 2010 (EDT)

Would the authorial intent be that you're being a dick and derailing official fiction just to settle an Internet Argument? --Detour 22:33, 2 April 2010 (EDT)

Yes, that would be the Intent. Actually, my real point was that intent doesn't matter for squat, and I'm illustrating that. Though, again, if/when I do canonize Alignment, it's because I think that it SHOULD be canon, not to win an argument. Enough people thought the same thing that there's an earlier discussion point about saying something like "writers, feel free to canonize." --Jimsorenson 00:43, 3 April 2010 (EDT)

Yes and no. Authorial intent doesn't matter when there's actual canon evidence to go on.

But in the absence of canon evidence, authorial intent sometimes has its place on the wiki... but fan theories don't have any place at all. --Jeysie 01:01, 3 April 2010 (EDT)

Yeah, that's fantastic. And since my argument is based on my interpretation of the canon, it's also completely irrelevant. And once again, I've conceded the point, so, you know ... continue to flog the dead horse.--Jimsorenson 01:09, 3 April 2010 (EDT)

Just pointing out that actually intent does sometimes mean something for wiki purposes, so we can not have this type of dumbass argument ever again. --Jeysie 01:12, 3 April 2010 (EDT)

We'll see.--Jimsorenson 01:18, 3 April 2010 (EDT)

Even if Alignment was canon or canonized the two Killzones wouldn't be the same character. Sideswipe and "Sideswipe (ROTF)" weren't judged to be the same character since the creators of the second Sideswipe didn't have the first Sideswipe in mind. I argued they should still be the same character since they have a common inspiration (the movie-verse version of Sideswipe (G1)) but that argument didn't fly. The two Killzones don't even have a common inspiration. I don't even think the note on Killzone's page is appropriate. - Starfield 22:46, 2 April 2010 (EDT)

Even if Alignment was canon, the Killzones would not be linked by anything more than a disamg page. In Spotlight: Blurr, Shane McCarthy created a character named Fasttrack, apparently with no knowledge of Scorponok's drone-guy, and the two were otherwise different in appearance and role, other than both being Decepticons. Thus, we now have Fasttrack (IDW) and Fasttrack (G1). --Xaaron 23:14, 2 April 2010 (EDT)

Actually, Fasttrack from IDW wasn't a Decepticon. AND they were visually completely different. There, I feel, there is plenty of evidence (actual, in-story evidence) that they're not the same guy. Here the case is much more ambiguous. Though, of course, I did concede the point for the moment, so I don't see that much reason to proceed.--Jimsorenson 00:43, 3 April 2010 (EDT)

Actually, IDW Fasttrack became a Decepticon. When his corpse is seen by the end... he's sporting the Decepticon insignia on his chest. --Detour 01:17, 3 April 2010 (EDT)

Huh! Neat. Never noticed that before. Noticed Fasttrack the victim, but not his (admittedly faint) Decepticon symbol.--Jimsorenson 01:24, 3 April 2010 (EDT)

People, I believe I mentioned this before but nobody answered: What is our policy regarding cases in which two characters are as similar as they could be with no contradictions (Fasttrack (S) is a drone contradicts with Fasttrack (B) being an autonomous personality) but we are certain they are not intended the same character? I already mentioned the Japanese and AMerican Micromasters in this. We know they are created independently, but currently, we list and Japanese and American Micromaster that has the same name and same faction in both continuities as the same character. And heck if I know what the deal is with Tornado and Fusion, but at least in Tornado's case I think the safest bet is that his two appearances are coincidence as well. So, what is our general policy anyway? Geewunling 23:24, 2 April 2010 (EDT)

Clearly I think that, if they are close enough to be the same character, then the default assumption should be that they are the same character. I'm not sure if other people agree with or disagree with that viewpoint, though, because of Authorial Intent.--Jimsorenson 01:13, 3 April 2010 (EDT)

That's what I'd agree too. I mean, to get back to the case, we got two 1.) Killzones who both 2.) are from the G1 continuity family, 3.) are male, 4.) are Decepticons, and 5.) for what it's worth in terms of coinciding authorial intent, are both created as hi-and-die characters. Killzone in GTF may not have been a leader figure as the one of A, but hey, same goes for Shrapnel in other media. The only thing against them being the same character is "ignorance". Now, I'll admit "Alignment" hands down is the most entertaining TF story I have read in a long time, which is saying something given my deep dislike of Furman Grimlock, G2 comics Liege Maximo and the whole not-religious aspect in general that Furman loves/d to put into the canon, and that I am biased to seeing as much of it made canon as possible even if through contrived means. Still, objectively I think saying GTF Killzone is not A Killzone is challenging a(n unwritten?) guideline on the wiki to assume sameness when canon (free from authorial intent) provides daunting similarity. Given the thought process currently being followed by most editors, I think that ought to mean the entire guideline has to be re-evaluated rather than continuing this one case-bickering. Geewunling 02:49, 3 April 2010 (EDT)

What "daunting canon similarity"? They're two characters with the same name and faction. That's it. That's not "daunting similarity", that's meaningless coincidence. Gone Too Far Killzone could have had a different name and been the exact same character for that story's purposes, and we wouldn't be here having this argument because there's zero else to connect the two with. They're not even from compatible universes!

I'm in full agreement with Sipher's edit summary comment. There's no worthwhile discussion to be had on this example. Come back with examples that have canon similarities that actually mean something, and then we might have something worth evaluating. --Jeysie 03:06, 3 April 2010 (EDT)

Sorry, but the argument they are from incompatible universes is bull, because that argument would imply every character appearing in Classics (sans the dimension travelling ones) is a different character from their other G1 appearances. That's not how a continuity family works.

"[D]aunting similarity" I have already illustrated in five steps up above. Yes, if he would have had another name, or would have any other trait that is at odds with the other character, we wouldn't be having this conversation, because then the difference would be there for anyone to point out. Thing is, there are no differences as is, and thát is why we are having this conversation.

You'll have to expand on that last part, because I believe I have mentioned the Micromasters two times now as a case of full-blown canon similarities=same character even if there's no authorial intent to it. Look around their pages if you will, and you'll see any Micromaster from Japan that is not in direct conflict (name, faction, colour) with their American counterpart is considered the same character by the wiki. Geewunling 03:22, 3 April 2010 (EDT)

None of your five points mean squat, considering the name is a complete coincidence, and there's likely dozens of male characters from the G1 continuity that are hi-and-die characters, many of which are Decepticons.

In order to have a similarity that means something, they'd have to look alike, have similar personalities, come from similar backgrounds, or some specific details like that which are the same, rather than utterly generic descriptors that are true of dozens of characters.

I'm not familiar enough with Japanese fiction to weigh in on that, I'll admit, but I do know the example here does not constitute any sort of precedent or anomaly with our guidelines. (Namely: Canon>Author Intent>Occam's Razor.) --Jeysie 03:32, 3 April 2010 (EDT)

You can't really say you know something "is" after saying you don't know half the reasoning. If Killzone is not an anomaly to the guidelines, then the Micromasters and possibly some other characters are, and that should be looked at.

It's going to stay my personal canon with hopes of losing the "personal" part one day, but looking at the arguments again from the name=coincidence angle rather than the no contradiction/fully compatible angle, I'll cede the case of Killzone being Killzone is... perhaps not the kind of thing the wiki should be claiming as fact (not that it ever did so in the first place). Yet I do repeat: This changes nothing about the guideline matter I brought up and wish to have clarified. Geewunling 04:13, 3 April 2010 (EDT)

Aye or Nay Canon?

After Allspark Almanac and Ask Vector Prime have both gone "yeah canon honest wink wink", half its concepts since been canonised, and it was done by Marvel creators to sequel their work, do we want to bite the bullet and take the Apocrypha label off or should we stick w/ it since Transforce wasn't an official con? I'd personally go for 'spirit of the law' canonising unless it might cause us problems with other material. --Charles RB 15:48, 18 August 2015 (GMT)

Not Hasbro approved, not official content. I wouldn't be opposed per se, but it'd be such a huge divergence from wiki policy that I can't justify it. As far as I can tell, the Apocrypha template mostly exists in the first place so that Alignment can be on the wiki at all. --Riptide (talk) 10:52, 18 August 2015 (EDT)

I completely reject the idea that Alignment can somehow we canonized this way. No matter what Vector Prime has to say, the actual text of the story itself was still never submitted to Hasbro for approval, right? That means it is still an unapproved, unofficial work. --KilMichaelMcC (talk) 10:54, 18 August 2015 (EDT)

I have been thinking on this a lot. I see absolutely no harm in this template staying. It acknowledges a reality. But that doesn't mean we are stuck with this half-assed write-up. Treat it like any other story, but acknowledge the publication history. I'll try a stab at writing it up. We could also probably use an Apocrypha template for character and idea write-ups. --Giggidy (talk) 11:04, 18 August 2015 (EDT)

That's an idea, yes, and I wouldn't mind it; it'd be in line with the way we treat Bumblebee at Tyger Pax. Not sure about putting Alignment sections/content on other wiki pages, though - if we do do that, maybe we should only do it for things that've already been canonised in official material (e.g. Mogahn and Killzone), without making pages for characters and concepts that only appeared in Alignment (e.g. Mantissa and Sabrejaw)? --Riptide (talk) 11:11, 18 August 2015 (EDT)

Good plan, that Giggidy man! On the character profiles, might as well go the whole hog and give Mantissa et al their first page. --Charles RB (talk) 16:15, 18 August 2015 (GMT)

No, I don't think anything that's exclusive to Alignment should be getting an article, nor should there be dedicated sections to it on articles. It's "Notes"-section stuff. - Chris McFeely (talk) 11:18, 18 August 2015 (EDT)

Yeah, on second thought, even things like Mogahn the Mass don't need more than a linkback to this page in the notes if we have an actual summary on here. --Riptide (talk) 11:21, 18 August 2015 (EDT)

Dreamwave's Energon #31-36 info appears on individual character pages and articles. What would be the difference? --Xaaron (talk) 11:59, 18 August 2015 (EDT)

Dreamwave Energon has just had the apocrypha template taken off its unreleased issue pages, because even though they weren't released, they were approved by Hasbro. Alignment, as it's been said repeatedly, was not. --Riptide (talk) 12:03, 18 August 2015 (EDT)

Were they? Maybe #31 was ready to release, but what we got for #36 hadn't even gone to an artist yet, much less an editor.--Xaaron (talk) 12:45, 18 August 2015 (EDT)

I'm pretty sure that comic scripts get approved by Hasbro before they start getting drawn. --Riptide (talk) 12:55, 18 August 2015 (EDT)

Yeah, but the last couple of these likely weren't very close to getting drawn. It is, indeed, very plausible that some of these stories didn't get the Hasbro stamp before everything went tits up. That's probably a valid point regarding the information's inclusion on the articles - I used to put them in notes sections myself, but when that resulted in overbearingly large note-boxes, I think I stopped. - Chris McFeely (talk) 12:57, 18 August 2015 (EDT)

Hrm. The difference, I suppose, is that we know Alignment wasn't approved by Hasbro and wasn't entered to be, while we can be reasonably sure that at least some of the Dreamwave issues were approved, and the others would have been entered for Hasbro approval. But since we don't know where the cut-off was, should the Apocrypha template go back on those pages? --Riptide (talk) 13:06, 18 August 2015 (EDT)

Vanguard Command ships

Does the designation "Vanguard Command ships" from Alignment have any relation to the Vanguard-class Deep Space Interceptor which has been the starship class designation for iterations of the Ark since The Ultimate Guide? S.H.I.E.L.D. Agent 47 (talk) 04:16, 25 October 2015 (EDT)