Talk:Caliburn (Armada)

Am I losing my mind? How can Caliburn be repurposed as Caliburn? I've read the Repurposing page and it makes a lot of sense. Using a blue Transmetal Rattrap as Transmetal Packrat, sure, or taking Slice and calling him Shattered Glass Wheeljack. But trying to claim that Caliburn the minion of Megazarak is a repurpose of Caliburn the minion of Megazarak seems completely asinine to me. Am I wrong? I thought the wiki was trying to stop falling all over itself to pat itself on the back about how clever it is by obfuscating the truth with some technical definition. I dunno. Someone else weigh in here. Can Caliburn be repurposed as Caliburn just because one guy is in a Unicron Trilogy-verse and another is in a RID-verse? --Giggidy (talk) 23:33, 13 September 2015 (EDT)

Consider Beast Wars: Uprising Steamhammer, Thunderblast, and Tankor. S.H.I.E.L.D. Agent 47 (talk) 23:41, 13 September 2015 (EDT)

Yes, exactly. Using the character in a new continuity isn't the same thing as repurposing. (Except maybe Shattered Glass. Case-by-case there I guess.) Repurposing seems like a very specific thing... an old toy becomes a new, different character. Using an old toy in a new place isn't that. It's maybe something. Continuity-reuse perhaps. Or maybe there's a better term. Probably there is. But that's not what repurposing is. At least, it shouldn't be. --Giggidy (talk) 23:47, 13 September 2015 (EDT)

Unless said character is a dimension hopper, anytime you place a character from one continuity to another is a repurpose. Some examples are G1 Lockdown repurposed from ROTF Lockdown, G1 Bulkhead repurposed from Prime Bulkhead, RID Hound repurposed from G1 Hound, etc. It doesn't always have to be a brand new character. (Crossblades) (talk) 21:10, 14 September 2015 (EDT)

So you've asserted. But you haven't given any reason why that assertion should be true. And it's an assertion I reject and disagree with. Let us not forget that the idea of continuity families is a construct created for wiki organization, one that the fiction has shown is arbitrary and subject to blurred lines and drift Basically, you haven't given an argument, you've just stated "I think this is what repurpose means." --Giggidy (talk) 21:32, 14 September 2015 (EDT)

Giggidy, I don't know how much of an argument you want me to give since I'm only stating what I've seen on this wiki, not on what I think. Someone made a note for Armada Caliburn stating that he was repurposed from Universe Caliburn, so I added the repurposed toy category cause I thought someone forgot to put it in. But hell, if you want to remove it, go right ahead. It's not something I'm lose sleep over. I was just curious on why it wasn't added in the first place. User:Crossblades 22:25, 14 September 2015

I don't think you've given any reason why it can't be true, other than you don't like it. I think the term is not only apt when you take an Armada toy and write them as a Primax guy, but is also useful in circumstances like these. When you look at the page without that note, it'd be easy to think this is the original use of the toy, when it is not. --ItsWalky (talk) 22:20, 14 September 2015 (EDT)

I feel a little intimidated to argue with you, since it's kind of your wiki. But my argument was simple. The wiki itself defines repurposing as "the practice of using an existing toy to represent a different character than originally intended." I don't see how Caliburn can be considered a different character than himself just because he's in a different story. Especially if he looks the same, acts the same, is the minion to the same guy. If you think it's useful to note that the same toy is used in two different continuity families, I can sort of see how that might be useful. But I strongly feel like it should be some other term than repurposing. --Giggidy (talk) 00:46, 15 September 2015 (EDT)