Discussion WMG / StarTrekBeyond

Natter is Natter, no matter what page it is on.

The purpose of WMG is for making wild masse guesses. NOT to debate them.

Adding it back in another form is one step too close to Edit Warring in my taste.

Edited by sailing101 Ye who would Tope Meaninglessness. Ye who ignore All We Have. I say to you You Shall Not Pass!!

Then moderation on it must be sparse, because this is the first time ever that I have had someone come at me with "natter" on WMG pages for detailing how I think a WMG is implausable.

The "Little Ms. Sulu" topic at the top is how I've always done it and seen it done. Someone posts a WMG, someone posts in support or in refutation of it, then it branches from there. I didn't reply after raising the point about epigenetics, because the reply in kind has a point: if vulcan/human hybrids can occur, then who's to say that genetics hasn't figured out the epigenetics behind parental gene interactions? I didn't respond, because then that really would be natter. At some point, it may or may not be jossed or confirmed. Until then, speculation.

The "Significance of the Franklin's name" has another refutation on it, and it's still standing. The fate of Carol Marcus has elaborations, one of which I added. Wouldn't that be natter too, even though it supports/elaborates on it?

I post a refutation to the postulation that the drones are Borg, it gets deleted as "natter". I post it as a discrete WMG entry, I get accusations of "edit warring" levied at me. Why does your theory deserve to be voiced but my disagreement with it doesn't? If I was really waging an "edit war", I would have deleted it. I'm not the one who has deleted, because that's not how WMG speculation works.

Edited by MadCat221

Because that is NOT what the WMG pages are for. They are for making WILD MASS GUESSES. Not refuting them. Your disagreement is not a guess, it's just a disagreement.

EDIT: As said by the moderator known as Fighteer: "Well, yes, contesting a WMG by creating another WMG is clearly defying the rules. "

Edited by sailing101 Ye who would Tope Meaninglessness. Ye who ignore All We Have. I say to you You Shall Not Pass!!

Well okay then, I guess I'll be returning the refutation to the original WMG. Because the only person I have EVER seen say that "refutation of any kind is natter" is YOU. Why is listing further support or elaboration not considered natter? That mod is saying that only making another WMG entry in direct contradicion is against the rules.

EDIT: Here's a rewording to pose an alternate instead of just straight refutation:

The usage of "drones" and a seemingly nanotech weapon of mass destruction may superficially look like "Borg", but the drones do not resemble the mottled cybernetic zombie look that has defined the look of the Borg "species" as it were. They are also all uniform and more responsive to surroundings. The ship design is completely alien, even compared to the "monstrous geometric primitives covered in greeblies" design paradigm that the Borg use, being instead a massive swarm of small ships. The nanotech weapon also destroys instead of assimilating, and has a name; "Abronath", instead of an index number. Borg Drones would have attempted to assimilate the stranded Kelvin crew, but these drones instead were left in an idle state long enough to be repurposed by Krall. The ruins are also not Borg-like, but more along the lines of "ancient lost civilization". Possibilities include the Tkon, or Iconians, or possibly an entirely new lost civilization created for the Kelvinverse.

[[/end WMG]]

"Borg" is not the "only clear explanation". Not by a long shot. And there are more clearer ones that fit the facts we know about the Borg. All I see similar are usage of "drone" (and not even decentralized as they fell pathetically to *VHF Radio whitenoise* of all things) and seeming nanotech. They aren't even in the right region of space to be "origin borg", being halfway across the galaxy from the modern Borg's romping grounds. It's a case of square drone, round regen alcove.

"Only clear explanation" is the crux of what I object to, and why I posted a refutation. It asserts that "That's it, that's how it is". I emphatically showed otherwise with contradictory facts instead of deleting it, because the original WMG was not mine... and then I had my refutation deleted as "natter" instead of refuted in kind. Saying "Only clear explanation" is in contradiction to the very spirit of WMG, which is guessing. Saying "Only clear explanation" asserts the spurious claim that that's the established fact. I probably wouldn't have cared if it weren't for this assertion.

I ask again: Why are refutations "natter" but additional supporting facts and expansion upon a WMG added by others not? How could a page full of content that would *fundamentally* be natter anywhere else on TV Tropes have such content be labeled "natter"?

Edited by MadCat221

It's natter, and edit warring. I tried to give you a fair chance.

Ye who would Tope Meaninglessness. Ye who ignore All We Have. I say to you You Shall Not Pass!!

Refer to WMG.Programme Note: "If you are tempted to make an entry refuting a theory, the discussion pages are there for that purpose. The article itself should be used for tongue-in-cheek "proofs" and "evidence" supporting the theory, or for yet wilder theories." Whatever you would like to call it, it is indeed against the rules.