Talk:Caliber Mini-Con Team

The Caliber campaign was Japan-only, and had nothing to do with the name of Sonic Convoy's attack. Wing Saber is not Sonic Bomber, Wing Saber does not use Galaxy Calibur as an attack...Cybertron is not Galaxy Force. This is all misleading and needs to be corrected and refined. -Bodycount

I suggest that you eat me. - RolonBolon 05:19, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Suffice to say, I completely and utterly disagree with your contentions. I see no VALID reason to differentiate them. The attack name is something that can be researched and correctd if neccessary, but everything else stays. --M Sipher 05:20, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm confused, is Bodycount objecting to unclear terminology between US and Japanese versions (misleading) or is he attempting to say "this is flat out wrong, you're refering to the wrong character." Because if it's the latter, then the Law of the Playground dictates that you must now eat him by way of apology. -Derik 05:23, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

What he seems to be saying is that we should have separate pages for Sonic Bomber (GF) and Wing Saber (UT), because they're in different continuities. But this will by definition be a Hasbro-fiction-centric site, because (surprise surprise) none of us live in Japan. So Bodycount can put up or shut up. - RolonBolon 05:27, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

We do acknowledge Japanese information, and the Wiki would be amiss if it did not mention that Galaxy Force is in a new continuity in Japan. I am not sure if this is the page to do so. (Wing Saber's page, yes.) Sonic Bomber is called Wing Saber in English, and this is an English wiki, so I don't see the problem. --ItsWalky 05:31, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

I admit that I do, to an extent, see his problem. Because Cybertron is SUCh a different continuity, with characters often, frankly, being different characters in the US... do these guys even EXIST in terms of Cybertron's view of continuity? Yet here we are blithely relatign them to the US versions of the characters.

Then I just think he can eat me.

If you were to acknowledge his view, shifting a summary of the toy's availability, currently in paragraph 3 or something, to the openign sentence of the toy section to make it clear they are japanese exclusives of the GF line, much like the '1 sentence intro' standard for entries, wouldnt' be an awful/terrible thing. In fact, given TF's sometimes fraught countery-specific continuities, I think noting toy availability/distribution as a central point of the Toy section is entirely... responsible? -Derik