Talk:Perceptor (G1)

REWRITE IT ALL IN PERCEPTOR SPEAK!

...please?

I did what I could with the Animated Continuity section, but the whole article could still use a significant amount of work. - Dark T Zeratul 05:51, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

AHM 15

Now that part of it was used on the cover, should we protect the main part of the article? Might be a dumb idea, but it would be neat to have the main section forever inprinted and reflected on the cover.--Sunjumper 11:56, 29 September 2009 (EDT)

If the site was a shrine to itself. -Derik 13:22, 29 September 2009 (EDT)

Considering we can always link to the appropriate diff if the matter comes up, no reason to worry about it at all. --Jeysie 17:58, 29 September 2009 (EDT)

Universe Classic series toy bios

I really think that bio was just referring to Perceptor's resistance cell as seen in the Marvel Comics. Do we really need a separate fiction section for this? --ItsWalky 01:22, 19 October 2009 (EDT)

No.... --Detour 01:37, 19 October 2009 (EDT)

Magnification

I know the old catalogs listed him as having a magnification of 1x, but surely that isn't right. A magnification of 1x is what you get with the NAKED EYE, things look 1x the size they really are. That is, no magnification at all. Khajidha 14:04, 10 December 2009 (EST)

I always wondered about that. I've seen 1x magnification on other toy-like things. Maybe it is rounded down? Anything that can't claim to be 2x magnification has to say it is 1x? Or maybe it is a different scale than simple multiplication. - Starfield 14:45, 10 December 2009 (EST)

That would make it different from all other microscopes and lenses in the entire world. All lenses have magnification powers expressed as a simple multiple. If it makes things look twice as big, it is 2x. If it makes things look ten times bigger, it is 10x. If it makes things look one million seven hundred forty-three thousand eight hundred twelve times bigger it is 1743812x. I had always thought that the printer had simply dropped a zero - it should be 10x - as 10x is a standard lens power (the eyepieces of virtually all microscopes are 10x). Does anyone have a loose Perceptor that could be used to approximate the real magnification? Khajidha 16:26, 10 December 2009 (EST)

I'm pretty sure the old G1 packaging cited 14x. Even if that's not what the toy can actually do, if we can confirm this, it should be mentioned.--G.B. Blackrock 13:51, 18 December 2009 (EST)

Just found this at Botch's site, updated page. Khajidha 10:54, 11 March 2010 (EST)

The total magnification of a microscope is calculated by multiplying the two lenses (eyepiece and objective lens). I imagine the 1x refers to the objective lens, while the eyepiece is 14x. I don't own a Perceptor, so I can't confirm whether this is the case. —Interrobang 12:16, 11 March 2010 (EST)

Pictures for Universe

What kinds of pictures are needed for his Universe toy section? Hasbro stock photos, maybe? The first picture in his toys section seems to be of the Universe reissue. Just asking. --NCZ 15:55, 13 June 2010 (EDT)

You're right. Looks like the picture and the needs pictures template should be switched. Of course, the picture of the original would pretty much be the same... --Khajidha 17:36, 13 June 2010 (EDT)

Cybertronian alternate mode?

Does anyone know what Perceptor changes into before he got his microscope mode? Has it been shown anywhere? 95.148.9.160 12:48, 30 July 2010 (EDT)

Not that I know of, but his tank mode looks totally Cybertronian. - Starfield 13:53, 30 July 2010 (EDT)

Bill Rawley

Why would the licence plate have anything to do with Bill Rawley's daughter?--Primo 16:01, 6 April 2011 (EDT)

RTS Unpaintable plastic

I don't think that's true, I put a bit of silver paint on the inside of his forearm and it dried and won't rub off. So the plastic isn't unpaintable. Dead Metal 08:34, 19 June 2011 (EDT)

Paintable by you != paintable by mass-production factory to standards. —Interrobang 08:39, 19 June 2011 (EDT)

Oh OK. Dead Metal 09:15, 19 June 2011 (EDT)

Modus Ponens

The "theorem" near the top of the article contains a denying the antecedent fallacy (A implies B; not A; therefore not B). It incorrectly claims to be using modus ponens (A implies B; A; therefore B). It's bugging me, and Perceptor would not stand for this! I'm not sure what the best way would be to rephrase it, though, and I feel a little nervous changing too much given I'm new editing here. Mosquitosquisher7 (talk) 18:45, 28 August 2025 (EDT)

I'd definitely encourage you to have a go, though to be honest, reading it over, I wouldn't be opposed to just cutting that bit entirely. It's not really an iconic Perceptor formulation or anything, especially by contrast to the dense verbosity the rest of the article is going for. —wadapan (talk) 07:26, 29 August 2025 (EDT)