Talk:Grimlock (RBA)

Why is this its own article? Saix (talk) 08:19, 9 May 2019 (EDT)

Because TGB made it without waiting for outside input. Heck, unless someone can point out where the two versions we have now have been explicitly shown to be separate, I'd merge all three. --Khajidha (talk) 08:26, 9 May 2019 (EDT)

Well considering the RID writers say their Grim is separate from FOC Grim, those two stay separate. And considering this Grim is going to be in the RBA cartoon (he's been in the intro since the beginning), if he ends up being incompatible with the others as well, then yeah, making a new page was the right call. -- Cyberlink420 (talk) 08:32, 9 May 2019 (EDT)

We can wait till the cartoon airs to make that decision. It's easier to split out a toy than to merge it in and delete an article. Saix (talk) 08:34, 9 May 2019 (EDT)

Have the writers shown us anything in fiction that says so? Cause "author intent" carries virtually no weight with me. --Khajidha (talk) 08:37, 9 May 2019 (EDT)

Did you even watch RID 2015? The Grimlock from that show was a natural Dinobot (instead of the product of a heinous experiment) who was a originally a Decepticon (FOC Grimlock was always an Autobot) and had a young goofy childlike personality with a fetish for punching things (unlike FOC Grimlock's harsh and grownup personality). Literally the only thing the two Grimlocks had in common were their names and T-Rex altmodes, but even the latter still differed in that it was forced upon FOC Grimlock while it was simply RID 2015 Grimlock's natural form. RID 2015 treated Grimlock's being a Dinobot as though he was a kind of Cybertronian fauna, while FOC Grimlock was a normal Cybertronian person forced into an animal form. --Sabrblade (talk) 10:17, 9 May 2019 (EDT)

And Generation 1 toy and comic Grimlock was a pre-existing Cybertronian while cartoon Grimlock was built by Wheeljack on Earth. Doesn't stop them from being the same character. --Khajidha (talk) 10:21, 9 May 2019 (EDT)

Except that the G1 comic and cartoon aren't meant to be continuations of one another and exist in the same universe, while FOC/Prime/RB/RID/RBA are (albeit with some squinting). That was the whole point of the "Aligned" continuity. -- Cyberlink420 (talk) 10:37, 9 May 2019 (EDT)

No, the point of "Aligned" was that Transformers media used the same base or general backstory for their fiction, not that they all had to be in the same continuity as how we define it. Individual characters get irreconcilable interpretations all the time in Aligned. (This isn't an argument either way; I don't really care that much about RID Grimlock not being FOC Grimlock outside of the fact that it looks more elegant to split them.) But we're getting off the point. This specific article should be at FOC Grimlock because it's basically just G1 Grimlock. Saix (talk) 11:14, 9 May 2019 (EDT)

I made it because while our best guess was that RID 2015 Grimlock was a discontinuous WFC/FOC Grimlock, we have no such starting point for RBA Grimlock; we have no way to guess which of the two - if any - RBA Grimlock is. If they clarify, then merge. I said that when I created it. In the meantime, we have a body of appearances and toys starting to form, and putting them on either existing page is simply guesswork, because AFAIK, there's no evidence to put one more justified than the other. Especially since the same people who established that RID 2015 and WFC Grimlock are separate also said it's presumably a common name. That justifies 3 as much as it justifies 2. Let's also not forget the audience here - the target RBA group would have neither watched RID 2015 nor played WFC/FOC. Bumblebee and Optimus are explicitly the same because they said so. If I'm wrong, then show your work. I'm more than willing for this to be merged back in with either Aligned Grimlock, which I made pretty clear in the Notes - hell, I'll do it myself (and really, it's a 2 minute jobs)... once we actually know. I mean, that's the entire reason all the Cyberverse pages were started; because they didn't explicitly tell us that it's a version of a pre-existing continuity. Even though many use the evergreen appearances associated with some G1 characters. If they came out and said Cyberverse is G1, then we would marge. Until they do, we leave them. Exactly the same logic applies here. TGB (talk) 11:30, 9 May 2019 (EDT)

Or you know, we could have waited for Grimlock to actually appear in the show before editing/creating an article for him, but no, we have to jump the gun on everything. Escargon (talk) 13:05, 9 May 2019 (EDT)

This is a lot of overthought about a toy. Put it on FOC Grimlock's page because the color schemes match up then move it or split it out based on information gained later. As is, you assumed that he had to be a super duper new character because... he might be? Saix (talk) 13:45, 9 May 2019 (EDT)

You mean wait like how we waited with Salvage]? Or like we did with Quickshadow? And Strongarm? And Fixit? We did exactly this with the identity uncertainty surrounding Cyberverse. Like Optimus Prime and Megatron and Prowl and Soundwave and... this random guy. If anyone can actually explain how the initiative I took is in any way different/wrong, and how you draw the distinction/line, then I will happily blank and/or delete or redirect the page. Otherwise, it seems like people are demonstrating why this needs its own page for now at least, since literally nobody can agree whether it should go on FOC or RID Grimlock. I think this Talk page adeptly makes the case. TGB (talk) 04:44, 10 May 2019 (EDT)

What are you even on about now? Your first batch is new characters and your second batch is a new major cartoon (and the consideration wasn't really "are they G1", it was whether it was still Aligned or not). Neither cases apply to this. Saix (talk) 09:35, 10 May 2019 (EDT)

Which we know retrospectively, with 20/20 hindsight. But didn't at the time. Every single one of those links took the same approach I'm advocating: wait it out, note the uncertainty, and make a decision when it's well-informed instead of blind assumption. That is my entire point. And I see entirely no reason why we need to jump the gun and stab randomly in the dark when literally nobody but the staff knows the answer. The article already concedes it could be RID, FOC or a third one. Because that's everything we know. How is this an unreasonable approach? How is this not how this wiki has tried to always work: evidence based, canon-oriented, not adding information when it's speculative, non-canon, non-announced (e.g. the G2 redeco of Siege Sideswipe). RBA Grimlock being either of the previous two is also non-announced. Why would we add "RBA Grimlock = FOC Grimlock" (or whichever is your preference) when it's as official as G2 Siege Sideswipe is official? We can afford to wait. As I said, I will do all the merging if/when the time comes. There is no downside to waiting and being accurate to the currently available information.

I have no idea what you're trying to prove with those first bunch of links, but yes, I also think those Cyberverse discussions also tended to jump the gun. Escargon (talk) 11:13, 10 May 2019 (EDT)

Correct. And that's literally all I'm saying. Until further information presents, we have no idea where this guy fits. Basing it on color scheme tells us nothing, as history tells us.

The episode has aired, and the dialogue implies this to be RID Grimlock. If no one objects, I'll start merging. -- Cyberlink420 (talk) 15:03, 28 September 2019 (EDT)

Excellent. There's an irony here in that Grimlock's debut episode is about judging a book by its cover and jumping to conclusions. TGB (talk) 02:23, 29 September 2019 (EDT)