Talk:Light Cycle

I was wondering if it would be okay to link to the Extreme-G article, maybe under &ldquo;Other Uses,&rdquo; as you'll notice that G-Bikes were very likely inspired by Light Cycles. &#151; NRen2k5 21:13, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Dominos Video Game.png
Image:Dominos Video Game.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 05:58, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Inspiration
There is a chance it was inspired by 1976 Gremlin game Blockade, though I have nothing to backup this claim ;). gamepaly description there http://www.mameworld.net/maws/romset/blockade ca1 (talk) 17:04, 24 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I always assumed it was based on Snake. Neither game is even mentioned in the article.

Editing Hypocrisy and Insertion of Gender Politics
@Zxcvbnm added the following message to the talk page of this IP address (my place of work): "Please do not remove information from articles, as you did to Light Cycle. Wikipedia is not censored, and content is not removed on the sole grounds of perceived offensiveness. Please discuss this issue on the article's talk page to reach consensus rather than continuing to remove the disputed material. If the content in question involves images, you also have the option to configure Wikipedia to hide the images that you may find offensive. Thank you. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 20:34, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]"

So be it. Let's talk.

You, @Zxcvbnm, recreated the entire article in 2022. Instead of restoring the content that had existed prior to several edits (each of which seemed to have shrank the article, more or less), you instead sought fit to discard (rather than restore) that content (see: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Light_Cycle&diff=1078602013&oldid=299862888). You then used the opportunity to insert gender politics into your recreated article where none had existed previously. When I then removed the very gender politics that you inserted, you called it vandalism and reverted not only my removal of those gender politics, but also a subsequent revision made by another user (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Light_Cycle&diff=1139181231&oldid=1138601593).

Was any of this done with any discussion? No. Was there any existing consensus? Not really (though one might argue that the revision prior to the the several shrinking edits served as a sort of status quo). You replaced the article in its entirety and then tell others that they have to first discuss things and reach consensus before they can replace a piece of your replacement article?

Would it be reasonable to ask you to merge in all of the content from prior to the multiple edits (that shrank the article) prior to your having replaced the entire article? Probably not.

Do not be a hypocrite. Remove the gender politics. If you want to reinsert them, then do as you say and start a discussion on whether or not such things should be added to this article, and await consensus. 204.191.243.35 (talk) 19:08, 14 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Oh, I am more than willing to state my reasoning. There is no indication the source used is an unreliable one. It is a book published by Bloomsbury Publishing in London and has gone through a full editorial review. A single sentence about how the use of the motorcycle is related to gender is not undue weight and contains a legitimate insight into the movie. I don't believe it relates at all to "gender politics" as it is an objective observation that takes into account solely the author's opinion from that source. I can still be a fan of Tron and recognize it has either accidental or purposeful gender imbalance. Removal of a reliable source because you don't like it is simply censorship, especially in a drive-by manner where the article is not improved at all to make up for it. You also removed the source even where it did not mention gender.
 * The main reason I cut down the article in the first place was because it was unencyclopedic in its former state, which anyone can see by viewing the history. I had to only retain what was referenced because Wikipedia policy dictates no original research. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 19:19, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I am totally willing to remove the source if it is indeed found to be unreliable in some way. A compromise might be to more clearly state that it is that particular author's opinion, but I very much disagree on total removal from the article. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 19:32, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I would argue that the removal of something can itself be an improvement and does not necessitate replacement with something else. Consider the removal of spray-painted graffiti from a window, or the removal of a splinter from a finger.
 * "They have also been called representative of male power in the original Tron, in which it is only men that ride them, while the only female character, Lora, does not get the ability to. The speed of the Light Cycles showed male dominance and control over technology, representing the means to "escape"."
 * These two sentences seemed to rely on this one source, which does in fact mention gender in its very title:
 * Miyake, Esperanza (2018). The Gendered Motorcycle: Representations in Society, Media and Popular Culture. London: Bloomsbury Publishing. ISBN 978-1-83860-937-5 . OCLC 1090540642
 * When I removed the sentences, there was explicit reference to the source, so I removed the source. Computer programmer mentality (dynamically-allocated memory should be freed when no longer referenced). 204.191.243.35 (talk) 20:20, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, the book is about gender. See WP:OPINION. While POVs should be clearly labeled as such, they are still allowed. Amending the statement with whose POV it was would have been a sensible move in this situation, but deleting it due to "gender politics" is not. As far as I'm aware, Wikipedia has no prohibition on using books specifically about gender. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 20:36, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
 * There's an even more direct policy at WP:BIASED. "Wikipedia articles are required to present a neutral point of view. However, reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject." ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 20:38, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Having had to fend off radical ideologues and their use of others as shields and pawns, I've developed an acute sensitivity to anything that might be attempts to jam ideologies and talking points into places.
 * For that reason, I am quite wary of any compromise, much as I would be wary of any compromise that would allow the presentation of alchemy (of the kind practiced before the advent of nuclear physics) in an article about chemistry, thereby giving alchemy undue weight and consideration merely by being present there.
 * That said, I will give you the benefit of the doubt and (begrudgingly, I admit) support your idea to include the sentences with the caveat that they are explicitly indicated to be the authour's opinion. 204.191.243.35 (talk) 20:41, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Alright, I modified the wording so it sounds less like a general statement of fact. (Which it was never intended to be). Hopefully that is good enough to assuage your concern. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 22:21, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes. That reads much better. Cheers. 204.191.243.35 (talk) 22:37, 14 February 2023 (UTC)