From BIONICLEsector01
Revision as of 20:55, 12 September 2016 by The Aimless Wanderer1 (talk | contribs)

Is the term Koronan canon? It was taken out of MNOG, but I don't see why. Google Translate doesn't show it as being a word from any other language. Master Inika (Talk) 16:51, 21 January 2012 (PST)

Google isn't always right (even though it is). -Shadow Kurahk · Talk 23:40, 21 January 2012 (PST)
So, it is or isn't canon? If it's not, we should change the quote on Onepu's page, which claims him to head the "Onu-Koronan Ussalry Regiment." It was from the original MNOG, and he doesn't say it in the re-release (he warns the player about Kofo-Jaga). Master Inika (Talk) 07:04, 22 January 2012 (PST)

Matoran Gender

@ Dorek: It's very important to me that we include this info (spec. that trans* Matoran canonically may exist). I see your point about the redundancy, though, and I'm willing to meet you halfway. How d'you think we should phrase this? A note in the Abilities and Traits section about all Matoran, or individual notes on each Matoran type? Or something else that I'm not thinking of? --Angel Bob (talk) 21:51, 10 July 2014 (CEST)

Ah, here's something. Greg says there may not be an exception to the rule in each tribe, so that would suggest that we should note this as a possibility under all Matoran, generally speaking. --Angel Bob (talk) 21:58, 10 July 2014 (CEST)
I'm going to be pretty rigid on this because it's all a huge hypothetical; they would only exist as they needed to be introduced in the story, and since there is no more story, they only exist in the hypothetical, not the canonical. Even Greg makes the point in his second answer, there.
However, there might still be a way to express the same idea.
As it stands now, it's noted under the individual Matoran sections; this is important, if as you say perhaps a bit redundant. What originally came to mind was getting rid of that and creating a singular phrase in the A&T section, and noting the one example that we have (Orde), but in a way that leaves the door open (subtly) for future examples. -- I AM THE DOREK do not truffle with me 22:27, 10 July 2014 (CEST)
That could work. I'm amenable to the idea, but I have to leave now and won't be back for several hours, so I can't discuss this any further. --Angel Bob (talk) 22:30, 10 July 2014 (CEST)

Based on Greg's responses, would a phrasing--intended for an overall A&T statment--such as this work?

The various Matoran Tribes are typically limited to one gender; Matoran of Water, Lightning, and Psionics are the only known female types, while all the other types are male. The exceptions to this are the Av-Matoran (who may belong to either category), and the Matoran of Shadow (who can be created from any type of Matoran). There may also be certain individuals within each tribe, created during the early days of the Matoran Universe's construction, that were assigned a gender opposite that of their tribe's while the Great Beings were still experimenting with the details of their creation.

Note, this is and addition (and update) to the last paragraph of the A&T section. ζω·τωμαναExternal Image

I can't bring myself to do the last bit because it's speculation through and through, and that's never something we would note.

Also durr Psionics forgot about that. -- I AM THE DOREK do not truffle with me 00:31, 11 July 2014 (CEST)

Dor, making any note about this is making a note about a speculative, hypothetical maybe. We have no confirmation that any of the tribes is anything more than totally one or the other (beyond the obvious Matoran of Shadow and Matoran of Light).ζω·τωμαναExternal Image
Which is why the way I have it worded right now isn't speculative in any way.
That said, since Orde was never a Matoran anyway, and sort of the catalyst for this idea, the mention would probably end up on the Toa page anyway... -- I AM THE DOREK do not truffle with me 01:49, 11 July 2014 (CEST)

Orde was the catalyst, but the question and response was about Matoran. Besides, even if Order was never in Matoran form, he's still part of the Matoran species. ζω·τωμαναExternal Image

Ah, but Greg's response in that link indicates that any Matoran exceptions were probably not created as such by the Great Beings, due to their being pressed for time. All we can mention definitively is that the potential for opposite-gender Matoran exists, without any speculation. Giving any trans* Matoran a convoluted Orde-ish backstory is entirely unnecessary; perhaps they simply exist as the opposite gender, hmm? --Angel Bob (talk) 03:40, 11 July 2014 (CEST)
Yeah, but the potential exists for a lot of things to happen in the MU that didn't/don't for whatever reason (different elements, etc). And there would be a convoluted backstory one way or the other, because the rules are already there in place. -- I AM THE DOREK do not truffle with me 03:57, 11 July 2014 (CEST)

Yeah, any exceptions to the rules will need to have a reason for being exceptions. Minus the original tribe (which acts a template for all others) and the unnatural group (which can be drawn from many tribes), there is (as a rule) a clear assignment of gender to the totality of a particular tribe. The potential exists, but the most likely explanations for them being exceptions to the rule are an Orde-ish "they hadn't decided on the rule quite yet" , or "whoopsie during the mysterious Matoran reproduction process." But even so, the potential may exist, but only as a hypothetical. A possible. A maybe.

And, Dorek, the word "predominately" means mostly and implies that the group is not totally male or female. The wording isn't speculative, no, but instead says outright "there are rare female [male tribe]-Matoran," (or vice versa) which is even further from being confirmed than the simple possibility. ζω·τωμαναExternal Image

I'm not sure where the word "predominately" was used, so I don't know how that's entirely relevant. As it stands, all of the pages (as far as I can tell given how slow the wiki is hint hint Swert) use exclusionary language. Matoran of one type belong to one gender or the other, with the noted exceptions of Shadow and Light, which is how it is in the story. I have no idea where the debate is there. -- I AM THE DOREK do not truffle with me 04:36, 11 July 2014 (CEST)

Whoops, my bad. I looked at the page and saw each of Matoran sections used the word "predominately" and assumed that was what the recent edits to the page had been about. Apparently another edit needs to be made XD ζω·τωμαναExternal Image
...I just want to point out that "predominately" is not a word. You're thinking of "predominantly", which is the word that I used in those edits. Also, while I'm in a complaining mood, can we not refer to Matoran as "members of the [Element] Tribe" (ie. Ce-Matoran as "the Psionics Tribe members")? That's the phrasing that Spherus Magna tribes use, and I don't want to confuse anyone. Best to just stick to the [prefix]-Matoran naming convention. --Angel Bob (talk) 15:16, 11 July 2014 (CEST)
Okay, after doing a little research, I see now that "predominately", despite being an absolutely hideous word, is acceptable in certain parlance, so I retract my previous condemnations. The "members of the [Element] Tribe", though, definitely needs to be corrected. That is not the terminology we use for Matoran. --Angel Bob (talk) 15:19, 11 July 2014 (CEST)
I'm not picky about either usage, surprisingly, but both are acceptable (same root, obviously).
As for the tribe thing, yeah, sorry, the new phrasing in the A&T section was meant to replace those mentions, essentially (which would have needed tweaking if not). I just wasn't sure what the consensus was on which part to keep. I like having a singular mention in A&T, personally, so I removed the gender mention outright from the rest of them (except for Light and Shadow). -- I AM THE DOREK do not truffle with me 20:06, 11 July 2014 (CEST)


I realize I'm dredging up an ancient discussion, but personally I think it would still be a massive mistake to use such absolute statements like "all Onu-Matoran are male" on a subject that Greg himself has stated may or may not be 100% concrete. Might I suggest that we just say "all KNOWN _-Matoran are _ gender"? The way I see it, that makes for a reasonable middle ground. --The Aimless Wanderer1 (talk) 23:26, 9 August 2016 (CET)
I think that's on the right track, but I would change the wording somewhat. The issue with something like "all known Onu-Matoran are male" is that it's not definitive enough. If you want, you can read it so that most Onu-Matoran are female and we've just happened to only encounter male ones. But as outsiders looking in on the storyline, we know for a fact that Onu-Matoran are male as a rule. Personally I'd opt for something like this as a compromise: "Onu-Matoran are male with no known exceptions." No "all" because we don't know that all Onu-Matoran are male for a fact. But we do know that Onu-Matoran are male as a rule. Then "with no known exceptions" opens the possibility for female Onu-Matoran but also makes it clear they are unlikely. -- Morris the Mata Nui Cow (talk) 01:14, 10 August 2016 (CET)
Yeah, that seems reasonable - certainly a lot better than "ALL _-Matoran are _". I vote in favor of this. --The Aimless Wanderer1 (talk) 03:10, 10 August 2016 (CET)
I'd like to vouch my support for Morris' proposed phrasing. It's a well worded compromise that should satisfy both camps. --Angel Bob (talk) 03:15, 10 August 2016 (CET)

I'm still not really in favor of it because it's not really something that's in need of a compromise; Greg didn't "state" that there could be Matoran of other genders, he simply shrugged his shoulders at a question that he feels uncomfortable answering, because he knows you can't prove a negative. We were told repeatedly that Matoran genders, ignoring the specific exceptions, are monogender. Orde is the only reason this is a point of discussion, and that's because Greg admitted he made a mistake and wove it into the story rather than having an out and out retcon.
I don't know at what point the "previous Greg answer" rule takes effect since it's not even an answer of his (although I'm sure it actually was at some point), it's just a basic fact of the story. The answer is still the same; there aren't Matoran of other genders right up until there are. It's the same with New Elements; Greg repeatedly said "no new elements" and then would introduce one. That doesn't mean there are more elements in the MU right now that we haven't seen, same as it didn't mean that ten years ago; it just means that Greg was at liberty to introduce more, and only then was it actually fact. -- Dorek Talk External Image 09:05, 10 August 2016 (CET)
I agree with Morris; it's not like we're outright stating Matoran of a certain element can definitely be a different gender, we're just acknowledging the possibility. I don't see anything wrong with that. --Pasta (talk) 15:05, 10 August 2016 (CET)

Respectfully, Dorek, I don't think you can claim to know what Greg was thinking when he gave that answer. None of us can. What we know is what he said. When asked if there could be Matoran out there with different genders, he could have simply said "No". Instead, he said "Possibly", in that they may possibly exist. He didn't say "Yes" or "Yeah, sure", as he normally does when he confirms questions. He hasn't confirmed that they do exist, and that's not what the other editors and I think should be added to the pages. Morris' suggestion is perfectly in line with what Greg has said: all Matoran of an element are one gender, unless there is an exception; exceptions may possibly exist (this is what Greg said); but no exceptions are known. It's 100% accurate to the canon; the only difference is that it gives leeway for people to imagine Matoran of different genders. That is more than enough to satisfy me, and if staying accurate to the canon is your concern, it should be enough to satisfy you. --Angel Bob (talk) 17:25, 10 August 2016 (CET)

It's pretty easy to tell what Greg was thinking because, as you had earlier pointed out when this discussion came up (there's even a handy link right above here), he essentially walked back the whole proposition and said that anything was possible, but they don't exist in the story as it stands. He says it all in that post; he doesn't even want to assert that there's an exception. Writing down "exceptions might exist, but they don't" is a ridiculous proposition in general. It's possible there's a Toa of Magnetism who survived the purge out there that we've never met. In fact, it's likely. But he doesn't exist in the story, so we don't mention his possible existence because it's all a figment.
One of our oldest tenants is that we're in the business to record facts, not speculation. Hypotheticals (another thing Greg isn't a huge fan of!) are far closer to the latter than the former. -- Dorek Talk External Image 18:17, 10 August 2016 (CET)

I have to disagree with your interpretation - that's not what he says in that post. Greg states that he doesn't want to assert there's an exception in every tribe, but he's still okay with saying they could exist, which is in keeping with Morris's suggestion. However, considering the details of that post (in that Greg seems to dislike the idea of there being exceptions for all elements), I can see why you would want to keep the mention of exceptions confined to this single page. It still seems like quite a bit of pushback to me, though, especially considering the number of editors who support this change. --Angel Bob (talk) 19:36, 10 August 2016 (CET)

I don't really see what the number of editors supporting the issue has to do with it; there's plenty of people who genuinely subscribe to the theory of Tamaru being a trans character, but there's nothing that actually supports that in the lore. Here, it seems pretty obvious that Greg is (or was, since this happened two years ago) trying to have his cake and eat it too; assuaging the segment that wants to believe this is possible while not angering the people who think it can't.
I know it's a social issue people feel very passionately about, and I'm not trying to say that they're wrong for that; I work in social service, and deal with this kind of stuff every day! But in the end, there's headcanon, and there's canon. I know Greg's answers have created some murky lines between the two, but people pushing their own agendas into BIONICLE (regardless of the nobility or worth) needs to be backed up by concrete facts. This does not have that kind of weight to it, which is why I really do not feel comfortable creating a mention. -- Dorek Talk External Image 22:20, 10 August 2016 (CET)

It is true that headcanons and social agendas should never replace facts on this Wiki. If, say, someone changed Tamaru's pronouns just because they believed he was trans, that is obviously not acceptable as fact on this Wiki since there is no evidence to support it, and is entirely opinion-based..

However, in this case I am speaking from a purely objective standpoint, drawing only on Word of God: And regardless of what one thinks his reasons were, it is an incontrovertible fact that Greg has stated that gender exceptions may or may not exist. However unlikely they may be, this ambiguity means we can no longer jump to conclusive declarations that 100% affirm or deny the existence of such exceptions. As such, even from an objective standpoint I say that Morris' phrasing is not only perfectly acceptable, but also just more representative of the given information than what we currently have. This is not a case of social agendas or fanon, but factual accuracy. It is my sincere hope that we can all come to an agreement on this, and I thank you for your consideration. --The Aimless Wanderer1 (talk) 01:13, 11 August 2016 (CET)

Word of God should at least be concrete; I have no desire to parse out any Schrodinger-based logic of what exists and why if it's all completely theoretical to begin with. At some point, the cat is dead. -- Dorek Talk External Image 09:59, 11 August 2016 (CET)

I agree that 100% concrete statements are ideal, but there's absolutely nothing wrong with at least tacitly acknowledging uncertainty regarding a subject if it exists: On the contrary, if we ignore even the slightest bit of uncertainty and declare that a matter IS 100% absolute, then our report of the facts is technically incomplete and inaccurate. And for better or for worse, the fact remains that there IS uncertainty on this matter, and concrete, absolute statements are no longer necessarily valid.

The way I see it, the purpose of this Wiki is to report ALL information with as much accuracy as possible; unless Greg states with 100% certainty that there CANNOT be ANY exceptions, I don't think we have the right to conclusively declare the cat dead. Besides, we have accepted similarly non-concrete "shrugs of God" in the past, so I fail to see why we should make an exception in this case alone.

With that said, I admit it was a mistake for me to outright say "some exceptions may exist" at first - that implied a FAR greater likelihood for the existence of exceptions, and I was unaware that Greg had later amended his statement - For that, I sincerely apologize. However, Morris' phrasing contains no such problems: Regardless of how one feels about the matter and its implications, it is still undeniably more accurate than what we currently have: Besides, it doesn't actually state that there even MIGHT be exceptions, so the way I see it this is, as Angel Bob has said, a "well-worded compromise that should satisfy both camps". I'm sorry, but I still firmly believe that Morris' proposed revision should be implemented. The Aimless Wanderer1 (talk) 19:59, 11 August 2016 (CET)

It's still all theoretical, or worse, tautological; "it exists because it exists" is not actual proof of existence. The final thing that was said was some exceptions may (keyword of the daymonthyearlife) exist out there if people want to believe that. Until we have proof or details OF their existence, they don't.
If you have other examples of similarly dubious statements, I'd love to see them. We beat the whole Mangai thing to death, but I'm still not convinced the Earth Tribe is a thing~ -- Dorek Talk External Image 09:50, 12 August 2016 (CET)

You're right: We don't have any proof of their existence, and therefore we can't say that they do. But that's the thing: Morris' revision never claims that they do. On the contrary, it says exactly what you're arguing: That we just don't have any proof or details of their existence. So what is so wrong with it? --The Aimless Wanderer1 (talk) 22:07, 12 August 2016 (CET)

It's the implication; if there's no known exception, why are we noting it at all, other than because some people want to? It's semantics. People can headcanon whatever, but this place notes facts, not the absence of a lack of facts. -- Dorek Talk External Image 09:46, 13 August 2016 (CET)
But implication is precisely what is wrong with "ALL _-Matoran are _": Such an absolute statement implicitly asserts that we know, with 100% certainty and without a shadow of a doubt, that there cannot be exceptions. And no matter how you look at it, that claim is objectively incorrect.
Once again, this has absolutely nothing to do with headcanons or speculation- this is about fact and fact alone. And regardless of personal opinions regarding Greg's statements, the fact that he has stated the possibility means that we can no longer claim to conclusively know that "all _ are _". --The Aimless Wanderer1 (talk) 15:36, 13 August 2016 (CET)

Until something appears in the "story" (whatever we're calling that these days, Greg's answers) it only exists in the abstract and not the definitive. We do know that all Matoran of any element are of this gender, because this is what's always been in the story; what's NOT in the story is some pseudo-meta commentary on it.

This is the part where I sound like a grumpy old codger, but it's a moot issue. If Greg comes out tomorrow and says "yes there are X amount of [blank]-Matoran that are female/male in their tribe" great, super. But his answers, as they stand (and have for the past two years) lack any sort of substantial definition in order to make an assertion one way or the other, so we won't. -- Dorek Talk External Image 18:04, 13 August 2016 (CET)

I agree that we can't make an assertion one way or the other - but that's precisely why this revision needs to be made: Because, unlike the current phrasing, it doesn't confirm or deny that the possibility exists. It doesn't deviate in the slightest from what has been explicitly stated in-story or what Greg has said outside of the narrative: In other words, it should be the perfect middle ground. The Aimless Wanderer1 (talk) 16:49, 15 August 2016 (CET)

What if we keep the "All X-Matoran are (fe)male" phrasing on the pages, but add footnotes that mention that exceptions are a possibility? We've got the Notes system all working and everything, and it seems like a good way to make note of factoids that aren't quite canon (like the contest masks on Masks of Power!). --Angel Bob (talk) 17:33, 15 August 2016 (CET)

I think that's also a reasonable alternative - I'll vote in favor of either this or Morris' proposal, depending on whichever option everyone else is more satisfied by. The Aimless Wanderer1 (talk) 05:43, 16 August 2016 (CET)

I've got to go with Dorek on this one - the metaphorical Schrodinger's cat is and has been dead for a while. can we not exhume the body please? If we HAVE to change something (i don't think we should bother) all we should do is remove any sort of qualifier: just say "X-matoran are (fe)male". or leave out the sentence entirely. Intelligence4 (talk) 08:23, 25 August 2016 (CET)

For better or for worse, this body's already been exhumed for more than two weeks - and it seems that another autopsy is required for this matter.
With all due respect, the last time I checked this Wiki's purpose is to objectively report ALL information and trivia about BIONICLE - even if a statement of Greg's is just theoretical or even outright non-canon, it needs to at least be mentioned in a footnote as a piece of trivia, irrespective of fans' personal feelings about it. Otherwise, this Wiki is not only failing to report all aspects of the truth, but we are deliberately choosing to ignore or cherry-pick information - and I think it goes without saying that that is not an acceptable practice.

Also, out of curiosity: Outside of Ask Greg, is it ever explicitly established that any of the five main male elements can ONLY be male? Because if I remember correctly, Ga-Matoran are the only type out of the primary six who were ever stated to be exclusively monogender. If that is correct, you might be onto something with removing or at least revising the "all male" sentences. --The Aimless Wanderer1 (talk) 16:21, 25 August 2016 (CET)

Why don't we leave everything invariably? We don't need half canon informations on the pages, so everything should remain invariably. -- Surel-Nuva (Talk) 16:37, 25 August 2016 (CET)

But we already DO have plenty of information on pages that is of dubious or nonexistent canonicity - we just put it in the Notes section, separate from the article proper. Which is PRECISELY what Angel Bob and I are proposing we do with this piece of information. I'm NOT saying we should declare the fact as canon - it's not our place to decide that. All we have to do is record (where relevant) the fact that Greg has said it. The canonicity of his statement is debatable, but our duty to report it is not. The Aimless Wanderer1 (talk) 17:27, 25 August 2016 (CET)

But wasn't it stated that Av-Matoran were the only breed that isn't monogender? That would mean that the gender of any Matoran, Toa, or Turaga (besides Orde) is an indicator of which gender their element is. -- Toa Jala Converse 04:37, 26 August 2016 (CET)
Fair point, I hadn't considered that. Still, my other points remain valid. We need to at least include Greg's statement on the pages where it's relevant. --The Aimless Wanderer1 (talk) 14:26, 26 August 2016 (CET)

I have to say, if we were to begin making notes for everything Greg said was "possible" we'd have a great deal of work on our hands. --777stairs (talk) 02:03, 7 September 2016 (CET)

I'm with 777stairs. Well said! -- Toa Jala Converse 05:09, 8 September 2016 (CET)
So we should instead conclusively assert that they're IMpossible? I'm sorry, but that doesn't sound too logical. The Aimless Wanderer1 (talk) 22:57, 9 September 2016 (CET)
I think we should leave it the way it is. -- Toa Jala Converse 06:17, 10 September 2016 (CET)
We aren't "asserting" anything. We're simply neglecting to mention it because it would set a tedious precedent. Greg applies "possible" to anything he isn't in the mood to deal with at the moment (something less definitive even than his commonly used "I guess"). To include this tidbit would mean we have to include mentions every time Greg says something is "possible". Some pages would need whole sections devoted to the fan speculation brought before Greg. I'm not necessarily saying it's a bad thing--just that it would be hard and the BS01 staff has elected against doing so at the moment.
AimlessWanderer, I know you mean well. But I've read this entire section, evaluating both sides and I still don't feel like there's a need at this point. --777stairs (talk) 15:58, 10 September 2016 (CET)
I'm going to go farther and say it'd be a bad thing: making a note of every little fan theory is not what this wiki is for. not to mention the fact that bionicle is over, and we're really documenting what already happened at this point, not stuff that can come in the future. any new content is going to be fan content, and mata nui knows that fans are going to write whatever the blazes they want. we've had this discussion several times, let's not drag this out anymore.Intelligence4 (talk) 15:28, 12 September 2016 (CET)
I respect where you're coming from, 777stairs, but the thing is we've already approved the mention of said tidbit and others like it on plenty of other pages, and obviously we can't exactly hunt down and delete all of them. So really, we've long since crossed the Rubicon on this matter.

But even ignoring that contentious matter, I still don't see why we can't simply say "all are male, with no known exceptions" - is that really so drastic a change that it's worth an entire page's worth of debate? The Aimless Wanderer1 (talk) 21:55, 12 September 2016 (CET)

"The Awakening"

(I would have put this on Talk:Velika, but that page keeps giving me an error message.)

Greg seems to have given an unofficial name to Velika's cognitive revolution: "the Awakening". That got me wondering: do you think we should make an Events page for it? After all, it was a pretty darn important development in the overall saga. Or should we wait for more information (dates, etc.)? --Angel Bob (talk) 17:11, 30 July 2014 (CEST)

Giving this a bump, since I think I've kinda buried it with all my edits in the past few hours. Sorry. Anyway, what do you guys think? --Angel Bob (talk) 00:20, 31 July 2014 (CEST)
This is what I don't like about how Greg just seems to be giving in to fan suggestions lately. I'd almost think he was kidding there.

But this subject has been barely touched on, if at all in the story, so I don't think it would be really worth a mention. --Vartemp 02:15, 31 July 2014 (CEST)

Fans are calling it that? What fans? I have never seen that used before.
Also it would probably get confused with Mata Nui's Awakening, but it's an interesting idea nonetheless. AFC it =P -- I AM THE DOREK do not truffle with me 02:20, 31 July 2014 (CEST)
Yeah, I have no idea where he got that name from. I've been calling it the "cognitive revolution", as I'm sure you're aware, but that hasn't really caught on. XD I see your point about Mata Nui's Reawakening, though... Hmm. I'll make a sandbox, though. --Angel Bob (talk) 03:01, 31 July 2014 (CEST)