Talk:Galvatron (G1)

He has a weird tendency to aim at his own troops.

Galvatron 2

What you have cavalierly retiled 'Galvatron IV' (Rhythms of Darkness) was explicitly called Galvatron 2 in Alignment, like as an actual title or somejunk. (It's confusing.) So a specific number has meaning in reference to this character, and his numbering should not be reassigned for aesthetic reasons- doing so removes meaning.

Also, we have at least 1 explicit letters page reference (Backed up, IIRC by the Titan Compilation recap pages) saying he's the same incarnation of the character as the one from Perchance to Dream.

The 2nd Future-Galvie is difficult. I don't object toc alling him III, but since the numbers kinda have meaning for the other two (and reflect a need to label two distinct individuals who visited the past, as opposed to a 3rd individual who didn't, and instead exists in a timeline where no such disambuigation was needed) I think it'd be better to say "Also, a new Galvatron showed up int he future after Straxus died." -Derik 12:22, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Yeah. Who numbered all these Galvatrons? The Rhythms of Darkness one is specifically Galvatron II. None of the others officially got any numbers. (Galvatron II gets his own page, as well.) --ItsWalky 15:09, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, that's why I requested an expert come in and rework what I wrote. I was mostly going by what Cliffy wrote at the Archive ( http://www.tfarchive.com/comics/faq/#2q ). The extent of *my* actual knowledge of Marvel Comics UK Galvatron goes no further than Target: 2006 and Perchance to Dream.--DrSpengler 21:38, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

IDW Galvatron

So, not spoiling too much be IDW Galvatron has been confirmed to not only not be Megatron, but to not even have had anything to do with Megatron, ever. I knida lean toward giving him his own page. Thoughts?--71.235.136.203 10:59, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to say no. Galvatron II gets his own page because he's explicitly a separate entity from a world which has already had a Galvatron. I see him in the same light as I see TM2 Dinobot. IDW Galvatron may be a different concept, but he's still just a new continuity's take on the character, and that's nothing new. Chip 15:57, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't know. He's got his own background, and though originally he only was in his Spotlight, he's about to get a lot more screentime. Giving him his own page would mean we could give the new character design a good central place and separate his unique backstory from his fiction appearances.--Rosicrucian^Talk 19:54, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

I say we keep him here for reasons that Chip stated. He is an incarnation of his G1 self, even if he doesn't evolve from Megatron. --MistaTee 20:04, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Splitting?

Now we got Goldbug (IDW) now, I'd like to propose splitting the IDW section into "Galvatron (IDW)". --TX55^TALK 00:33, 23 July 2009 (EDT)

IDW Goldbug needed a separate page because G1 Goldbug was simply an extension of G1 Bumblebee, and so he was part of G1 Bumblebee's page. Galvatron is already a separate page from Megatron. Lots of characters have contradictory backstories within a single page. - Cattleprod 00:31, 23 July 2009 (EDT)

Concur. I don't see much point in splitting off another G1 Galvatron. --M Sipher 01:52, 23 July 2009 (EDT)

I am also against split. Something else to consider. Toy Galvatron is already a different character than Megatron. - Starfield 09:24, 23 July 2009 (EDT)

I agree with the splitting, he is a seperate character.71.255.161.143 21:24, 12 September 2011 (EDT)

Marvel Comics x2?

Why is there a second Marvel Comics section after Japanese continuity? That says absolutely nothing about what happened in the comics, but is instead dilled with badly-written speculation about the events of the 'toon version of the movie? Doesn't that sort of thing belong on Wikipedia, not here? -Derik 01:49, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Scramble City (toys) OVA (Japan-only)

(Note: this OVA is not canon to anything in the known universe.)

WHAT??!?? HAVE EVEN SEEN THIS? Galvatron is now where in the Scramble City OVA which should be canon no problem. What I think you are talking about are the live action TOY ADVERTISMENTS that were done in conjunction of Scramble City(I guess the ad's were a continuation of Scramble City, but all it did was re tell the story)What is described in this article does happen in these toy comercials. GALVATRON IS NO WHERE IN SCRAMBLE CITY, HE IS IN THE TOY COMMERCIALS! --Unknown IP Address

I think you're confused, Mr. Unknown IP Address. The section is titled "Scramble City (toys)" which is the name used to seperate the animated Scramble City OVA from the stop-motion OVA. Footage from the stop-motion OVA was used for toy commercials, but never the less, the footage originated in said OVA, which ISN'T canon to the animated series, though the animated Scramble City most certainly is. So, again, there is a difference between "Scramble City" and "Scramble City (toys)" as noted in the section covering Galvatron's appearance in that OVA's fiction. Scramble City (toys) was a full-length stop-motion OVA which combined stock footage from the television series with a completely new voice track, making it more than just a standard toy commercial as it is about half an hour long and tells a story. It might do you wonders to actually watch the complete Scramble City (toys) OVA before going off the handle, just so you have some semblance of a clue as to what you're talking about. You can read a detailed synopsis of the OVA here. Also, TALKING IN ALL CAPS!1!1! doesn't make you appear more intelligent, particularly when you're wrong. --DrSpengler 22:34, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

If it's just a toy commercial and isn't cannon then why should it be included in the Galvatron article? Oh and the CAPS was to indicate irritation that some NERD decided to include an actual half hour toy commercial(I say actual because, as we all know, Transformers was nothing more than a half-hour toy commercial in the guise of "cartoon"). I realize that it apparently had some sort of story, but come on it's a toy commercial...also, why the personal stab? Did you write this article? Because I wasn't trying to attack anyone, but you were, why? Are you still bitter that they killed off Optimus Prime? PS Don't go locking yourself in your bedroom. --Unkown IP Address Guy

It is canon (not "cannon", there's a difference) with itself and would qualify as a micro-continuity just like the various Big Looker storybooks and other ridiculous oddities that fill Generation 1. The fact that segments of it are stop-motion (while just as much is animated) does not mean it should be disqualified from inclusion. The fact that it marks the first appearance of Galvatron in Japan is most certainly notable. Also, if you spent a little time perusing this wiki you might notice that we actually do include the story tidbits revealed in television commercials. The fact that the Scramble City (toys) OVA was actually sold in stores and lasted a half hour makes it even more notable than television commercials. Imagine that. Furthermore, combining clips of various episodes to make new stories is something done routinely in Japanese Transformer animation, once again making the Scramble City (toys) OVA more than just a "half hour toy commercial" (though I feel like laughing every time I hear that).

The fact of the matter is, at this wiki we strive to be as comprehensive as possible, including all different continuities, large or small, whether they're canon with any primary fiction or not. That includes toy packaging blurbs, television commercials, pack-in comics and, yes, the bizarre stop-motion OVA such as "Scramble City (toys)". --DrSpengler 05:24, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Wow.

In terms of the Marvel Continuities, should any mention be made of the characters appearances in Marvel's Transformers the Movie Adaption? Even though they are out of the normal continuity of the comics, a lot of the characters like Hot Rod, Galavtron, and Blurr were introduced there before anywhere else in the Marvel comics and the Marvel Universe profiles even make mention of this. Or would that really just confuse things? -RiddlerJ October 19 2007

Weapon name

What was Galvatron's weapon called again? A chemical-electric laser cannon? -- SFH 05:25, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

In the 1989 Annual, Megatron's and Galvatron's weapons were called "Fusion cannon" and "particle accelerator cannon" but I forget which one was which. Takeshi357 20:53, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

In his bio and/or TFU profile, Galv's cannon is said to be a "laser that shoots chemically-induced, direct current electricity." --Thylacine 2000 22:04, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

It was a "particle cannon" on the cover of UK #118, and the Wreckers called it a "particle accelerator cannon" in #172. --Xaaron 22:44, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

IIRC it's also been called a proton rocket cannon and a proton cannon. A UK letters page suggested the tech specs are the most accurate of the five names/descriptions. Timrollpickering 19:25, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Universe

Anyone know WHY galvatron's altmode is changed from a cannon/gun to a tank?--Grand-majin 18:48, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Because Hasbro hates you. --ItsWalky 18:51, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

That's something i know for a long time.--Grand-majin 18:52, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Because Hasbro has said that part of the motivation behind the Universe line is to pick up "realistic modern vehicle modes" when the Movie line ends. Galvatron's old form doesn't fit that criteria, but a tank does. --ZacWilliam 18:54, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Considering that tank mode is hardly what I consider "realistic", I see no reason for the change...Takeshi357 20:48, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

That is why we make fun of this reasoning in the toy's description.--Rosicrucian^Talk 20:53, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

His cannon-on-treads mode was reasonably close to a tank anyway, and this design allows them to pull off a legitimate transformation and the grey-to-purple color swap--both of which are firsts for this character and his homages. If anything, I was mostly surprised they used a vehicle not from the U.S., E.U., or Russia. --Thylacine 2000 22:07, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

http://www.tfw2005.com/boards/transformers-news-rumors/223379-takaratomy-staff-interview-generations-2009-vol-1-translation.html It's interesting that this article states that they abandoned the tripple changing aspect because shockwave from the animated line was made at the same time.--Sunjumper 16:05, 22 September 2009 (EDT)

The Making of the Transformers Visual Universe: Galvatron, Rodimus Prime

The link is dead for over a year.--Sunjumper 12:15, 4 July 2009 (EDT)

The number of Marvel Galvatrons

We say there are "between 2 and 5 different Galvatrons" but mention only four - is the fifth one assuming Aspects of Evil: Unicron features a different Galvatron to AoE: Galvatron (as the TF Archive FAQ does) or are we into the mess of whether there's yet more timeline divergences around the movie that could make the Target: 2006 Galvatron either a standalone or multiple predecessor? (My head hurts on all this.) Timrollpickering 15:01, 2 August 2009 (EDT)

IDW split proposal take2

Ok now I do think we should split the idw Galvatron from this page due to his origin being completely different and that he has a completely different personality from all the other incarnation he had. I think he should ether go to "Galvatron (idw)" or "Galvatron (Dead Universe)" or something similar. I think he would benefit from that move simply for the aforementioned difference in personality and origin and his goals. Dead Metal 17:03, 11 August 2009 (EDT)

IDW seems like the less unwieldy parenthetical, and it's consistent with Goldbug.--Rosicrucian^Talk 17:06, 11 August 2009 (EDT)

Agreed. Also, "Galvatron (G1)" would then be too broad a title for this article, so it should change to something like "Galvatron (Megatron)". - Jackpot 17:14, 11 August 2009 (EDT)

The reason I was okay with IDW Galvatron staying on Galvatron (G1) is because it was already a separate page from Megatron. If Galvatron was fully integrated into Megatron's page the way Goldbug was with Bumblebee's, than a new page would be justified.

I don't see why separate origins make any difference. Do we need separate pages for the Dinobots who were built on Earth and the ones who were from Cybertron? - Cattleprod 17:24, 11 August 2009 (EDT)

It's less about "origin" and more about "identity." If the fact that a character used to be a different character is germane enough to who they are now, then an incarnation where that's not the case could be considered to have a sufficiently different identity to merit his own page. At least, that's how I read this proposal. For example, nobody has brought up the fact that different incarnations of Cyclonus (G1) show evidence of originating from different characters, because Cyclonus's personality seems totally unaffected by his previous "self." Goldbug is a lot more clear-cut in that regard, and Galvatron is kind of a fuzzy middle.

My personal standard is the "intro test": If you find that writing a universal intro requires an excessive amount of qualifiers or paring-down to suit all the incarnations in an article, then maybe not all of those incarnations belong. But that's entirely my personal take.

- Jackpot 17:31, 11 August 2009 (EDT)

I will enjoy splitting Grimlock into (Marvel) and (Sunbow), then. --ItsWalky 17:40, 11 August 2009 (EDT)

FWIW, that would require splitting virtually all of the 1987 Headmaster character articles. -- Repowers 17:39, 11 August 2009 (EDT)

What about tech spec bio micro-continuity Galvatron? That guy is much closer to IDW Galvatron than cartoon/Marvel Galvatron. - Starfield 17:59, 11 August 2009 (EDT)

Two words. "Cartoon Constructicons". --M Sipher 13:35, 12 August 2009 (EDT)

I know I kinda brought this one up in Goldbug, but upon consideration, I don't think it needs to be split. Goldbug needed his own article because he was a separate character from Bumblebee. But IDW Galvatron doesn't need one because he's a separate character from Megatron, as are most/all of the others, to a greater/lesser degree. We need an article on Galvatron the character, who exists separate from Megatron. And we've got one. While IDW Galvatron is a completely separate being from his Megatron, the principle is essentially the same as Marvel Galvatron being separate because he existed alongside his Megatron

And Galvatron (Megatron) is pretty ridiculous.

User:Eire 22.59 Aug 11 09 (UTC)

Here's my take on the matter: either we split all the IDW characters to their own separate articles, or we keep them all in their G1 articles. Picking and choosing which characters are the same and which are different is incredibly arbitrary and doesn't adhere at all to wiki standards, not to mention being confusing as all hell. -- Dark T Zeratul 18:08, 11 August 2009 (EDT)

Being selective is not the same as being arbitrary. There are standards and tests we can apply here. Goldbug basically just Bumblebee with some cosmetic changes. Take away the Bumblebee aspect, and you've removed everything which defines the character. Galvatron is less clear-cut, but he's one of a rare handful of borderline cases. Most IDW guys follow their previous incarnations far more neatly, however. Trying to apply a one-size-fits-all standard to such a diverse set of circumstances? Now that is arbitrary. It's saying, "Well, we're going to make our rules neat and simple, no matter how messy and complex the reality we're trying to describe is!" Repowers 11:23, 12 August 2009 (EDT)

I'm in complete agreement with Rob here. If we've learned anything at all since this wiki went up, it's that this franchise can and will throw up something that bucks "standards", and that it is impossible to come up with an actual broad applies-to-everything rule that doesn't overcomplicate things horribly. I mean... if "different origins" is really supposed to be a standard, then are we going to have three different pages for the G1 cartoon Constructicons alone? It's not just saying "Well, we're going to make our rules neat and simple, no matter how messy and complex the reality we're trying to describe is!", it's saying "Well, we're going to make our rules neat and simple, no matter how messy and complex it's going to make finding a goddamn thing on this wiki!". Sometimes, duct tape and chewing gum is the optimum fix for a problem, no renovating the house required. We're dealing with a problem that seriously only affects like %0.1 of our character database if that. Baby, bathwather, etc. --M Sipher 13:34, 12 August 2009 (EDT)

Galvatron's multiplicity is too well-established for us to start splitting this page up now. We already include Time Wars Galv and Aspects Of Evil Galv--and the latter is specifically the opposite of the former, but they're both the same character. We never see where Worlds Collide's bizarrely Unicron-asskissing Galv's came from, so maybe he's no more Megatron than IDW's was, or only as much as Henkei's was (basically just Megatron consciously cosplaying). We split off Galvatron II because word of God comes out and says "you're not the REAL Galvatron, Mister Future Doppelganger Dude."

Fun fact: in that same conversation, Unicron says the Unicron that GalvII had known "was a Unicron I may or may not become," and Hook/Line/Sinker even say it was a "different Unicron." Doesn't that kinda... not mesh with the whole multiversal singularity thing? (No, there will never be an end to the shit-stirring).--Thylacine 2000 22:00, 11 August 2009 (EDT)

I'd love to understand why Galvatron II is split off. He's just another alternate-universe version of G1 Galvatron, isn't he? Why is his identity more distinct that any other G1 Galvatron? -Crockalley 10:58, 12 August 2009 (EDT)

Because he has a toy of his own? --KilMichaelMcC 11:04, 12 August 2009 (EDT)

But, he's still a G1 Galvatron, isn't he? So you mean, if we got a toy of IDW Galvaron, he'd get his own page? What about the new Masterpiece Grimlock who's colored like Marvel Grimlock and comes with the crown? He's different than cartoon Grimlock. Should he get his own page? -Crockalley 11:18, 12 August 2009 (EDT)

Galvatron II has a different name and was a stranger in the universe his fiction continuity came from. Dead Metal 11:34, 12 August 2009 (EDT)

But the universe where Galvatron II came from is still part of the G1 family, isn't it? This article covers G1 Galvatrons from the cartoon, several Marvel comic versions, as well as Worlds Collide Galvatron. And IDW Galvatron. I don't understand why Galvatron II is an exception. He was created in the same way as comic and cartoon Galvatron, and he's from a G1 universe. He has more in common with most G1 Galvatrons than IDW Galvy, but IDW Galvy is here, and GII isn't. I'm sorry if I'm causing trouble, I just don't get it. -Crockalley 12:26, 12 August 2009 (EDT)

Galvatron II has an official designation, and he's the second Galvatron to appear within a single continuity, which is the entire reason he got a distint title in the first place. (Originally from Alignment... IIRC; The name stemmed from a need for characters in-universe to distinguish which Galvatron they were talking about.)

I'd just like to underline... this is not an either/or decision. We're not really discussing "Split to Galvatron (IDW) or keep as is." The article as-is is a mess. I'd also like to point out that Galvatron II, despite originating in the Marvel comics, appears in at least two continuities, which is the fundamental problem I have with a publisher-specific (IDW) designation. So if any other non-Megatron Galvatron shows up, he needs to get his own article too? Does Galvatron from "Worlds Collide" need to be "Galvatron (Dreamwave)"? We don't know he was ever Megatron. -Derik 12:53, 12 August 2009 (EDT)

To build on Derik's point: If we didn't have an in-universe sequence of in-universe characters COMING OUT AND SAYING "this dude isn't the real Galvatron", Galvatron II would be treated as the real Galvatron and would be on this page. But we do have that, so he isn't here.

As for all the other multiples of Galvatron.... the trouble is, he really may be the exception to any rule we could come up with, just because it IS so established over so many years that there are a lot of him from a lot of different dimensions. Between "Rhythms," "Time Wars," and "Aspects of Evil" (and TWICE in that one!), the multiverse concept was demonstrated with Galvatron about 13 years before it was really applied to the rest of TF storytelling as a whole. I do not believe it would be possible--much less worthwhile--to retroactively give the CSI treatment to every little Galvatron variant and try to figure out if he was the "real" one. We cut out the one that the in-story characters say isn't the real Galvatron; but there's not much consistent ground on which to try to cut out anyone else. --Thylacine 2000 13:12, 12 August 2009 (EDT)

Looking at it the thing with Galvatron is insane, in the Marvel comics we have a whole army and then there is that DW one, who I personally don't believe is Galvatron as we know him from the 80's, he's too calm and not insane. So if we do decide to split this article I propose following designations:

• Galvatron (G1) for the cartoon and first comic version
• Galvatron (reset) for the one that is mentioned by the dyeing Rodimus Prime
• Galvatron (Earthforce) for the earthforce one
• Galvatron (WC) for the Worlds Collide one
• Galvatron (DU) for the idw one

Fuck I can see us dividing by zero. Why can't they just stick to one thing?Dead Metal 13:28, 12 August 2009 (EDT)

Now, I don't understand the idea of Galvatron II not being the real Galvatron. He's the real Galvatron from the universe he comes from, isn't he? And the universe he's from is a G1 universe, isn't it? Just because the stories he takes part in are mostly set in a different G1 universe doesn't mean Galvatron II isn't a valid G1 Galvatron. -Crockalley 19:24, 12 August 2009 (EDT)

Galvatron II is a second Galvatron in the same continuity. He's valid, but he is an independent Galvatron from the first Galvatron. User:Eire 00.52 Aug 13 09 (UTC)

I think I understand the reason for the separate articles, but it's still a bit silly. The whole thing revolves around the two Galvatrons in Marvel comics. Both Marvel Galvatrons are G1 Galvatrons from separate G1 continuities, just like cartoon Galvatron (US, Japan), Henkei Galvatron, etc are each from separate G1 continuities, but we don't separate those articles. It seems weird that the two or three Galvatrons who have a very similar origin (Galvatrons I & II and cartoon) are separated, but dissimilar Galvatrons (like IDW) are on this page. I understand that he has been pointed out as a separate Galvatron in-fiction, but he's still a G1 Galvatron. To shut myself up, I'll point out that, technically, Gavatron II is a part of the Galvatron (G1) article, but is pulled out of the article in a similar fashion as Optimus Prime (G1)/toys. Sort of a "Galvatron (G1)/II" situation. -Crockalley 21:45, 12 August 2009 (EDT)

Bingo. Your last point is exactly what the Galvatron II article is. The reason it exists, as far as I can tell, is because NOT having it would mean basically telling two different "life stories" in the same series summary. Yeah, there are multiple Galvies in the Marvel summary anyway, and the variation between them can be argued, but from the moment Galvy II was "born" (in 2005, not 2006 like the other comic Galvies), he was on a separate track. The fact that he has a canonically different designator that we can use for a title is icing on that cake. - Jackpot 21:51, 12 August 2009 (EDT)

I think Dead Metals proposed splits would be the best idea. We're establishing that a bunch of characters from G1 say that Galv II is not the original means that he gets a separate page,yet being created before Megatron seems to establish him as the same person as the orig, which is not possible unless he goes from G to M and then back to G.Burnout 06:56, 27 February 2011 (EST)Burnout

This proposal is from two and a half years ago. That we haven't followed through clearly indicates that common sense and logic have prevailed. Just read Crockalley and Jackpot's posts to know why this extra splitting is a dumb idea. --Detour 07:14, 27 February 2011 (EST)

New Disambig

I find it a rather awkward read. Also, "Aspects of Evil" had ANOTHER Galvatron from an alternate future of the Marvel universe. I tend to think the original disambig was good enough. --Thylacine 2000 09:39, 4 October 2010 (EDT)

While I can see the argument that a disambig3.5 fits the situation better, I have to agree that the phrasing actually used is not very good. --Khajidha 10:32, 4 October 2010 (EDT)

"Aspects of Evil" Galvatron is almost certainly just Galvatron II. --ItsWalky 10:44, 4 October 2010 (EDT)

Alternate timeline thereof, but yes. -Derik 10:45, 4 October 2010 (EDT)

I'm not sure how much of an "alternate of Galvatron II" you can become while still being the character, since the whole point of his existence is that he is an alternate within specific conditions. Galvatron II exists insofar as he helped Unicron destroy Cybertron circa 1986; in AoE, Cybertron still exists around 2300 and only then does Unicron try to eat it. I'm not sure what else we could use to tell II apart from I, and it seems just as likely that this is actually just a "III". And, uh, apparently he's also Straxus. --Thylacine 2000 22:09, 4 October 2010 (EDT)

It looks like Galvatron was a G2 Autobot

Judging by his watch package, Galvatron was a G2 Autobot. - Starfield 00:15, 18 December 2010 (EST)

Split

I was going to split the G1 cartoon bit out for Galvy too, but I am not sure how to do that with the whole "Who is Galvatron?" part. And as an aside, if I were to split out a part for Kup's page, should I give precedence to the toy section for being the toy section or the cartoon section for being the longest section? Geewunling 05:57, 9 July 2011 (EDT)

Split take 3

I think we should split all marvel Galvatron's into seperate articles or just rewrite it so that there are 5 Galvatrons listed instead of three since that's how many there really are. That ends the Marvel conflict.

We should split or note that Dreamwave's World's Collide Galvatron may not be Megatron.

We should split IDW's Galvatron since their Galvatron is definitely a seperate character from the rest of the Galvatrons listed on this page.

Before we argue over all that, please note that the lead section of the article says that "Galvatron was once Megatron" and that he was "Born from the fires of Unicron himself".

IDW Galvatron has no relation to Unicron nor Megatron.

Dreamwave's Galvatron's identity is unknown and may be like the other Galvatron's who may or may not be Megatrons.

And even if they are, they are from parallel universes, and are seperate entities, and merit seperate articles.71.162.108.63 17:19, 5 December 2011 (EST)

No. Stop pushing this. —Interrobang 17:26, 5 December 2011 (EST)

Another thing I could say is to keep track of all these Galvatrons is use a suite. But lets work this out.

I know I'm requesting to much. So no split for now. We should atleast rewrite somethings to make them more accurate. Like the Marvel section.

But lets wait to see what other people think of this. Then we can agree on something.71.162.108.63 17:32, 5 December 2011 (EST)

What is there to "rewrite"? The Galvatron page has been fine for years now and the debate about whether the incarnations are the "same character" played out several times. We're not splitting (excepting cases of size) and we likely never will. —Interrobang 17:36, 5 December 2011 (EST)

Yeah. But as long as you do that, the lead will be innaccurate.71.162.108.63 17:41, 5 December 2011 (EST)

Because of one incarnation? We've lived with worse. —Interrobang 17:45, 5 December 2011 (EST)

Would it be better for the anon to actually present a draft proposal? I mean, it does seem to be a major issue if inaccurate information is being presented, especially on a high-profile character like this.192.249.47.196 18:41, 5 December 2011 (EST)

We have had "drafts" and numerous discussions about this. Read this talk page and find something more useful to do than rehashing old arguments. —Interrobang 18:49, 5 December 2011 (EST)

It's not because of one incarnation, it's because of 8 (5 Marvel, 1 IDW, 1 Dreamwave, 1 Ladybird Books).71.162.108.63 20:39, 5 December 2011 (EST)

Do something, anything, other than this, please. Find a new pet project, one that hopefully won't waste our time. --ItsWalky 21:49, 5 December 2011 (EST)

Notes

Shouldn't the notes relating to the G1 cartoon Galvatron be split to that page?71.255.166.125 17:23, 9 March 2012 (EST)

Hi, Noob saibot red. Being blocked means we don't want you here. —Interrobang 17:33, 9 March 2012 (EST)

While that is true, he actually has a point here. I've moved the cartoon continuity specific notes to the cartoon continuity page. --Khajidha 13:00, 30 April 2012 (EDT)

Marvel page?

Since Galvatron had a big role in the Marvel universe, shouldn't we split it into Galvatron (G1)/Marvel Comics continuity?71.255.163.24 13:59, 25 August 2012 (EDT)

IMHO the article isn't big enough to warrant splitting more of it off. --abates 18:54, 25 August 2012 (EDT)

I couldn't help but to notice that the section header says events taking place in the UK comics are in italics...and then the entire section is in italics. Wouldn't it be better to just have the section renamed "Marvel UK"? The single US comic is already under it's own subsection anyway. Takeshi357 (talk) 20:41, 27 July 2015 (EDT)

IDW Apperances

Have Galvatron and Megatron ever appeared in the same story in IDW?Transfan 1992 18:31, 2 December 2012 (EST)

Yes. --ItsWalky 18:52, 2 December 2012 (EST)

Name one, because I can't find one.Transfan 1992 15:49, 10 December 2012 (EST)

Devastation issue 6. - Starfield 16:00, 10 December 2012 (EST)

Galvatron II linkout

I feel like the bit that links to Galvatron II should have an image from the Marvel comic,rather than the stuff added after-the-fact to him. Anyone got any good ideas? The last page of issue 71, perhaps? Escargon (talk) 17:56, 24 February 2019 (EST)