Talk:Lift-Ticket (Diaclone)
Split proposal
[edit]So, I just got Selects Lift-Ticket and was wondering about its pronouns (it/it/its, apparently). I noticed there was a split proposal for this article, but there wasn't even a talk page started, let alone a discussion of it. Please note, I didn't propose this split.
So, addressing the question of splitting this article, I would say no, at least for now. This article is still quite short, and splitting it between the Diaclone and (notionally) G1 sections would give us two even shorter articles, one consisting of the brief fiction section, the other of the brief toys section. At this point, there's no real need for this split.
Furthermore, the toys may be from G1-focused lines, but one was a Bot-Con exclusive where the fiction clearly had it coming from the Diaclone part of the multiverse, while the other is from Generations which has already featured bots from non-G1 continutities (Hot Shot, Armada Starscream, Galaxy Upgrade Optimus Prime, plus the Prime related toys announced for Legacy), so Lift-Ticket's inclusion there does not necessarily imply being a part of G1. Waverod ✈️ (talk) 15:15, 1 March 2022 (EST)
Yeah, I don't think we should be against short articles if they make sense, but given the complete lack of bio and fiction we're getting for the Legacy-associated Diaclone lines, combined with how it's being more multiversal than WFC's 'G1 all the time' approach, do we actively gain anything by splitting them? AkibaSilver (talk) 19:19, 1 March 2022 (EST)
- I agree with Waverod and Akiba, for all the reasons given. Splitting this just gives us two worse articles instead of one better one. (Plus, like, it's not like Lift-Ticket came with any copy that said it WASN'T actually a person and not some mech-piloted thing.) ((unfortunately)) --ItsWalky (talk) 19:31, 1 March 2022 (EST)
Mainpic
[edit]I'm in favour of the Diaclone boxart as mainpic - with Burn Out and Lift-Ticket's backstories, their original Diaclone toys are implicitly their "original designs", and the art was conveniently even published in a Transformers art book. Plus from a real-world perspective, the original Diaclone toys are invariably going to be what future creators go back to when using Lift-Ticket for fiction or toys again, versus the BotCon toys that are kind of just representative of what the current Skids and Hoist Generations moulds happened to be at the time they were brought into the franchise, y'know? Jalaguy (talk) 05:00, 29 August 2022 (EDT)
- I'm not because the Diaclone art is not Lift-Ticket (it's also not Transformers art, which is a rule that should only be broken with really, really, really good reason, like, say, with Cobra Commander's pic). Lift-Ticket has literally never had that combination of body and colors. That's the Diaclone 4WD Hi-Lux Wrecker Type. There is, in fact, a difference. "Lift-Ticket" came into existence through Transformers as the BotCon toy, and his mainpic should reflect that. And the "future creators" thing is back to the whole issue of trying to "solve" Transformers and second/third-guess every way anyone could conceivably misinterpret everything and fail to look at more than one picture per page that made the whole "citogenesis" thing such a bloated pain. (Relevant message from the Discord: https://discordapp.com/channels/656241088826441729/656248887534944265/1005647033165692979) --M Sipher (talk) 07:23, 29 August 2022 (EDT)
- For once I agree whole heartedly with Sipher. Escargon (talk) 07:52, 29 August 2022 (EDT)
- I'd say my bigger priority here is that the profile card art looks like ass and being in Legacy makes them eligible for being Transformers art. Jala's point isn't about creators referring to the main pics in a fit of "misinterpretation" or whatever, but the simple fact that they're going to refer to the Diaclone designs in all further uses of the characters, not the T30 toys. Which we're already seeing with Masterpiece Burn Out. Saix (talk) 07:56, 29 August 2022 (EDT)
- I don't think the bad art is a good enough excuse to go with art that isn't of their first explicitly-Transformers forms. --M Sipher (talk) 08:05, 29 August 2022 (EDT)
- I am also in favour of the Diaclone art. Even without it conventiently being included in a Transformers publication, well... these are Diaclone toys being included in the Transformers line and it seems more in spirit of what the first-appearance rule entails to use the Diaclone art, rather than the technical reading. Masterpiece Spin-Out and Blue Bluestreak both exist from an alternate Diaclone universe, Legacy toys are being marketed as Diaclone universe. The new Burn Out has a head based on the Diaclone art. They are so close to Transformers they sometimes made it into original Transformers art before production alterations, appearing in murals on the back of the box (if the argument for Diaclone art fails I say we use those instead, those predate FunPub by a few decades) User:Bumblebee2000 (talk) 11:05, 29 August 2022 (EDT)
- Yeah, I entirely agree with Jala and Saix here. I think that, frankly, sticking with the "first body" rule in this instance is wholly disingenuous - the BotCon design might technically have been the first way he appeared in Transformers media, but that's not the basis for the design, and pretending otherwise is just silly. The first body rule is a useful guideline, but I don't agree that it should be stuck to with such religious adherence. --Riptide (talk) 11:38, 29 August 2022 (EDT)
- I don't think there's anything to be gained from using back-of-box mural art. I'm 100% in favour of using the package art for the reasons Jala describes. That's just what Burn-Out and Lift-Ticket look like. I'd also be in favour of using it for Delta Magnus, but I think the Masterpiece card art would be a better choice there—certainly, either would be light-years ahead of the comic crop currently used. —The Wadapan (talk) 11:41, 29 August 2022 (EDT)
- I find myself convinced by Riptide's argument as well. I do think it bears remarking we are in no small part already using retroactively canonized Diaclone assets for Diaclone-derived e-HOBBY characters. Declining to do so for Diaclone-derived characters from other sources (be it BotCon, IDW, or what have you) as they rack up toys transparently based on their "Generation 1" designs feels like the kind of playing coy to the detriment of the reader we try to avoid.
- I am also in favour of the Diaclone art. Even without it conventiently being included in a Transformers publication, well... these are Diaclone toys being included in the Transformers line and it seems more in spirit of what the first-appearance rule entails to use the Diaclone art, rather than the technical reading. Masterpiece Spin-Out and Blue Bluestreak both exist from an alternate Diaclone universe, Legacy toys are being marketed as Diaclone universe. The new Burn Out has a head based on the Diaclone art. They are so close to Transformers they sometimes made it into original Transformers art before production alterations, appearing in murals on the back of the box (if the argument for Diaclone art fails I say we use those instead, those predate FunPub by a few decades) User:Bumblebee2000 (talk) 11:05, 29 August 2022 (EDT)
- I don't think the bad art is a good enough excuse to go with art that isn't of their first explicitly-Transformers forms. --M Sipher (talk) 08:05, 29 August 2022 (EDT)
- I'd say my bigger priority here is that the profile card art looks like ass and being in Legacy makes them eligible for being Transformers art. Jala's point isn't about creators referring to the main pics in a fit of "misinterpretation" or whatever, but the simple fact that they're going to refer to the Diaclone designs in all further uses of the characters, not the T30 toys. Which we're already seeing with Masterpiece Burn Out. Saix (talk) 07:56, 29 August 2022 (EDT)
- For once I agree whole heartedly with Sipher. Escargon (talk) 07:52, 29 August 2022 (EDT)
- That said I do also agree with Wadapan that the distinction between Diaclone and Masterpiece character models is largely splitting hairs if folks feel more comfortable going with something akin to the "most prominent body" route when possible. -AzimuthAcolyte (talk) 13:37, 29 August 2022 (EDT)
Except those artworks are NOT MEANT TO BE Lift-Ticket et al. Frankly I'm not a big fan of this tendency to finagle the rules for these BotCon-original characters that keeps happening as of late. I was in favor of it for Flamewar, but that was at least a case of art actually intended to depict Flamewar. Escargon (talk) 12:23, 29 August 2022 (EDT)
- They're not? The names may have been applied later, but those are absolutely images of the two Diaclone mechs used in that story. There's swathes of characters, many originating from FunPub, that have only been named after the fact, but those retcons don't suddenly make them into separate things, at least not in the wiki's eyes as I understand. In Flamewar's case, we did end up sticking with the original depiction, rather than the revamped body. I would argue that, in the Flamewar case, the BotCon art we stuck with is analogous not to the profile art here as you purport, but to the Diaclone depictions that are the basis for the characters—without even the complicating factor that the redesign has risen to eclipse the original in prominence. It's only through a technicality that the first bodies can be said not to count here, such that instead the one-off aberration in these characters' history (simply a product of the molds available at that time) be given priority. That's the perspective I'm coming from, as someone who prefers the current Flamewar mainpic and likes Timelines stuff generally, so it's funny to me that you're presenting it like we have some specific bias regarding FunPub stuff. —The Wadapan (talk) 14:00, 29 August 2022 (EDT)
- I didn’t say we didn’t end up with the original Flamewar art? My point is more specifically about us deciding “which is more prominent” which comes up for Shattered Glass et al. In any case, I entirely disagree with the idea that these bits of Diaclone art are explicitly Burn Out and Lift Ticket, because they didn’t exist as characters until 2015. Escargon (talk) 14:18, 29 August 2022 (EDT)
As happened the last time there was a "what to do about these Diaclone guys" discussion, I strongly vote against weakening our standards for the sake of some concept of what we think Hasbro might be likely to do next. The new Transformer toy looks the same as the old Diaclone? What a great argument for using the actual Transformer toy's art, then - they even look the same! We should have strong borders between real and not-real Transformer content and firmly respect the chronologies in cases where formerly-not-real things became real. --Thylacine 2000 (talk) 14:08, 29 August 2022 (EDT)
- Right. The mechs/humans in question are not real-world Diaclone characters transplanted into Transformers, they are Transformers characters created for Transformers fiction that use Diaclone as a conceptual origin but do not exist in actual real-world Diaclone, plus the "Dialcone universe" they hail from is similarly made up for Transformers and dramatically different from the actual original Diaclone fiction. I think that it's important to respect that real-world origin rather than obfuscate it, even if the most full-body art we have is not good and the company responsible is... yeah. The old Diaclone art is inspiration for the Transformers characters, and we should use imagery of their Transformers origin. --M Sipher (talk) 18:02, 29 August 2022 (EDT)
Okay, here's an alternate argument. Lift-Ticket and Burn Out are (explicitly, in-universe) imports of the Diaclone mechs given names and expanded backstories. Their BotCon toys were released in 2015. Legacy: The Art of Transformers Packaging was released in 2014. Thus, the first published images of those mechs in Transformers media used the Diaclone boxart, and as such those ARE their first bodies from Transformers media. As such, under a strict reading of the rules, we should use the Legacy art for the mainpics. --Riptide (talk) 14:39, 29 August 2022 (EDT)
Just to loop back to Sipher's first reply quickly to clarify myself, I'm 100% not suggesting this in terms of a "trying to prevent citogenesis" mindset or whatever, but just from taking a realistic perspective about how this character is going to be handled going forward. Lift-Ticket is, ultimately, defined by being a Transformers import of the red Diaclone Wrecker toy and - regardless of what we use as a mainpic, because, to be clear, I'm not making that argument - when in future there's a Masterpiece, or another Gens toy, or whatever, it's gonna be that Diaclone toy they go back to, not the BotCon one. In my mind at least, I've always understood the logic of the "first body rule" to be that that first design is the "core" of that character, the original source from which all later designs exist in relation to. For Lift-Ticket and Burn Out, that original source ultimately isn't the BotCon toys and their reused IDW designs, it's the Diaclone toys, and, personally, I think it better serves the casual reader to take a more pragmatic approach with how we define these characters, rather than treating them as if the BotCon toy designs are their visual origin point? I ultimately don't actually feel strongly enough about this to argue it much longer, but that's my take on the matter. Jalaguy (talk) 15:05, 29 August 2022 (EDT)
- Our readers are not stupid. They can figure out for themselves these sorts of things. I'm not convinced that a casual reader would know what Diaclone is half the time, and frankly I think putting the Diaclone art would be essentially lying to them by making them think it was an original Generation 1 toy. Escargon (talk) 06:55, 30 August 2022 (EDT)
- Well phrased - I entirely agree. --Riptide (talk) 17:19, 29 August 2022 (EDT)
- That strikes me as the same argument as using, say, the Knickerbocker "Speedar" art as Windcharger's mainpic, which I also would argue against. As noted above, trying to stick with "what Hasbro might do" is a bad idea just in general, as if Has/Tak ever revisit the characters going forward (huge "if" admittedly but still we live in an age of miracle and wonder), they're going to use whatever vaguely Hoistlike/Skidslike molds they have available regardless of said molds' fidelity to the granular details of prior iterations/inspirations. I mean, Legacy Burn has the entirely wrong head for either the prior BC or Diaclone iteration, for crying out loud. And on top of the issues of preserving the actual real-world character history (again, they're not actually Diaclone characters and we shouldn't pretend they are or present them in a way that makes them appear to be), frankly I'm not keen on encouraging the snake to keep eating its own tail. --M Sipher (talk)
- Sincere question - what exactly is the point of the "first body rule" if not preserving character design lineage, as Jalaguy described? I want to understand properly where you're coming from.
- (Also, and I recognise that this kind of contradicts me asking you for clarification - as a guy who directly worked on Burn Out and Lift-Ticket's BotCon incarnations, aren't you maybe a bit too close to the issue to get directly involved on the wiki?) --Riptide (talk) 18:50, 29 August 2022 (EDT)
- You're vastly misinterpreting/nitpicking the "first body" guideline; by that logic, we should default to nothing but Diaclone/Microman/Knickerbocker/Beetras/etc concept imagery because that was the "character design lineage" origin point. We've always operated using the characters' real-world Transformers premiere as the mainpic basis, and we don't go changing that to chase whatever the character happens to look like in the franchise's immediate now. And just to make the overall point of the guideline clearer, we've always had wiggle room allowing for the effectively-simultaneous release of toys with often-significantly-different-looking media designs to reflect that semicomplicated character origin. As for these characters, their real-world premiere is the Transformers BotCon toy set, the simultaneous release of the media depicts them with those designs, and that was their only depiction for over half a decade. The mainpic should reflect that, not non-Transformers art for non-Transformers toys from a non-Transformers line from three decades prior that served as their inspiration (a word that's become super-overused as of late but sometimes it is, in fact, accurate).
- As for "worked on", I had nothing to do with the toys' creation, that was decided and done and sent to the factories long before I had any involvement with the project. I co-wrote a comic script involving them that was largely ignored. And I would argue the same for anything I was 100% unconnected to (and have: Flamewar). --M Sipher (talk) 20:23, 29 August 2022 (EDT)
- Right, I understand there's always been flexibility, but that's more of a "how" than a "why". From what you're saying, I guess the reasoning for the first body guideline is... so we don't have to update mainpics, I guess? I don't think I'm quite understanding.
- As for the "well why don't we use the pre-transformer designs for everyone then"... we kind of do? Like, for instance, Optimus's mainpic is (an interpretation of) the Diaclone design. He's just appeared enough that we have options outside of the Battle Convoy art. I don't think that argument holds much water.
- (And, as I've mentioned - the Diaclone art and BotCon toy both represent the red towtruck Diaclone mecha, and the Diaclone art was published in Legacy - a piece of official, licensed Transformers media - nine months before the BotCon toy was released. What makes one depiction valid and the other not?) --Riptide (talk) 20:59, 29 August 2022 (EDT)
- The "Legacy" art is unnamed - it's a full-page spread of multiple art samples all just labeled "Diaclone", in a section titled "Pre-Transformer Oddities." The characters of BO and LT are not named because, of course, they didn't exist yet. "This is something alive that exists in the TF universe" came from after that. The source we would be citing for TF art says it isn't TF art. --Thylacine 2000 (talk) 19:25, 29 August 2022 (EDT)
- But Burn Out and Lift-Ticket are, explicitly, both in- and out-of-universe, the Diaclone mechs given names. We have one piece of art in officially-published Transformers media of the red Diaclone tow-truck mech, and another piece of art in officially-published Transformers media of the red Diaclone tow-truck mech, and it seems absurd to me to say that they're not representative of the same "character". --Riptide (talk) 19:49, 29 August 2022 (EDT)
- For the record, Riptide, I think the "Legacy" argument is strong - but it's a strong self-contradictory argument for us doing something that is self-contradictory. We are being asked to say the "This is not a pipe" painting is a pipe, because we can point at it with an Impossible Trident. This is a case that is epistemologically difficult for our organizational systems (or at least, it is for me). --Thylacine 2000 (talk) 19:54, 29 August 2022 (EDT)
- Yeah, I can understand that - it is an inherently nebulous situation. I will admit that the "Legacy is technically first" argument is at least a little tongue in cheek; "I don't think we should be so strict about the first body rule, but if we ARE going to be strict about it, technically we should be using the Legacy art anyway". Personally, I wouldn't be arguing so strongly in favour of it if not for the fact that it acts as the origin point of the design lineage AND represents the same in-universe Diaclone mech AND was published in TF source; it's the combination of factors that makes it feel silly to avoid using it, to me. --Riptide (talk) 20:03, 29 August 2022 (EDT)
- For the record, Riptide, I think the "Legacy" argument is strong - but it's a strong self-contradictory argument for us doing something that is self-contradictory. We are being asked to say the "This is not a pipe" painting is a pipe, because we can point at it with an Impossible Trident. This is a case that is epistemologically difficult for our organizational systems (or at least, it is for me). --Thylacine 2000 (talk) 19:54, 29 August 2022 (EDT)
- But Burn Out and Lift-Ticket are, explicitly, both in- and out-of-universe, the Diaclone mechs given names. We have one piece of art in officially-published Transformers media of the red Diaclone tow-truck mech, and another piece of art in officially-published Transformers media of the red Diaclone tow-truck mech, and it seems absurd to me to say that they're not representative of the same "character". --Riptide (talk) 19:49, 29 August 2022 (EDT)
So here's the thing - the whole "this BotCon toy was so totally meant to reference the Diaclone toy" - a toy, a concept that only becomes part of the Transformers franchise proper at the moment LT/BO are released. In the lore, yes, the Diaclone Red Wrecker has always been called LT. But not in the real world and also not in the actual Transformers franchise which this wiki purports to document. We don't do this for Loudpedal or Road Rage, we use the MP bio card art. Those are IMO roughly comparable conceptually, and in that case, we're using the "first body." The TF fiction created the character where the toy used to be. Prior to that, it was a blank canvas for you to project your own theories onto... much like the DK-series toys still are today, I guess, and we use photos of the toys for those two... so in each case, we're talking about two or three pages tops. Just stick to "first appearance in TF fiction body" for the Diaclone crew. -hx (talk) 20:28, 29 August 2022 (EDT)
I'm going to bring up this: [1].
This is what using these mainpics feels like to me. Yes, it is certainly similar to what Burn-Out and Lift-Ticket look like (and admittedly they are closer in terms of real-world conception than this revision to Nemesis Prime), but it's not what either the original Diaclone artists, nor Jim or Bill when they complied the book, had in mind when they created/complied this artwork. Escargon (talk) 06:59, 30 August 2022 (EDT)
- See this is what using the Bot-Con art comes off as to me. Sure, Optimus Prime was a car one time and got repainted into Nemesis before a truck did. But it is obtuse to use the first appearance over the Diaclone box-art/Legacy book/Legacy toyline appearances. As Jalaguy said above about not being obtuse to casual readers and representing the core of the character, rather than going with the technically correct answer. I think, while the Legacy book people weren't sitting there waiting for it to be put on the main-page of the wiki article. Absolutely the intent of Lift-Ticket, Burn-Out and every other Diaclone import into Transformers is funnily enough, the Diaclones they are importing. The Diaclone artists never intended that guy to be Optimus Prime but that does not change that the Transformers people did. Bumblebee2000 (talk) 22:47, 8 September 2022 (EDT)
- 1: Why are you responding to an argument from over a week ago. 2: It's absolutely not obtuse to use an image of the characters as in the media that actually introduced them to the world, which is the BotCon stuff-whether or not we're going with the Legacy image, it's disingenuous to pretend otherwise. The Legacy writers weren't waiting for it to happen because Lift-Ticket and Burn-Out did not exist as characters at the time that the book was produced. This isn't a hard concept to wrap your head around. Escargon (talk) 23:11, 8 September 2022 (EDT)
Also now that I think of it, aren't at least some of the the original Diaclone robots meant to be mass-produced? So Burn-Out and Lift-Ticket would only be one individual robot in a series of identical ones. Escargon (talk) 07:02, 30 August 2022 (EDT)
- How does this affect anything at all? Bumblebee2000 (talk) 22:47, 8 September 2022 (EDT)
Does anyone else want to chip in on this? By my count the vote is currently 7:4 in favour of using the Legacy art, and there's the fact that the Legacy art was published first and thus arguably is the true "first body", which indicates to me that we're currently leaning towards a switch back to the Legacy mainpics. --Riptide (talk) 17:41, 8 September 2022 (EDT)
- Unless a former Fun Publications staffer can provide clean versions of the BotCon 2015 artworks, I also vote in favour of the Diaclone packaging art as reprinted in Legacy. S.H.I.E.L.D. Agent 47 (talk) 17:53, 8 September 2022 (EDT)
- It's absolutely not "arguably" the true first body. Pretending that the Diaclone art published in Legacy in any way represents two characters who hadn't been created yet just because they are technically based on the toys those artworks represent is an act of willful ignorance of the first body rule. This isn't us "bending" the rules, this is us breaking them, and it's insane to pretend otherwise. Escargon (talk) 21:30, 8 September 2022 (EDT)
- Mm, no, see, it IS arguable, because we're arguing it. Burn Out and Lift-Ticket are identities assigned to the Diaclone mecha, and we have pictures of the Diaclone mecha that predate the BotCon toys that were based on them. From both an in-universe and out-of-universe perspective, these are the same character/concept, from my perspective. --Riptide (talk) 21:53, 8 September 2022 (EDT)
- What's really "not arguable" is that Bug Bite (GoBots)'s first TF published body was the e-Hobby / FP white car. If we are going to say that we are sticking to the first body rule here because of the Legacy art - which doesn't depict the characters of LT/BO at all, but got the Hasbro stamp first - then the current pic of a yellow VW body that first got officialized a decade later has got to be switched. --Thylacine 2000 (talk) 07:30, 9 September 2022 (EDT)
- I'd agree with that - but then I don't agree with how we're currently covering the Scioli GoBots stuff anyway. (I don't think some cutesy references in the last issue are enough that we should be covering the whole thing.) But that's another issue entirely. --Riptide (talk) 07:43, 9 September 2022 (EDT)
- We have better things to do than re-litigate GoBots for the upteenth time. -- Cyberlink420 (talk) 11:34, 9 September 2022 (EDT)
- I'd agree with that - but then I don't agree with how we're currently covering the Scioli GoBots stuff anyway. (I don't think some cutesy references in the last issue are enough that we should be covering the whole thing.) But that's another issue entirely. --Riptide (talk) 07:43, 9 September 2022 (EDT)
- What's really "not arguable" is that Bug Bite (GoBots)'s first TF published body was the e-Hobby / FP white car. If we are going to say that we are sticking to the first body rule here because of the Legacy art - which doesn't depict the characters of LT/BO at all, but got the Hasbro stamp first - then the current pic of a yellow VW body that first got officialized a decade later has got to be switched. --Thylacine 2000 (talk) 07:30, 9 September 2022 (EDT)
- Mm, no, see, it IS arguable, because we're arguing it. Burn Out and Lift-Ticket are identities assigned to the Diaclone mecha, and we have pictures of the Diaclone mecha that predate the BotCon toys that were based on them. From both an in-universe and out-of-universe perspective, these are the same character/concept, from my perspective. --Riptide (talk) 21:53, 8 September 2022 (EDT)
- I agree with changing the mainpic. McBaggins (talk) 21:42, 8 September 2022 (EDT)
- I'm against using the Diaclone art. I think Sipher's comment on the "first body rule" bears repeating in that it isn't about maintaining design lineage but documenting their first Transformers design regardless of what they look like now. I also don't think being in Legacy qualifies them as "Transformers art" because they weren't published with the intention of being a fictional depiction of any Transformers character. They were published to document the history of the art in a non-fictional capacity. Making the Diaclone art the main pics is making up canon. Riptide's point about Burn-Out and Lift-Ticket being identities assigned to the Diaclone mecha contradicts the idea that the Diaclone art is a representation of those mecha. They're only Diaclone mecha in the club fiction, and the Lift Ticket and Burn Out mecha of that Diaclone world do not actually look like the Diaclone art. --Tigerpaw28 (talk) 23:39, 8 September 2022 (EDT)
- Burn Out (said to be from the Diaclone, or Ancient Time Universe) recently appeared in a Sakamoto-penned comic promoting the TT release of the Velocitron Speedia 500 Collection. There, she is depicted as a mech piloted by Dia using a body inspired by the original Skids toy (using the Crosscut head, yes, but her upcoming MP toy is heavily inspired by her Diaclone packaging art), so the idea that they are only mechs in club fiction is blatantly false. - Archforce (talk) 11:10, 9 September 2022 (EDT)
- The current main pic seems to represent the character as they appear in Transformers more. It only appeared in two toys and a comic, and one toy and one comic match, white the newest toy is different. The Diaclone body represents the Transformers character less accurately than the current main pic, but only by a bit. I'd say keep the image the same. •ChristalIsMe (talk) 11:27, 9 September 2022 (EDT)
- I'm sorry, but my head is spinning at the argument being constructed here. How I, and I think Jo and the others in favour, see it: There are these Diaclone mechs. There's some old package art of those mechs. FunPub later named those mechs Lift-Ticket and Burn Out. —The Wadapan (talk) 11:42, 9 September 2022 (EDT)
- But that package art was technically not for a Transformer yet. I see it both ways though. •ChristalIsMe (talk) 11:43, 9 September 2022 (EDT)
- Burn Out (said to be from the Diaclone, or Ancient Time Universe) recently appeared in a Sakamoto-penned comic promoting the TT release of the Velocitron Speedia 500 Collection. There, she is depicted as a mech piloted by Dia using a body inspired by the original Skids toy (using the Crosscut head, yes, but her upcoming MP toy is heavily inspired by her Diaclone packaging art), so the idea that they are only mechs in club fiction is blatantly false. - Archforce (talk) 11:10, 9 September 2022 (EDT)
- I'm against using the Diaclone art. I think Sipher's comment on the "first body rule" bears repeating in that it isn't about maintaining design lineage but documenting their first Transformers design regardless of what they look like now. I also don't think being in Legacy qualifies them as "Transformers art" because they weren't published with the intention of being a fictional depiction of any Transformers character. They were published to document the history of the art in a non-fictional capacity. Making the Diaclone art the main pics is making up canon. Riptide's point about Burn-Out and Lift-Ticket being identities assigned to the Diaclone mecha contradicts the idea that the Diaclone art is a representation of those mecha. They're only Diaclone mecha in the club fiction, and the Lift Ticket and Burn Out mecha of that Diaclone world do not actually look like the Diaclone art. --Tigerpaw28 (talk) 23:39, 8 September 2022 (EDT)
I really wish we would have had someone like Walky way in on this. Escargon (talk) 13:42, 10 September 2022 (EDT)
Finally got the original non-cropped art for these, so the argument about the Diaclone images being higher quality no longer matters. Still think it's ridiculous we're going through so many mental hoops with these pages but it's been made clear to me that long-standing rules apparently no longer matter. Escargon (talk) 21:31, 28 September 2022 (EDT)