Talk: Style Guide/Robot Names

There's a massive area we have yet to cover here, and that stems along the lines of what to do with how do we classify two identically-named robots used by the same team, but built by different people, or loanerbots/replacement robots modified to assume the identity of a withdrawn competitor...and more importantly, where the information regarding said robot should go. There are three examples of this - Nemesis being used in place of Terror Australis, Humdrum being used in place of Joker and Hard being used in place of...well, Hard. At the moment, all of these robots have their own separate pages, but there are some inconsistencies as to how they're set up. This boils down to two questions that I feel we should answer... CrashBash (talk)

Should they be separate?

• For me, this is a straight forward Yes. These robots are not simply sequels in the same style as, say, the various Ming or Tetanus robots. They are simply temporary replacements, not built by the team they are being given to. CrashBash (talk) 14:38, October 14, 2017 (UTC)

• For me, this is a simple no. If you want to make the case that two robots called Terror Australis, entered by the same team under the same brand should not be considered the same robot, you need more information. The team didn't enter Nemesis, they entered Terror Australis, which just happened to be Nemesis repainted. We covered this years ago with Prometheus and General Carnage, which are the exact same robot but rebranded with a new identity. Velocirippa and Mighty Mouse are split based on their identity, not who physically made the robot. We have a clear policy and not one single reason has been raised as to why loanerbots should be different. Toon Ganondorf (t c) 21:59, October 14, 2017 (UTC)
  • Except that is completely different. Velocirippa and Mighty Mouse were made by the same team. Same with General Carnage and Prometheus. Terror Australis and Nemesis were not. Nemesis was just loaned to Terror Australis. There is a difference. And need I remind you, it was temporary. CrashBash (talk) 04:20, October 15, 2017 (UTC)
• With loanerbots and stock bots now being a relevant factor as of Battle of the Stars, I'm moreso seeing TG's point of view, which would make me a mild no. The performance of Joker's team in particular should be considered all on one page. Where it leaves the stock robots which never replaced a robot's identity, such as The Green Mouse/Squirmin' Vermin and especially the unchanged Vert-I-Go, is an added factor, but I think there's a case to keep them merged. TOAST 00:41, October 15, 2017 (UTC)
• Yes they should be separate. The robots themselves are completely different, and the whole point of robot pages is it separates the Robots. We have separate pages for the three Steg machines, so in the Hard case, i definitely support keeping them separate, especially as categories come into it. You can't list proper Hard as a Loanerbot in the categories tab. I feel like this is something that needs to be decided on a case-by-case basis as the circumstances of each are different. Nemesis Australis is an odd one as we have the Nemesis page. Battle Histories and such should be on the Terror Australis page, as it was battled under that name, but it needs a small mention on the Nemesis page only. I don't really know/understand the Joker/Humdrum thing, so I'm staying out of that one. Basically, Hard L and Hard B could be grouped together in a Team Hard page, but they should be kept separate because of the circumstances. Jimlaad43(talk) 11:50, October 15, 2017 (UTC)

Where should information go?

• As far as I'm personally concerned, all information regarding the robots' history, or at the very least the bulk of it, should go with the replacement robot, not the robot it was replacing. So, for example, whilst Joker's team did compete across all three US series, US Season 1 should not be on Joker's page, but on Humdrum's page (as it is right now) because that's the robot they used...it was just named Joker, but that doesn't make it Joker. CrashBash (talk) 14:38, October 14, 2017 (UTC)

• The robot was called Joker, entered by Joker's team and branded as Joker. This means it is relevant to Joker, not Humdrum. It exactly does mean it is the robot Joker. Toon Ganondorf (t c) 21:59, October 14, 2017 (UTC)
  • But it is NOT Joker, is it? It's Humdrum. The roboteers say so. CrashBash (talk) 04:18, October 15, 2017 (UTC)
• If our vote is to merge the robots under their respective name, then that means the information would all be going in one place. I think it would be OK to, for example, have small sections on the Nemesis and Humdrum articles which simply directs readers to the place where the information is found, like how some of our Outside Robot Wars sections link to team pages. TOAST 00:41, October 15, 2017 (UTC)
  • I don't personally see why it can't be in both. I remember you proposed that idea back with Terror Australis/Nemesis last year, and it technically works. All we'd have to do is make sure that no information overlaps where it shouldn't (for example, Humdrum and Joker's articles could both mention US Season 1, but Joker's can't mention the Nickelodeon HRR, and Humdrum's can't mention US Season 2). CrashBash (talk) 04:58, October 15, 2017 (UTC)
• I would like to add that in the International League Championship, it was frequently acknowledged throughout the episode that the replacement Terror Australis was Nemesis in disguise and belonged to Team Nemesis; indeed, why else would they show both teams repainting the robot together? Toast's idea is workable, but if both the Terror Australis team and Team Nemesis shared credit for Nemesis Australis, I cannot see why Crash's idea to place information specific to it on both Nemesis and Terror Australis' pages should be discounted. VulcansHowl 09:07, October 15, 2017 (UTC)
  • I think that was more to highlight the generosity of Team Nemesis (they won the Sportsmanship award that year) than to indicate it was just Nemesis being entered by the Australian team. I'm more than happy to see Nemesis noting was adopted as a version of Terror Australis, but the results, battle history and everything else belongs on the page about Terror Australis, otherwise everything is needlessly complicated. Toon Ganondorf (t c) 09:35, October 15, 2017 (UTC)
    • Not necessarily. I mean, as you saw, I tried putting the actions of "Nemesis Australis" on Nemesis' page, and it wasn't really that difficult. The only thing that really needed rewording was the introduction, so it's about Nemesis, not Terror Australis. The same works for Joker and Humdrum. Season 1 covers on both, but keep it specific otherwise. Of course, in Joker's case, the fact that Joker itself never won a battle in five attempts should still be noteworthy and explain it was only with Humdrum that they won a battle. CrashBash (talk) 13:03, October 15, 2017 (UTC)
• The main battle information should be on the page with the robot that battled. On the other page, a mention of the replacement robot should be made, but not a full battle report, just a link to the page with it on. Jimlaad43(talk) 11:51, October 15, 2017 (UTC)

Conclusion and further suggestions

OK, a week has gone by, and lets see where this has gotten us. First of all, there's a 2-2 divide between keeping the robots separate and not keeping them separate. That being said, Vulcan's comment in part two and his subsequent suggestion only works if the robots are indeed separate.

As for the second point, it's a further mixed bag, with votes for keeping the information strictly on the page of the robot that battled and splitting the information between both pages. I can personally see arguments for both - the former because it was that particular robot that fought and the latter because it was also a particular team that fought. Thusly, if we are to keep them separate, I'd like to discuss how each one would work.

Using Nemesis/Terror Australis as an example, if we go for the first option, we could do this.

• Remove all information on Terror Australis' page involving fights using Nemesis and move them to Nemesis' page.
• On Terror Australis' page, make a note explaining that the information is on Nemesis' page.
• Edit Battle Histories (and in Nemesis' case, team members sub-section) accordingly.
• For the wins/loss section, the performance of "Nemesis Australis" goes solely on Nemesis' page.

If we go for the second option, we could do this.

• Copy the information on Terror Australis' page involving fights with Nemesis and paste this onto Nemesis' page, editing it to make it specifically about Nemesis. This basically places the information on both pages.
• Edit Battle Histories (and in Nemesis' case, team members sub-section) accordingly.
• For the wins/loss section, the performance of "Nemesis Australis" goes solely on Nemesis' page, whilst a sub-section goes on Terror Australis' page, separate from its main score. For example, it could say something like "With Nemesis, Terror Australis gained two losses and one draw".

If anyone has any thoughts on which one would work better, then by all means say so. CrashBash (talk) 14:18, October 21, 2017 (UTC)

I think putting all the information about the Terror Australis team on the Nemesis page is wrong. It ceased to be Nemesis as soon as it got a coat of paint and a new name. Think about what is more useful to a reader. We can put all information about how Terror Australis did together, or we can split it up. I get where Crash is coming from, but I also think that it is the greater of two evils. I have checked over the Nemesis page and I think what is currently there balances it perfectly as far as design/. The biggest kicker is the reference of "Nemesis Australis" which was never its name - its name was Terror Australis. Are we going to put a disambiguation on the top of Terror Australis saying "if by Terror Australis, did you mean Nemesis?" Leave it as is. Gutripper^Speak 20:59, October 21, 2017 (UTC)

"Nemesis Australis" is just a little fanname other users have used to make the point that it is still Nemesis, despite being repainted and renamed. Also, we can't exactly leave it as is because we've got two sets of articles that are conflicted...technically three. CrashBash (talk) 21:19, October 21, 2017 (UTC)

I think Crash's intentions are good and that perhaps the loanerbot/competitor bot divide is not as 100% clear as it is with other robots like Expulsion, Wild Thing 2 or GBH. However, my stance with Terror Australis remains unchanged as I think it makes the two pages less informative than they are now: Nemesis got a new name and identity, not a new team. It isn't Nemesis once they repaint it and rename it.

However, I'm going to invoke spoiler-aware knowledge and request that we put a decisive pin in this conversation until after Series 10 because there is something coming up that is highly relevant and I want this to make sure we take that into account before making a decision, as I want to be able to draw on them as examples. Toon Ganondorf (t c) 21:06, October 21, 2017 (UTC)

It technically still is Nemesis, and the fact remains, it was simply "borrowed". Lets look at a hypothetical scenario - Glitterbomb is due to compete, but breaks down before the event. So they can compete, MeggaMouse is leant to the team, who rename it and paint it pink, but otherwise it's still structurally MeggaMouse. Once the competition is over, Glitterbomb give MeggaMouse back to its team. Now, I want your honest opinion here - are you simply going to ignore the fact that this "Glitterbomb" was ever MeggaMouse in the first place? Because with all due respect it feels like this is exactly what you're doing. Especially since it was a temporary lone, and not, say, a full-time thing. If, say the Beast team had purchased Dantomkia and remodeled it into a new version of Beast, that'd be one thing. But that's not quite the same thing.

That being said, I am aware of the same thing you are, spoiler-wise (at least I assume we're talking about the same thing), so I can do that. CrashBash (talk) 21:19, October 21, 2017 (UTC)

Not to continue the conversation, but yes, if Glitterbomb removed Meggamouse's mouse features and repainted it bright pink with the name Glitterbomb everywhere, I'd consider it Glitterbomb. It'd not really accurate example because Nemesis was a retired robot wheras Meggamouse is active and not as likely to be given up this way. Toon Ganondorf (t c) 21:26, October 21, 2017 (UTC)

But then that leads us to the whole Joker and Humdrum thing, though. And Humdrum, whilst belonging to the RW crew, was still very much active. And be fair, I made that scenario off the top of my head. But lets see what the S.A.K. leads us to and leave it for now. CrashBash (talk) 21:35, October 21, 2017 (UTC)

Further insights

OK, I know the idea was that we were going to leave this for a S.A.K., but I figured I need to get this out here all the same, because regardless of what that S.A.K. brings us, it probably won't change a thing. So, I decided to do the sensible thing and ask a roboteer for their thoughts on the matter. I ended up asking Gareth Anstee (from Team. Ablaze) for his thoughts on the matter and as it turned out, he was the perfect person to talk to because he's been through this scenario before with Dystopia, previously a version of Ripper. His thoughts on the matter were quite clear - a robot temporarily renamed as another robot would still be the original robot (so, Nemesis renamed as Terror Australis is still Nemesis), but for historical accuracy (his words, not mine) the name change would need to be mentioned. He said, and I quote...

"Yeh they dont own the robot so itd be wrong to ignore where it came from. In the same sense people still referred to Dystopia as Ripper for quite a while after i bought it."

— Gareth Anstee

There's a significant difference. Gareth kept hold of Dystopia and had the time to give it its own identity. The same cannot be said for the other examples - Terror Australis' team probably didn't keep Nemesis, and Joker's team certainly didn't keep Humdrum. Either way, I feel this is certainly worth taking into consideration. CrashBash (talk) 12:13, November 4, 2017 (UTC)

What do you mean by S.A.K.?--Jimlaad43(talk) 12:28, November 4, 2017 (UTC)

Spoiler-Aware-Knowledge. CrashBash (talk) 12:37, November 4, 2017 (UTC)

Interesting to hear Anstee's words on the matter - thank you for getting in touch with him, Crash. The last paragraph of your post reminded me of that photo taken earlier this year of Nemesis without the eyebrows - it does beg the question of how soon Terror Australis returned it to Team Nemesis after the International League wrapped up. VulcansHowl 12:42, November 4, 2017 (UTC)

Who knows? Either way, Anstee's words make me more confident than ever that we need to prioritize the robot that took part rather than the robot it replaced, which would mean keeping Humdrum's information separate from Joker's, and having Nemesis' fights as Terror Australis be on the former's page. But obviously notes need to be made on the pages of the robots they replaced. CrashBash (talk) 14:41, November 4, 2017 (UTC)

I'd still like to wait. I don't want to put too much stock in one roboteer whose circumstances are outside the broadcast show. I still feel very strongly in opposition, but will wait further. Toon Ganondorf (t c) 19:45, November 4, 2017 (UTC)

Technically, OUR circumstances are outside the broadcast show too (most of us aren't even roboteers), and just because it didn't happen on the show, doesn't change the fact that his point is perfectly valid. I'll still wait, but the fact that he's been through this stage and is a roboteer, in my eyes at least that's a very strong reason to consider his viewpoints. CrashBash (talk) 19:55, November 4, 2017 (UTC)