Talk: Ironhide (G1)

Back in Black

Not sure how best to add this to the Toy section of the site (under G1 Ironhide? in its own sub-section?), so I'm putting all the basic info here for now:

e-Hobby is coming out with (gasp) another black recolor exclusive, but at least this one has some historical legitimacy/excuse.

New Year Special e-Hobby Exclusive: TF Encore Black Protective Ironhide will be priced at 4725 yen. Pre-orders being taken until Jan. 11, with a projected shipping date of next April.

The black coloration's meant to homage Ironhide's original Diaclone version, but taken in conjunction with the Emergency Green Ratchet (and a hint in his tech specs), it's a double homage to the new movie Ironhide. (Well, a triple homage if you want to count the A-Team van.) The packaging will be the same as the regular TF Encore Ironhide's.

According to his tech specs, he got the black protective coating to disguise himself from both Destrons and members of the human criminal underworld when he's acting as Convoy's bodyguard. Not a few of his fellow Cybertrons have whispered to him that he looks like a "men in black" vehicle, but Ironhide insists he got the idea from the deep black coloration of pickup trucks he saw around town. The coating, a composite gel metal, has made his trithyllium steel skin even more durable, allowing him to self-repair minor injuries right away. His robot/mobile artillery form (that's how they refer to the MARB) is now 25% more maneuverable than before, and he can handle even the worst of roads using his three-legged Marauder Mode. (I'm guessing that's the name for the robot portion perched on top of the MARB.)

Images and such are here.--Apcog 08:17, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

So far all G1 reissues and special G1 toy repaints released under the G1 brand have been place under the same Generation 1 toy sub section as the original release.

I think it's highly likely that in TakaraTomy marketing terms, the black repaint while a Diaclone colour scheme (which is convenient), actually has less to do with Diaclone than it does with them repainting an Ironhide in colours marginally similar to Movie Ironhide, hence that green Ratchet. By having a black Ironhide who's also a Diaclone colour scheme, they get the widest possible niche customer base for the product. --FFN 08:45, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh, no doubt the double homage was a purposeful marketing move. The e-Hobby page simply makes direct mention of the Diaclone version but leaves the movie aspect to be hinted at purely in the tech spec text. Anyway, I'm about to turn in for the night, so I'll see about integrating this tomorrow, unless someone else gets to it first.--Apcog 09:42, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

I think your Black Ironhide entry will need to be rewritten eventually, since that info from his bio tech spec shouldn't be in the toy section. --FFN 21:11, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't really mind it being there. I've forgotten what the latest version of policy regarding putting fiction details from a specific toy release in with the toy's information is, but this at least seems more clean and less awkward than having an eHobby subheader under the Fiction section saying that sometimes he puts on a black finish. --ItsWalky 21:18, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

This possible flub was all part and parcel of my uncertainty regarding adding this info to the article in the first place, and why I put all the info I had on the Talk page first. If it turns out I've misplaced the tech spec info by wikia standards, by all means, please put it where it's supposed to be. I don't get to come here enough to abate all my ignorance in a timely fashion, so it'll be faster. OTOH, based on Walky's comments, I suspect it won't have to be moved until/unless this version of the character gains a more substantial presence in official TF fiction.--Apcog 21:58, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Head Count

According to the latest entry at Autobase Aichi, the January '08 issue of Hyper Hobby contains photos of the TF Encore Ironhide with a head made out of paper attached. Be on the lookout for that one...--Apcog 08:28, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

And sure enough, now Takara's site has a photo. Ratchet's getting the same treatment. Both are set to go on sale Dec. 20.--Apcog 16:13, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Depends what you mean by "G1"

Walky cut the line "Interestingly, this is the only G1 Ironhide toy to date that doesn't share a mold with Ratchet," with the explanation "Power Master Ironhide doesn't share one with Ratchet either." Power Master Ironhide was a G2 toy (representing a G1 character). So, either, A) the line should be reinstated, since it refers to only G1 toys, or B) the original line was twice wrong, since Magamaboss Ironhide also represents the G1 character, and its mold has never been used for Ratchet. Thoughts? JW 13:55, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I certainly specified G1 by meaning more or less "red vannish things that always get painted white and have lights slapped on their roofs." Perhaps it's a weaker grouping than I thought.--Rosicrucian^Talk 14:04, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Retcon

Detour- PacafistPrime is correct, the establishment of character information after-the-fact-- even if it does not conflict-- is in fact a retcon. We are given to assuem that these changes are nto NEW- but apply retroactively to all previous appearances of the character (if any,) thus changes their context somewhat. That is a retcon.

PacafistPrime - Bob and Larry flirted with making these guys the G1ers in 1997, the year the toys were released. That piece of information has hovered in 'unofficial' status for years, but been widely known. And it doesn't conflict with anything. While it only because official in 2007... the characterization itself dates from the toy's release.
Did Furman "retcon" Skyraiders into being called Seekers when The War Within #1 came out? It was now official- but the term, its ustage... all dated from 1984 (or whatever.) It meets the technical requirements of being a retcon, but I treally think it's confusing to call it one. Just say what actually happened, that's clear. Throwing around the term 'Retcon' (though technically true) could mislead the reader into thinking it was a New Thing. -Derik 13:32, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Do you have a link to a source on Bob and Larry having this idea? I don't recall hearing that before. I know lots of fans had the idea at the time. At any rate, this clearly is a retcon, though I don't particularly care either way whether the term is used in the article. --KilMichaelMcC 14:34, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

I thought I'd read something on BWTF.com to that effect ages ago. "We wanted them to be the G1ers, but we also found out very early on that doing a combiner would bust the show's budget, so the ideas wasn't developed very deeply." (or something) Can anyone else confirm my memory for Kil? -Derik 14:53, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Can we actually discuss this and reach a consesnsus on presentation rather than engaging in an exceptionally petty revert war on 3 separate articles?

Well, not me. My 6 year old neiece is here, and I get to swim with her. But I mean... you guys. -Derik 17:45, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Derik on all counts. While technically the term "retcon" can refer to a non-contradictory historical revision (which the Magnaboss-as-G1ers idea is), the common usage implies contradiction. To avoid confusion, it's best not to use the word if there is no conflict between the old continuity and the new. - Jackpot 19:45, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

I think you can sometimes call non-contradiction a retcon. "Wolverine was born in a gothic romance novel set in America." That doesn't actually contradict with much- but it sure as hell redefined the traditional thinking on his origins.

I think that the term shouldn't used here just because its use implies the most common meaning (change of past,) in a way that is potentially misleading-- and it doesn't require excessive an excessive number of words just say what happened instead in a way that's not likely to be so misconstrued.

If I say Heath Ledger died of a drug overdose- it's true on every technical level- but also very misleading given the connotations. If I say he died of a drug interaction problem- you get a more accurate picture of events- "Oh, he wasn't a coke head, he was overmedicated and things just went wrong. That's a completely different thing." (Because it is.) -Derik 20:32, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Also... how can you retcon a character who never had fictional appearances or a bio of any sort? I mean yeah, Magnaboss himself had a brief tech spec bio but it barely touched on his individual components, and they never appeared in any fiction before... So how can you call it a retcon? Should we consider the Omnibots' MTMTE profiles as retcons because it's the first attempt at characterization as well? --Detour 21:53, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

I can't remember if they fit with the Japanese profiles or not, too lazy to pull out Neale's PDF's to check.

And Magnabos appeared in Universe #3 in a prominent speaking role. He was kinda a dick too for someone who's supposed to be all-knowing/all-compassionate/all-old. -Derik 21:58, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Ah, but do we know if that's Magnaboss or Magnaboss II?--Rosicrucian^Talk 22:28, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

They have different colored faces. (Their only paint-app difference!) So yes we can tell. -Derik 22:31, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Magnaboss II has paint detailing on his chest and thighs. —Interrobang 00:28, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, like the average transfan managed to read Universe comics... Regardless... Isn't his being a dick kind of canonical with who he's composed of? --Detour 22:35, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Hey guys, sorry for the lack of contribution to this discussion, I didn't know which talk page it was occurring on. Thanks for the heads up, Derik.

Look, I can see where some of you guys are coming from, or at least those of you who concede that the correct definition of retcon includes non-contradictory examples, but still argue against my edits on the basis that you feel they are confusing. I get that. But I disagree. Even though he goes on to assert the contrary position to my own, I think Derik really hits the nail on the head with the Wolverine: Origin example. There's really nothing contradictory about it, but was so not something anyone assumed, and puts a drastically different spin on your assumptions about his background.

I think this is similar. While Detour makes a fair point that it's difficult to retcon something that had virtually no prior fictional representation, I still argue that it was nevertheless a characterisation/identification that was never previously stated, ergo is a retcon. If we want to argue about the usage being misleading, I'd ask you to please just consider these two points:

• Although interesting & informative, Bob & Larry's author intent has no canonical bearing. Since the earliest fictional representation (i.e. toy bio) failed to give any indication that these characters were actually their surviving G1 namesakes, there never was any canon reason to assume that they ever were. To have thought otherwise would have been an act of personal canon, however attractive.

• When it was decided in develompment that the BW show would abandon the original G1-continuation micro-continuity depicted in the Bat Optimus vs. Alligator Megatron minicomic (and other early bios) and set the story's native timeline in Cybertron's post-Great War future, there became no real reason to assume that any of the characters released in the original toyline were surviving G1 'bots, unless specifically indicated, like Grimlock. Indeed, given that the bio for Grimlock did indicate that he was the same G1 character, it seems all the more noteworthy that Magnaboss' bio (released in the same year) did not.

Also, please don't get me wrong: I have no axe to grind with the retcon itself one way or the other. In fact, I mildly like it. I just think it is definitely an example of a retcon, and should be stated to be such. It's acutually kind of ironic, since usually folks here seem to object to my edits on the basis that they're not technically accurate enough...

Cheers, PacifistPrimePP 01:38, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

I preface my response by noting that, though I lack strong feelings on this issue, I nonetheless feel and incredible urge to punch PacifistPrime in the face right now. I find the circular nature of this discussion incredibly frustrating, and would probably recuse myself from this discussion for that reason... except PP asked me to weigh in.

1) Magnaboss is not the same as Wolverine: Origin. Magnaboss was a total blank. Wolverine: Origin slotted "Jane Eyre" into an undefined space where 30 years of implications and expectations had given us a reasonable basis to expect "Tinker, Tenor, Soldier, Spy" or "Last of the Mohicans."

Learning that an unlabeled bag contains corn is not the same thing as learning that a bag labeled 'wheat' contains corn.

2) "Retcon" has two definitions.

a) The first was a noun. "Retroactive continuity." To establish something new that is understood to have always been true-- a new piece of history or baskctory, like a first love. It may change the context or meaning of previously established events- but the events themselves remain unaltered.

b) The second was a verb, a corruption or derivative of the previous definition (which was really just a fancy way of saying 'new backstory'.) "Retcon." To alter past events in order to bring them in line with new facts-- retroactively making them continuous.

Meaning #2 has swallowed meaning #1. Its negative pejorative connotation casts such a huge shadow over the first's declination that is is now almost impossible to use the term without implying a history change. Noun/verb sentence construction doesn't help, because "a retcon" can now also refer to "an instance of retconning."

I do not debate the lexical correctness of describing the after-the-fact establishment of new backstory as "a retcon," (noun, original meaning.) But any reasonable person familiar with the term, on seeing it used in the sentence "Their being Generation 1 characters was a retcon established by IDW." would immediately assume that something changed. The preceding sentence, "The toy packaging gives no indication as to who the Magnaboss components are as characters." does not, in itself dispell this. The toy packaging? How odd! Is there some specific importance to this qualification? Did some other source give such an indication-- which the dastards at IDW retcon'd out-- and you're citing the toy packaging's ambivalence in support of this retroactive-changing-of-history?

Though correct on a purely technical level, your stringent insistence that the term "retcon" be used to describe this situation invites misunderstanding. This insistence is especially frustrating because just saying "Established long after the fact" (which several edits you have rejected attempted to do in one form or another,) would both remove this potential for confusion, and actually provide a more informative picture of events.

Simon Furman is a cheerful fellow. But if I decided to expresses this fact on his page by announcing "Simon Fumran is gay.", though any dictionary will say that my word choice is correct, it also clearly lends itself to misinterpretation! The latter meaning, which is now more common, has overtaken the original one, so using either the words "gay" or "retcon" in the blind hope that the reader will correctly intuit the meaning you were going for... is inappropriate.

Two last things:

• PacafistPrime wasn't the only one backing his (lexically defensible) side of the argument, I'm just too lazy to look up who else there was. The point is- I'm not picking on him in any specific sense- just disagreeeing with the general viewpoint.
• You suck. No, really. Nice little frickin' edit war between established users over the use of the term retcon. Very mature. Good example of conduct for all the newbies. (Fortunately they tend not to monitor RecentChanges.) I can understand the edit war iself... but would it kill you to war in a more productive manner? How about revising our Retcon article with sections for the different type of retcon? Then you could link [[retcon]] to that section specifically, making it clear the specific meaning you meant? It'd still be a terrible word to use in these circumstances- but such a move might at least give your opponent pause! While they were simply reverting your contributions, you would have been improving the wiki overall-- and (through the anchor-link) addressing their concerns about the term being misleading. (Not addressed them very well, but at least showing some willingness to work towards a consensus.)

If we have to spaz out and fight- can we try fighting smarter in the future? Maybe in ways that would improve the wiki overall, regardless of the outcome of the argument?

I'm out for the night. Be excellent to one another. -Derik 09:33, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Whew. okay. Once again I seem to have pissed the hell out of someone without actually trying to do so one iota. However, since this IS the norotiously abusive Derik we're talking about here..... yeah. Anyway, I don't particularly like being told by anyone that they want to punch me in the face. Keep a civil tone, please. PacifistPrimePP 11:32, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

I assure you the face-punching is purely metaphorical. And really- it's not that I wanted to punch you in the face, it's that I wanted to punch your argument in the face, and it happened to be coming out of our mouth. (Obnoxiously, in a week's time I might remember this disagreement but not whom I had it with... I'm really nit the type to attach any sort of personal animosity to these kinds of arguments... especially here, where it's two valid concerns or viewpoint battling it out to see which has primacy; I tend to view it more as the two arguments slugging it out than the people advocating the arguments slugging it out. Ideally it should be "about" deciding what's right for the article, not tied up in the person making the argument.) -Derik 19:58, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Nevertheless, I will cop to a certain kernel of truth in Derik's comment about the maturity of my edit war (I'd call it a skirmish, myself) and apologise for it. Not to Detour per se, whose behaviour was no better and if anything much more impolite, but rather to the general community. I try to avoid getting into these things, I really do...

I don't concur with Derik's characterisation of this discussion as "circular" unless that is his label for any discussion that does not conclude rapidly and to his satisfaction. It seems like a perfectly healthy debate to me. PacifistPrimePP 11:32, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Revert war was, by definition, for all concerned. What really irked at was... when asked to move this to discussion you apologized and posted your perspective and waited for the alternate view... but despite there being several people involved, 8 hours later no one had responded. If no one is willing to to engage in dialog then the argument becomes circular- neither side learns and no consensus is reached. (Basically, I was cheesed no one had responded to you.) -Derik 19:58, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

To respond to a few of his points:

• I never said that I saw Magnaboss' retrodesignation as G1 characters to be "the same" as his example of Wolverine: Origin, I said that it was similar. There is a difference, and it's not a semantic one.
• Derik and Detour seem to be very, very hung up on the term retcon for reasons I don't feel are particularly valid. Firstly, while they (or at least Derik) acknowledge that the correct definition of the term does include retroactive additions of new information without creating contradictions, there is this extraordinary insistence that noooo-one uses the term in this fashion anymore, or practically even knows it exists. Um... says who? I can't say I've ever particluarly come across any pop-culture/comics-literate fans who didn't understand that the term has multiple nuances. And if some people are unaware of the correct terminology, that's hardly a justifiable reason to perpetuate their ignorance, as it's hardly an obscure term in fandom. As I've repeatedly quoted, it's right there bang at the head of the definition in Wikipedia's article, as indeed it is in our own article on the topic. Derik's suggestion that I could usefully revise the article in question to this purpose or link my edits to the specific section seems pretty redundant to me - again, it's all there already, right near the top of the article, first one of the examples listed, using Tarantulas to illustrate the point. Couldn't be any clearer, IMHO. PacifistPrimePP 11:32, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

• I wasn't suggesting it as a compromise per-se, or even a way to win... but it would have been a strategy that (IMO) would have been better than the back-and-forth revert war-- at least insofar that instead of both parties putting forth a hard-line perspective as "absolutely correct," would have been moving (however slowly,) towards the center. The disagreement would probably end up going to the Retcon discussion page-- but then you're at least talking instead of uselessly reverting one another's edits. I put it forward as a possible strategy to escape the infinite loop by shifting the discussion from "I believe this is the correct way," to "what is the best way?"
• Polling for consensus with an up-or-down "Who favors which approach?" would be another way- but probably not a good way because there is value to be gained in having this conversation.
• (I feel like a total hypocrite advocating de-escalation and open discussion given the number of knock-down-drag-out fights I've gotten into. I should be starting arguments, not moderating them! Where did I go so wrong?) -Derik 19:58, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

• Also, I'm quite incredulous over the claim that retcons have an automatically pejorative connotation. Again... says who? PacifistPrimePP 11:32, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

• Says me, and I think I can prove it objectively. It's really the same philosophy that guides our caption_bastard policy; change for it's own sake carries an inherent bad karma penalty. So any change you make (a caption, Jason Todd is alive) is an automatic negative-- the hope is that the result of the change is so much better that the POSITIVE BENEFIT derived from the change outweighs the negative cost inherent in such a change.
• Retcon is pejorative because bad writers have abused them and don't think they have to pay down the price involved. They act like retcons are free. If you re-set Catwoman so that she's a prostitute who doesn't know Batman's identity- invalidating HUNDREDS of stories not just of her title- but in dozens of others where she's appeared over the last 15 years-- you have done violence to those stories, and to the history of every character involved. If you RIP OFF a chunk of history- every interaction Robin III has had with the character for example. It is now slightly harder to tell continuity-based stories- to follow up plot threads from years ago- with the character. You can no longer delve deeply into Tim Drake's relationship with his stepmother in relation to his secret identity... because the only story where it ever came up before was an Annual story that featured the old version of Selina- so you have to avoid that part of the story- or 'retell' it as if it involved the new version-- which then just establishes that your entire history is based on shifting sand. (The annual might actually have featured Eclipso, all I remember was big cats, but my general poin stands.)
• John Byrne's Spider-Man:Chapter One would be an utterly forgettable but harmless retelling... except that he tried to force it into continuity, rewriting vast chunks of Spider-man's earliest history and replacing them with a version that was... really no better or worse than the original stories. He got stuck with a bill for the inherent bad karmma of his actions that the actual stories he delivered (which were merely okay) could not pay off. (And following this metaphot- Chapter One went into bankrupsy was removed from continuity, restoring the original version. "Your retcon was so lousy we refused to accept it.") But that's not a zero-sum equation after it was removed either-- it doesn't just 'even out,' because now you've got 2 stories from Byrne's ASM run that explicitly stem from the changes he made in Chapter One- and now simply exist as glaring black-holes in continuity that can never be referred to again without opening a huge can of worms. They're radioactive- but that means they also "contaminate" any other sub-plots involved in those issues, you're never going to be able to 'flash back' to the time period of those issues without either avoiding the captain power/doc ock/Spider-man thing, or re-retconning it to place it in a third, new context.
• I don't think anyone wants to do such a flashback... but now they can't- at at least not without going to great lengths to work around the problem. Because John Byrne was mucking around with history for no real gain- huge barrier has been thrown up, making these stories much harder for future writers to work with. Continuity bankrupsy-- no future story gets to "play" with this part of Spider-man's history without first payign to get it out of receivership.
• Retcon is a swear word because of bad writers who refuse to recognize the economics involved. Good writers can use Retcons to amazing effect- they're a powerful tool that can be use to wonderful, horrible, or (most often) mediocre ends.
• Ghost Rider is apparently an angel now, absolutely shitting across forty years of stories where Zarathos was a high-order evil demon with a cult of human sacrifice in Babylonian times. Whatever Marvel does with that retcon is going to have to be absolutely amazing to justify the unbelievable karmic debt that it incurs. Vast chunks of Johnny Blaze, Dan Ketch's and the entire Midnight Sons line's entire history are simply no longer possible now-- but the ongoing title draws heavily on the two characters shared history-- never acknowledging that it is now in tatters. Daniel Way ain't gonna be the one to pay off that debt, he wrote one story arc that completely redefined the character's history and badic premise, then dumped the resulting mess on the next writer! (Rather like Pat Lee escaping his bad debts, now that I think about it...) This is because Daniel Way is an incredible hack that does not acknowledge he incurs any obligation when making those kinds of sweeping changes to a character's history. -Derik 19:58, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

• Sure, an individual fan may not like a particular retcon, be it a mere addition (for example, I loath the idea that Reed Richards went back to the Big Bang and created the universe... and it would seem most writers since JMS agree with me) or an overt alteration (Superman didn't have Krypto around growing up. Then he did. Then he didn't. Then...), but by the same token there are many that I absolutely freakin' love. Personally, I've never known the term to carry an implicit value judgment, so unless we're pandering to some kind of notional All Change Is Bad whingers, I really can't agree with his negatively-charged perception of this neutral, descriptive term. PacifistPrimePP 11:32, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

• Well-executed retcons that do no or minimal violence to existing stories exist. The pejorative connotation comes from the other kind. -Derik 19:58, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

• I'm just going to ignore the Furman gay/cheerful analogy, as I believe he is just being willfully pedantic with that one. PacifistPrimePP 11:32, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

• Not really, just trying to highlight the point- "The word you are using can mean different things." You might not agree that the prejorative connotation (discarding, displacing or mangling existing history) is the first to come to mind, but you must agree that the term has some potential to be ambiguous simply by virtue of possessing multiple meanings with internal distinctions. -Derik 19:58, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

As per my last two points, I disagree that the non-contradiction meaning of "retcon" is either obscure or pejorative, and thus does not equate to a term like "gay" (or, in his earlier example "drug overdose") that has had truly superseded it's original meaning. It is simply not my experience, and I've been at this a fair while.

Since it seems that the majority of you basically concede that, yes, this does fall under the valid (not to mention our own) definition of a retcon, and that the only primary objection is that the use of the term “retcon” is potentially confusing, then how about this?:

-"The original Magnaboss toy bio included no information about its 3 components beyond their names. The character was finally established to be Generation 1 Prowl in a retcon by IDW, a decade after its release in 2007."

Shouldn't this satisfy everyone? It makes very clear the state of the original bio as ambiguous, thus implying no direct contradiction, uses the term "retcon" correctly, and explains who implemented it and when it happened. IF some people are unaware of the correct definition of "retcon", then they can follow the embedded link and read our own definition for themselves. Surely this is a reasonable compromise?

PacifistPrimePP 11:32, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

That is much clearer than the previous phrasing. Though the word retcon can mean two (sadly related) things, the context of the presentation now favors one meaning over the other. But I still think "in a retcon" is an unnecessary clause in the sentence. "finally established" means it's a retcon. The fact you go out of your way to shove the word into the sentence in it's own clause just seems odd. Is there some reason it was important to state this new backstory was a retcon? Either the inclusion is completely redundant to the phrase "finally established," or it is being included here because it's other meaning comes into play somehow. The word is suspiciously conspicuous in the sentence, which can (to some small degree) create false doubts. (Though I'd say your propose rephrase removes 90% of the ambiguity I'm concerned about- this is the last 10%.) I feel like "...was finally established to be..." would actually be better... (in that it signals the reader that the term refers to its face-value meaning appropriate to this sentence) but at this point I'm quibbling over only very minor differences of interpretation.

And seriously, part of the reason for the face-punching frustration is I'm still not fully convinced that establishing any characterization for a complete blank like Prowl should be termed a retcon. You make a good case why it should- but it's still not a strong contender for the word, which is part of why including it in the summary- especially so emphatically, seemed so jarring.

Does anyone else have thoughts on this matter? Agree? Disagree? Think we are both douchebags? -Derik 19:58, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

I totally agree, Derik. I'm against the use of retcon for the possibility of misinterpretation just like you said, and I just don't understand why PacifistPrime is so hung up on using the term retcon when the sentence is just fine as is. --Detour 20:38, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Agree on all counts, from "retcon"'s negative connotations to potential for misinterpretation to pointlessness of shoehorning the word in. --M Sipher 20:57, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Sigh. Anyone else have an opinion, or am I "outvoted" again? Look, obviously I'll abide by the consensus (although it irks me that whenever I'm outvoted the "consensus" is usually that of less than half a dozen users... and often three or less) here, but I'm really pretty annoyed by this stubborn rejection of what you all admit is a perfectly vaild description on the basis that "oooh, it might confuse people" or that it's somehow supposed to be irrelevant. Huh?! What? Since when is accurate information irrelevant? And a single, solitary word, at that. It is, by your own admission, an example of a retcon. Can't we just call a spade a spade? Even a blank slate character is not X unless they said he was X at a the time. I repeat my point about Grimlock.

I'm perpelexed and almost amused by the idea that I'm the one who's hung up about using this term...! I just want to correctly point out a few valid examples, whereas it is Derik who has this empassioned objection due to some perceived "pejorative" and "confusing" understanding of a neutral description, which is a view I totally disagree with, as a long-term user of the word in fan circles. And to say that I'm using the word "emphatically" is just ridiculous. I am strongly arguing that it should be used, but the usage in the sentence itself is hardly "emphatic". Again, it's a non-judgemental, accurate descriptor that would now be thoroughly contextualised in my last proposed version. If anyone is "hung up" about the usage of the term, it is mostly certainly Derik and Detour who are constantly chafing at what they acknowledge is an accurate definition. I mean, for goodness sake, talk about the pot calling the kettle turquoise...!

Once more, I'm near the point of simply giving up here, not because I'm persuaded by the opposing argument but because it's just becoming a deadlock and I simply don't have the time or energy to argue this till I'm blue in the face. I feel sometimes that consensus in these cases has less to do with any agreement than it does finding out who is the most stubborn and will keep hammering until the other can't be bothered anymore...

Look, is there any chance we could get some new voices on this? Derik's obviously dug his heels in, as have I, and Detour's intractable position is frankly the reason we're even here in the first place. Any admins have an opinion? Anyone?

User:PacifistPrimePP 00:41, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

P.S. Derik, I only just noticed that you've (retroactively, tee-hee) woven point-by-point responses within the text of my last post. Please don't do that. It's bad form, and disrupts the flow & clarity of the posting/response order. And, briefly, to your main point about "Retcon" having a prejorative connotation: look, totally well argued, all your examples are perfectly valid, but I still find your overall thesis essentially spurious. I mean, basically you've just made it fairly obvious that you personally hate retcons pretty much generally, which is no basis for a reasoned argument about a descriptive term. It's practically tantamount to saying "I think most comic book movies suck, therefore if you use the term 'comic book movie' everyone else will automatically think you're talking about a steaming pile of feces." The subjective shiteness of Elektra and Ghost Rider do not mean that, ergo, people are incapable of giving The Dark Knight a try. (Mind you, if you were to make the same argument using Reality Television, I might agree with you...)User:PacifistPrimePP 01:14, 18 August 2008 (UTC).

New voice of opinion: Pacifist is correct that technically retcon is a value-neutral word that includes new information added after the fact that doesn't change anything as well as new information that does change things. However, Derik is also right in that the word is typically used in a derogatory/negative sense. I don't really care either way... it's technically correct to use it, but it doesn't hurt anything to leave it out if the wording of the entry still indicates that the new information was added after the fact.

Yes, I know that's not terribly helpful... but I just don't think it's worth arguing about. If I had to give a definitive vote, might as well leave it out, so as not to risk any inherent negative connotations on the part of the reader. Jeysie 00:58, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for speaking up. Fair enough, although "avoiding negative connotations" still seems like a gratuitously cautious approach, especially when the proposed compromise contextually clarifies any such misunderstanding. User:PacifistPrimePP 01:14, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, it's kinda... the current "The character was finally established to be Generation 1 Ironhide a decade after its release by IDW in 2007." already covers everything important - the info wasn't there originally, IDW added afterwards. Does saying it's a retcon really add any additional important information to the subject? My opinion is, it doesn't... therefore, if it's a matter of contention and potential negative connotation, might as well not add it. *shrugs apologetically* Jeysie 01:27, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Did you not notice Sipher and myself also speaking up against using "retcon" here? How many people do you want to tell you "no" (while no one says "yes") before you'll be satisfied that the community is not supporting your position? - Jackpot 03:02, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

About 3 to 6 people. That's usually about what seems to pass for "consensus" whenever I raise something... Funny how rarely anyone around here agrees with me, even when, in a case like this, you've all pretty much conceded that I'm technically correct in my assertion. Is it because I'm just a sporadic editor, or do I really just have a magical knack for coincidentally having the opposite opinion to many of you? I mean, looking at it logically I must be the problem, not all of you, right? And that's not a "pitymethepoorvictim" statment, just a frank obseravation. My finger is obviously quite far from the pulse of "the community" (of like, 6 people at any one time...), it would seem. Which is a shame, because I genuinely adore this wiki and love contributing to it, and I think the couple of articles I've originated are fairly well-regarded. Oh well. I guess I'll just shut up until next time. User:PacifistPrimePP 05:58, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

P.S. Fancy an "amusing" parting shot? To get really fecking technical about it, IDW’s ‘’BW’’verse is a unique, separate continuity anyway, and what’s true for them (i.e. BW Prowl=G1 Powl) has no real bearing on anything else anyway. So, from the perspective of the original toys, as released, the Magnaboss components were not G1 characters, because unlike Grimlock they were never originally claiming to be...

I can't divine anyone else's deeper motives, but speaking for myself, I don't care that you don't have the seniority or volume of contributions that some other editors do. I calls it like I sees it, and oftentimes you argue for points that I disagree with. In this case, we've now gotten off on the tangent of what constitutes "consensus," and I think you're ignoring one key factor: silence. Sure, only five people have actually spoken up against your position, but not everyone who disagrees is going to say something. More to the point, I imagine most editors don't care about this nitpicky word-usage debate, and when the "vote" is five to one, their ambivalence is tacit acceptance of the majority (since the majority almost inevitably determines the outcome). This logic can be applied to any of the previous incidents where you've felt unfairly "consensus"-ized by maybe a half-dozen people. It wouldn't take many supporters for you to have a comparable "vote" on your side, but if nobody says they agree, then you can pretty well assume the "consensus" of the larger community is not in your favor. - Jackpot 06:49, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

One of the cool things about not bothering to remember anyone's name (aside from how much it cheeses Kil off) is that I can mostly ignore all that status/history shit. Really, the only think I know about Pacafist Prime is he's been around a good while 'cuz I'm used to seeing his name, and is reasonably prolific. I don't think of him as a combative or troublesome guy- I think maybe I've seen him in a couple arguments- but like- spaced out over months... not enough for it to stick in my memory anyway. (This vague impression might even be triggered by PP's description of himself having arguments.) If you asked me to name the 10 most productive members on the wiki, I could probably getr the top 5- below that it's all kinda a blur (and I'm #10 last I checked-- I'm vague about who's above me.) Medium-active pretty good participant who's been around for a decent while? That's pretty much all I've got going in to this conversation. (and pretty much all I'll have a week from now, whee! ...maybe Funaro's right and I SHOULD get tested for early onset Alzheimer's?) -Derik 09:11, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Jackpot, I'd actually favor leaving the discussion open for new contributions for another 12-20 hours. For one thing I know there's at least one more regular contributor who shared/s PP's views regarding this who hasn't chimed in. I don't know whether he's staying out because he's changed his mind, doesn't feel he's got anything to add, is intimidated by the volatilized testosterone oozing from this thread, doesn't feel comfortable near with all the 500 pound gorillas sitting around, or simply hasn't seen it/hasn't been on. I'd like to give him (and any other users who're interested) a fair chance to throw their two cents into the conversation.

PP- I don't think Jackpot was demanding you cave to majority opinion as much as he was complaining that you aren't... having a conversation, in a lot of ways.

Your proposed rephrase a couple blocks up? It's pretty darn good! Have some quibbles- but as-is it mitigates most of the concerns I had! I would be willing to let that be the phrasing we use in the final article, even if I feel it could be be made a slightly better! We have jumped tracks and are no longer arguing about the Magnaboss article- we're arguing about your argument- completely divorced from its relation to Magnaboss.

As I perceive it, this is what you are putting forward:

1. You don't think the second meaning (to change established fact is more prominent)
2. You don't think that the second meaning carries a negative connotation
3. You don't think that using a word with two possible meanings creates more potential for confusion than replacing that word with a phrase that has only one meaning.

Now, points 1 and 2 are matters of opinion. Jackpot (and Sipher I think,) and myself all hold the opposite opinion than you do- and we think that our opinion is the more prevalent-- not because we are 3 and you are 1, but because that's what our experience has told us.

Number 3, OTOH, is not a matter of opinion. It's flat-out fact. But you still seem to be arguing "In my opinion the word with two meanings provides less opportunity for confusion." That is not a valid argument to make! This is not an opinion question- it's a math question! Judged by the standard 'chance to be confused'... you cannot accidentally pick the wrong meaning if there is one meaning!

And then your proposed edit is explicit phrase PLUS the word retcon. And like- yeah, the explicit phrase is good? But once you add the word retcon in- instead of onee possible meaning at play in that sentence, you've not got two again. One meaning is now much stronger than the other, but why do we even have to introduce the possibility of the second, incorrect meaning? (Completely aside the consideration that it makes the sentence read more awkwardly.)

"What we have here is a failure to communicate."

I do not know why you are insisting on putting the word "retcon" in this sentence. I do not know what essential value you think it adds, why you think it is important, what principle, aesthetic or usage value you think it upholds, what balance it strikes, or what essential function is fulfills. You have not explained any of this. Other people have put forth arguments why it would be better without the sentence- and you attack those arguments-- but never put force any of your own as to why it so blazingly important has to be there! We do not know why you are fighting so hard for this word. It is extremely confusing, because you seem to be displaying an attachment to this word that indicates that its inclusion is extremely important for some reason- to the point that not even replacing the word with its own definition is good enough. The word itself has to be in there! Because without the word 'retcon,' the bears can not hold up the sky and we are all going to die. (Or... whatever.) Literally- we cannot figure out why you want this so badly- you have not articulated this deep-deated need to us- and so we can't give it due consideration. I, for one, would prefer not the be crushed by the collapsing sky, and though I dont' share your cosmology I might leave the word retcon in just to hedge my bets! But you haven't even given me sky-bears to work with, I literally have no idea why you think this has to be here.

Also, worryingly, you seem really emotionally involved in a discussion about sentence structure. (In fairness, there are other issues of seniority, status, herd mentality, personal efficacy and Maslow's 3rd Level bound up in this discussion.) That's bad because when you're emotionally worked up you're more likely to filter what others are saying, and hear what you are expecting... even if it's not what they are saying. For instance, right now I am saying "We don't understand why the word 'retcon' is so important, can you please tell us?", but you may well be hearing "You haven't been sandwiched by Walky and Hoop, therefore the Cabal rejects your views! Let the systematic ostracism commence on every other article you edit from now on!"

You seem to reacting to perceived slights that aren't really there. I'm am willing to give you actual slights if that would make you feel more comfortable! Here: "Please start listening with your head and not with your uterus!" Do you feel more on solid ground if I'm actually personally attacking you?

For what it's worth, I was serious when I said that I'm probably not going to remember who I had this conversation with in a week from now. Most people find that very freeing, since it means they don't have to be concerned about awkward future conversations with me- I won't remember that we had this argument! On the opposite end there are people for whom being told this drives them absolutely batty, because they want that-thing-Naruto-wants-that-has-no-direct-English-translation (use. 'acknowledgment,') and being told they melt into the general faceless horde is the worst thing possible. (But they usually can't put this driving need into words since we think in English-- and the English language has no word for the concept.)

For my part, I think it's great! I mean- right now I'm being so obnoxiously intrusive and trampling across interpersonal borders on a public forum with a callous disregard for how fucking awkward that must be fore you-- even if I'm completely off base! If I had to remember who I was this much of an ass to a week from now, I'd go through life mortified! Thank GOD I'm scatterbrained. (Well, ADHD actually, Dropping these sorts of details is typical of the type I have.) The point is... ...I forget. Well, go re-read, it's in there somewhere. -Derik 09:01, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

There's really no such thing as a "closed" discussion here. The majority opinion can always change as time goes on. I was specifically responding to PP's pleading request for more people's opinions after he'd already gotten four of us saying "no" and no one saying "yes," along with his intimation that those small numbers can't possibly represent a consensus. I think part of the problem PP is running up against is that the battles he picks are often ones that most people have no interest in. This "retcon" thing is par for the course, in my recollection. So when the few people who do care about it weigh in against him and everyone else stays silent, he feels like a small group is unfairly smacking him down while countless potential opinions remain mysteriously unspoken. But expecting everyone to chime in on a nitpicky matter like the use of this single word is vastly overrating the importance of the debate. I think a good general rule is that until someone - anyone - voices support for your position, even a relatively small number of intractable opponents represents a consensus against (or perhaps more properly, a consensus not-for).

By the way, the skybears were hilarious. I need to remember that. Did you pick that up from somewhere?

- Jackpot 16:43, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Nope, it came to me while I was eriting. It seemed like a prototypical kids movie cosmology, with the frustrated kid trying to explain to his land-developer parents why the bears habitat must not be destroyed. -Derik 18:30, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, "I, for one, would prefer not the be crushed by the collapsing sky, and though I dont' share your cosmology I might leave the word retcon in just to hedge my bets!" made me laugh out loud. I am officially stealing it and putting it in my pocket for future reappropriation. - Jackpot 18:36, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

By all means! I thought it was pretty awesome as I was typing it 'm self! And really- it's a good principle to live your life by. Even though I don't believe in Pele's Curse I didn't take rocks from the volcano when I was in Hawaii because... I'd really hate to be proven wrong the hard way. -Derik 18:45, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

• 1) I cannot BELIEVE this discussion needed to go on this long.
• 2) The argument that including the word "retcon" is pointless seems to be the winner to me.
• 3) That said, why didn't somebody just link the phrase "a decade after its release" to the Retcon page and call it a day right from the start? -- Repowers 11:56, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

...I change my vote to number three here.

And for what it's worth, I agree/disagree based on the point being made, not the poster making it. If the occasion arises, I'm not bothered by disagreeing with a moderator/admin or agreeing with something nobody else does. Just in this case I happen to agree with the "majority". Jeysie 14:15, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

*smacks forehead* I suggested exactly that two days ago, but apparently it was lost in the crush. -Derik 18:30, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Oops. *sigh* Sorry... it kinda did get lost in the crush. I usually try to pay strict attention, but I gotta admit that wikis aren't the easiest format for parsing/keeping track of walls-o-text and point-by-point replies. Jeysie 21:59, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I thought I was in the tiny, tiny minority that actually read everything Derik posted in this debate, but I have no recollection of him suggesting that, and I'm certainly not going to weed through it all now to find out the truth. The moral: You have absolutely nothing to apologize for in ignoring Derik. In fact, I recommend it, lest you invite madness... or death. - Jackpot 22:11, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Sweet Christ, there's nitpicking, and then there's nitpicking, and then there's this.--Rosicrucian^Talk 14:57, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Phelpsian nitpicking? (Morgan Freeman did day we were going to need new adjectives.) -Derik 20:07, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

And... it feels weird to defend PP on the splitting of hairs, believe me... but I have to say that it's entirely likely that the fixation on including the word "retcon" is just a side-effect of nearly every wiki-editor's constant lust to link things to other things.--Rosicrucian^Talk 15:02, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

And that's fine- but if the discussion had ever moved on THAT as a reason for including the word we wouldn't be stuck at the crossroad of Stupid and Intractable for two days. But no, we had to spend that time discussing sentence structure and language theory! Linking stuff to other stuff is good, I am all for it! ...I have no idea why whatsisname didn't bring that up, which is part of what leave me so baffled about this argument! -Derik 18:30, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Rank?

Is Ironhide second in command? If not, then what is his rank?