FANDOM


Naming issues Edit

An attempt to stop the edit warring on the main page. Currently, we have an IP and a recently signed in user, both apparently from Team Glitterbomb, who have been removing the last names of some of the team members without explanation. This is not something I believe has happened before and obviously we can't leave it unresolved. If you guys are from Team Glitterbomb, would you mind explaining, here on this talk page (without editing the current page, because technically that's edit warring), exactly what the problem is, so we can reach a compromise? CrashBash (talk) 06:17, August 9, 2016 (UTC)

Names on the Glitterbomb page Edit

I've been in contact with the Glitterbomb team, and they have requested that we honour their wishes that April's surname be suppressed. They have their reasons and I do not believe they need to be made public here, but they are more than valid. As a result, I have promised that April's name will not be published on the website. I will be deleting and republishing the page now to hide the former edits as an extra precaution.

Any edits to put April's surname on the article will be instantly reverted. Thank you all for understanding. Toon Ganondorf (t c) 12:51, August 9, 2016 (UTC)

Has anything changed regarding this, as the surnames are back in the infobox? Adster1005 (talk) 16:44, September 20, 2019 (UTC)
There was an article published later on, on a BBC page if I recall correctly. CrashBash (talk) 17:00, September 20, 2019 (UTC)
Ah, okay. Thanks for clearing it up. Adster1005 (talk) 17:01, September 20, 2019 (UTC)
OK, so what rules are we following here? Toon Ganondorf's or Toast's? He's the one who added the information in there, based on the article that Diotoir uncovered. CrashBash (talk) 13:27, October 17, 2019 (UTC)
Toast should have spoken to me about this. It remains as per my rule until otherwise advised. Toon Ganondorf (t c) 20:17, October 17, 2019 (UTC)
The BBC article was published much later than the team's request to hide the surname, it's undeniably public domain now, and with April being a bit older now there's less reason to protect something like that. I don't think it's worth hiding it anymore. TOAST 20:21, October 17, 2019 (UTC)
We did get a personal request from the team though, so surely we should keep that request until they say otherwise. If TG is still in contact with them, perhaps he could get further confirmation? Jimlaad43(talk) 20:23, October 17, 2019 (UTC)
I will send them a request, Jim has a valid point. Toon Ganondorf (t c) 20:28, October 17, 2019 (UTC)
I should also point out that the article, and thus Toast's edit, has been up for over a year now. I don't see why it's taken this long for it to be an issue. CrashBash (talk) 20:31, October 17, 2019 (UTC)
Probably because he slipped it in without consulting me, I don’t have time to monitor the Glitterbombs page every day to ensure the rules are being followed. I’ve checked with the team and they’ve said that while they asked BBC not to put her name on the article, they did and so there’s no point suppressing it on the article. Someone can put it back on now. Toon Ganondorf (t c) 20:43, October 17, 2019 (UTC)

Information from GlitterbombEdit

Additionally, Glitterbomb have sent me this information. If someone wants to use it to improve the article, feel free to do so at your leisure.

"We had a brand new pneumatic part (we have not said what, so as to not blame the sponsor) that arrived with a manufacturing fault. We had not tested this part prior to use as it was new, and we are idiots! As soon as we armed the robot inside the arena, this part failed and began leaking. It would not directly effect the function of the machine, so we cursed out luck and continued to the control booth. 3-2-1 activate was not called for 10- 15 minutes after this, by which time the leak and cold temperatures in the location had disabled out axe retraction, and limited the flow on axe firing. Frustrating but we cannot be disappointed as we lost to 2 great robots. We just wish we'd given the BBC a better fight, but there was nothing we could do. Everyone else suffered something or other, it's just the luck on the day I suppose. We noticed a disconnected wire in the pits after, but we don't know if this happened in the arena or when crew deactivated the machine, it did not matter anyway as it should not have disabled the weapon so I included the info for fun really. The robot ran 5 minutes later in the test arena, with the video on our facebook if you want to see. It's a shame we couldn't show the robot off properly in the arena, but as I say, we were not the unluckiest robot so we are grateful."
— Glitterbomb to TG, 9 August 2016

Additionally, relating to the incorrect information they've been removing.

"We have never been Wrexham Wreckers. That team was Dan Jones and Peter Willson-Hughes, who had previously been member of team Xbotz with James. James' name was on the team list on the roaming robots page because they hoped he would come back to the live circuit, but he never did. Dan and Pete had nothing to do with the building of GlitterBomb, so there is no connection between Team Wrexham Wreckers and Team GlitterBomb. Edgehog us sitting in my garage. It is in one piece and GlitterBomb is not Edgehog. Due to a supplier being unable to do work in time, we were forced to use the axe link and supports from the old machine. We hated doing this, but we had no choice if we wanted to get to robotwars on time. We had no idea this would lead to so many online reviews dismissing the massive efforts of creating a new robot from scratch in 4 weeks, and just claiming it was an old robot painted pink. If only it was!!! It would have been so much easier. There is no more than 15kg of edgehog in glitterbomb, the axe mechanism and shaft, 2 bearing supports and a couple of small plastic pieces underneath, that's it. We did use some dimensions so we knew it would selfright before building it, which may be why some say they look similar. Side by side, not so much."
— Glitterbomb to TG, 9 August 2016

Please use this as the reference and let's see if we can remove the information Glitterbomb are finding objectionable.

Finally, Glitterbomb wanted to pass on their admiration for the Wiki. Apparently it was very useful when young April was designing Glitterbomb - she looked up effective designs and drew the intial sketches. I think that might be the first time our Wiki has led to a robot's design, which I think is a pretty cool bit of trivia! Glitterbomb have given me their blessing to use it on the Wiki.

Toon Ganondorf (t c) 12:51, August 9, 2016 (UTC)

Great work as always, TG. It's great to see that our once so humble wiki is being used and admired by so many people, particularly budding roboteers. Christophee (talk) 13:19, August 9, 2016 (UTC)
Their co-operation is most appreciated too. CrashBash (talk) 13:42, August 9, 2016 (UTC)
I'd read a wiki compliment around the same time, Simon Harrison read the King Buxton article for the first time today and was very pleased with it. I'll work on incorporating some of these Glitterbomb details into the article. ToastUltimatum 14:49, August 9, 2016 (UTC)

ControversyEdit

I'm glad we deleted the "controvery" section, but is that really the kind of thing we want to be sticking our noses into in the first place? Think we might need a "We're not TMZ" policy for situations going forward. RA2; aka Resetti's Replicas. (My Talk) 04:13, February 16, 2017 (UTC)

I think controversy can be noted where it contributes context to the show. The comments from Moulds and MADD were just from reading Facebook comments. People should be able to write about things on Facebook without us hounding them like journalists. Perhaps the policy should state that comments from roboteers need at least implied consenting before publication (publication on their own social media, answers to Wiki user questions where the users have identified themselves (as I always do)). Toon Ganondorf (t c) 05:14, February 16, 2017 (UTC)

Glitterbomb 2 Edit

I know a lot of people are fans of Glitterbomb and its relatively easy to contact them, but I have a good rapport with the team following the incident with April's name and I'm in discussions with them about Wiki content. They're going to do a mini-photoshoot to provide us with some original photos and then give us the information specifications for a new "design" sub-section. Just so everyone knows it's coming, please don't all bombard Glitterbomb for information. Toon Ganondorf (t c) 11:23, February 16, 2017 (UTC)

Reddit has a picture of Glitterbomb 2. Would it be wise to keep it back from the wiki until further notice? Raz3r(talk) 11:38, February 16, 2017 (UTC)
Is it the one they posted on Facebook? I'd like to hold off uploading until we have Glitterbomb's permission, the ones they're sending me have 100% consent to upload wheras everything else is currently up in the air. Hold off for now. Toon Ganondorf (t c) 11:40, February 16, 2017 (UTC)
Yeah, it is the Facebook one. I'll let you take charge of this. Raz3r(talk) 11:42, February 16, 2017 (UTC)

Stats Edit

I don't wish to be that person, but shouldn't the stats table on Glitterbomb's page reflect that of its Series 8 appearance, not its Series 9 one, since it didn't actually compete in Series 9? The stat tables do clearly say "Robot statistics correct as of its most recent appearance on the show, or if not applicable, qualification attempt", and Glitterbomb's most recent appearance on the show was Series 8, since unfortunately it ultimately couldn't take part in Series 9. It's inconsistent with the other articles...take Terminal Ferocity or, more crucially, Prizephita. The former we know attempted to qualify for many different series, but we still use the Series 3 stats. The latter was in exactly the same position as Glitterbomb, but we don't use its would-be Series 8 stats, we use its Series 5 stats. I can understand why, but we need to be consistent with our own guidelines. It either needs to be for all the robots or none of the robots, we can't just pick and choose. CrashBash (talk) 05:00, May 10, 2017 (UTC)

True, forgot that. Just make sure the new stats are still reflected in the article. Toon Ganondorf (t c) 08:32, May 10, 2017 (UTC)
Sorted. CrashBash (talk) 06:20, May 11, 2017 (UTC)

FRA ban Edit

I'm not a fan of this FRA ban trivia point. Aside from the fact that it doesn't have anything to do with Robot Wars, it has no context whatsoever and seems to pass judgement which I don't care for. The probative value of this trivia point is low considering the complete lack of context, and is dramatically outweighed by the fact that it is negative and could foster negative feelings if we're seen to be highlighting problems that roboteers had with each other. Considering how sensitive everyone was about upsetting roboteers who were perfectly fine with content on the Wiki, I'm going to go ahead and remove something that actually might upset roboteers. Toon Ganondorf (t c) 12:15, August 27, 2017 (UTC)

Glitterbomb controversy Edit

I'd like this to be completely clear to all users from now on.

There is to be no content added to this page or the relevant Series 9 pages about Glitterbomb's withdrawal from Series 9. The allegations (widely supported) are that Glitterbomb sabotaged their own weight check to avoid fighting Carbide, whilst Glitterbomb denies this. I am not interested in which version is the truth; we are not journalists and have no hard evidence for either, only what people say. I'm not risking offending the Glitterbomb team by reporting something they deny, which either leads to legal action against Wikia (for which we get blamed) or a Mark Joerger incident. There have been cases where reporters who simply said that something happened and corrected themselves in the same article were sued; I am not running that risk.

As such, I have also removed Glitterbomb's version of events. This leaves three core, undisputed truths:

  • Glitterbomb was too heavy.
  • Glitterbomb was not reduced to weight limit in time.
  • Glitterbomb was made a reserve and ultimately not used.

Anything outside of those four facts, which are common to both versions of events, will be instantly removed. This includes why and how Glitterbomb was not reduced to weight limit in time.

If I feel that users are getting gossipy or sniffing for controversy, I will have no qualms about locking the Glitterbomb page. This is a very sensitive issue and one that I am not interested in exposing us to. The buck stops with me here as a lawyer and an admin and therefore I am making this call. This is not up for debate nor a vote. This post is for everyone's information only. Toon Ganondorf (t c) 07:33, January 2, 2018 (UTC)

I know this goes against what we'd normally do, but maybe we should make an exception and place this at the top of the talk page, so it's the first thing anyone sees. CrashBash (talk) 10:53, January 2, 2018 (UTC)
That's a good idea. I'll also see if I can hide in-text warnings to people editing the page, I've seen them before on Wikipedia. Toon Ganondorf (t c) 10:55, January 2, 2018 (UTC)
Should probably note that Glitterbomb did not sabotage their own weight check, they just arrived severely overweight to begin with. They however for an extended period of time whilst in the pits done no work to correct this until it was too late and they was forced to withdraw. It should be noted however Glitterbomb was there and on its bench the night before filming, and as of 8pm was sat abandoned. So discussions about the car breaking down are not relevant because Glitterbomb had ample opportunity to both find and address the issue but chose not to for whatever reason. Garfie489 (talk) 12:27, January 2, 2018 (UTC)
I notice you’re still doing exactly what I said not to. I agree that the car delay is irrelevant, though. Toon Ganondorf (t c) 12:45, January 2, 2018 (UTC)
Though I do side with Gareth in this circumstance, I will say that there does need to be an agreement between you two, a balance before anything should be edited! I'd even say lock the page before an agreement can be settled then unlock it afterwards? Just an idea.Diotoir the son of nemesis (talk) 13:06, January 2, 2018 (UTC)


Series 7 Featherweight entry Edit

Hey guys it's been a while but I was just wondering if people where interested in me making a page for the team's withdrawn Featherweight entry Tantrum since we have one already for Storm Vortex and Ruff Stuff(?) who both pulled out of there respective side competitions. I have images and a few stats for the robot, team Xbotz being related to Team Glitterbomb and all I think the two pages could be linked together in some way. Thanks all --Botomatic1000 (talk) 17:51, March 2, 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, if we have evidence that James Baker built a featherweight for Series 7 and withdrew, then go right ahead! TOAST 20:35, March 2, 2019 (UTC)

Unfortunately the only confirmation I have for it having any intent of entering or it being in Series 7 is from the description of this YT video, if someone pm’d the Glitterbomb FB page about it though that would be greatly appreciated. I know Tantrum had been around for a long long time including the RW period, it signed up and pulled out of RG 07. https://youtu.be/0e000dyDqPs (EDIT) I also have a sneaking suspicion that they may have f2Q with there Heavy Carnage as well but that’s just my theory. --Botomatic1000 (talk) 22:13, March 2, 2019 (UTC)

Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.