Talk:Skystalker (G1)
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Question: If the Thunder Arrow pilot is identical to Skystalker, has no specific name, and has never been used or seen in fiction, why are we assuming it's a different character than Skystalker? Wouldn't Occam's Razor suggest that they're the same guy? This seems like an article just for the sake of having an article. For that matter, why is the Thunder Arrow at a different page than the interstellar shuttle? Aren't they essentially the same thing? We don't have separate pages for, say, Scorponok and Megazarak, and they seem far more different than the Thunder Arrow and the interstellar shuttle. --Joefan 19:18, 13 November 2012 (EST)
- I think this is a pretty compelling argument for a couple of merges.--RosicrucianTalk 19:55, 13 November 2012 (EST)
- I assume the reason is that from Chōjin Masterforce onward, the Japanese characters are given their own character pages as a general rule. Holi is on a different page than Stakeout (G1) for example. I think it makes sense. The Japanese fiction splits pretty far and nobody seems to be the same character in Japan somewhere around the Headmasters era. - Starfield 20:46, 13 November 2012 (EST)
- We do sometimes assume that. I get Masterforce, where they have different names, origins, often colors. But with Micromasters, we tend to assume they're the same guy unless the name or faction changes. Wheel Blaze, for instance, isn't split up.--Joefan 12:13, 14 November 2012 (EST)
- The two are incompatible with opposing functions. One is a shuttle transport for little Micromasters, the other is a Decepticon-sized mobile base of operations. The Thunder Arrow is a full-sized, specific vessel, while the smaller shuttle is more of a generic craft. The toys are the same because Takara repurposed the Micromaster ship into a Decepticon headquarters. --Sabrblade 13:33, 14 November 2012 (EST)
- Technically, the toy was not repurposed in Japan. It looks to me like the Japanese toy was never anything other than the Thunder Arrow. I oppose the merging of the vehicle pages for the reasons you give. Also, it would be very misleading towards the nature of the US toy if the article name was "Thunder Arrow." I don't have a strong opinion about merging the Micromasters. If he is, he should have a note after the intro paragraph similar to Wheel Blaze's. Something like, In Japan, this toy was the unnamed, toy-only pilot of the Thunder Arrow.- Starfield 21:35, 14 November 2012 (EST)
- Assuming that's an accurate statement of events, I support the merge. -Derik 01:43, 15 November 2012 (EST)
- One is big, one is small? But we don't have separate articles for Fortress Maximus (Marvel) and Fortress Maximus (Sunbow). One is the same size as Optimus, the other is a city. Thunder Arrow / unnamed shuttle are both powerful extremely powerful ships used to transport Decepticons from one place to another. We've in the past given articles names based on Japan when there is no US name. Brigadoon comes to mind. To say one is repurposed seems like an odd assumption. I'd just assume they gave it a cool name.--Joefan 02:19, 15 November 2012 (EST)
- It's not simply that one's big and one's small. The Thunder Arrow is meant to be a very specific vessel, one that serves the purpose of being a base of operations. The Interstellar Shuttle is just a random craft used simply as a means of transport. And this case differs from Brigadoon as "Interstellar Shuttle" (as generic as that name sounds) is that shuttle's official U.S. name. But it doesn't fit with the Thunder Arrow because the Thunder Arrow is not a measly shuttle, but a full-fledged starship. --Sabrblade 15:31, 15 November 2012 (EST)
- Maybe I'm being naive, but how do you know any of that? As for the name, it's not called that in the tech spec or in the instructions. See [1] and [2]. It doesn't call it that on the box either. As far as I can tell, it's labeled interstellar shuttle in one place only, the Dreamwave profiles books. Even then it's all lower case, which argues against that being a proper name but instead a description. The tech spec also states that it's both heavily armed and "fearsome" which implies to me that it's not just a "random craft used simply as a means of transport." It also "rockets across galaxies" which sounds to me like a full-fledged starship.--Joefan 21:14, 15 November 2012 (EST)
- I concede on jumping the gun on the shuttle's "official" U.S. name. That was a mistake on my part. However, a shuttle is not a starship, no matter how fearsome it is. All that talk in the bio about shuttle being this awesomely powerful thing that can go across galaxies was likely originally meant to sell the toy since kids liked/like that kind of sci-fi stuff. Such exaggerations are not unheard of in TF media,. But still, the two are of an entirely different class of spacecraft. Shuttles are a lower class than starships. Like, one wouldn't consider the Enterprise a shuttle, right? --Sabrblade 21:50, 15 November 2012 (EST)
- The Maximals flew the Ark's emergency shuttle all the way from Earth to Cybertron. I would promote caution in over-relying on the semantics of the word "shuttle". -LV 22:33, 15 November 2012 (EST)
- What he said.
- Seriously, though, I definitely wouldn't consider the Enterprise a shuttle, but it seems to me that you're being very selective by dismissing virtually everything that's every been published about the craft and focusing entirely on the word "shuttle." The tech specs and More Than Meets The Eye both talk about how fearsome and well armed it is. The Micromasters miniseries features it (barely) as transporting Skystalker to many different solar systems, at the very least. None of those are what I'd consider the actions of a "shuttle", which Bing defins as route taken or vehicle used: the route taken or the aircraft, bus, or train used to travel frequently between two places, often relatively near each other. Wouldn't it be more sensible to assume that "shuttle" is the misnomer here and it is, in fact, the fearsomely armed starship that bios and fiction alike depict it being?--Joefan 22:36, 15 November 2012 (EST)
- One major thing here. You brought up Fortress Maximus as an example because of his drastically different interpretations between the cartoon and the Marvel comics, but the thing about that is: he's still Fortress maximus. Those are just different interpretations of the same character, that take place in different continuities, but they are still Fortress Maximus. The "Thunder Arrow pilot" has no fiction to support him being Skystalker. And Skystalker's ship has never been identified or done any of the jobs that the Thunder Arrow did. The Thunder Arrow was Deathsauras's ship in the Victory cartton and the Decepticon base in that cartoon, Skystalker's vessel has flown around with maybe 2 or 3 micromasters as passangers, and has never shown indication of ever being used by an Emporer of Destruction. Yes, I agree that "Thunder Arrow pilot" has no fiction or personality, but it is better for the Wiki to er on the side of caution and keep him seaperate from Skystalker. He is most likely a seaperate character for one simple reason. Skystalker commands his vessel, while "Thunder Arrow pilot" just drove it around for Deathsauras. Stevo 08:45, 16 November 2012 (EST)
- I guess the question is, why is one a different interpertation of the same character but the other not? If you don't like my Fortress Maximus example, how about Megazarak / Scorponok? They have different names, radically different sizes, different origins, different species... but they share a toy. Now, you say "Thunder Arrow pilot" just drove around the "Thunder Arrow"... but why would you say that? Because we named him "Thunder Arrow pilot"? That name never appeared anywhere except here, and yet you find yourself making assumptions about his role because of it. "Thunder Arrow pilot" never did anything ever.
- Maybe I'm wrong. I'm newish here. But it seems like the default assumption should be that, if two characters share a toy in two different market, the default assumption should probably be that they're the same guy. Now, if there's a good reason why they can't be the same guy, then it makes sense to split. A good example is all the Masterforce characters who have different names, origins, and often colors. A slightly less good example is the Decepticon Micromasters who became Autobots in Zone. Generally they share a name and a body but not a faction. But the Thunder Arrow and associated Micromaster (again, "pilot" was a word we applied which is already influencing how Stevo percieves his roll) we have the same toy, the same faction, and the same general role. There isn't even a name contradiction as Skystalker's ship isn't named, and Thunder Arrow's Micromaster isn't named. It seems to me that Skystalker and the Thunder Arrow Micromaster share more in common than Marvel Comics Scorponok and Headmasters Megazarak.
- I'll grant that it's a judgment call. But, that being the case, it seems like it'd be a more useful judgment to combine them. I don't really see the case for erring "on the side of caution." Neither one is more or less accurate, but it seems more useful to combine them, get rid of clutter, and consolidate the information all in one place.--Joefan 11:26, 16 November 2012 (EST)
- It was me. I named it "Thunder Arrow pilot" because the toy section of Thunder Arrow says he is the pilot. "Accessories: Micromaster pilot." I assumed the article was accurate and he was listed as the pilot on the box. But I admit I don't know what the box said, or if it was just the English box like Argus suggests. I don't see how him being not the pilot changes anything. If anything it makes him less Skystalker. (I know this is kind of an old conversation, but the Merge proposal is still active.) - Starfield 13:51, 26 July 2013 (EDT)
- One major thing here. You brought up Fortress Maximus as an example because of his drastically different interpretations between the cartoon and the Marvel comics, but the thing about that is: he's still Fortress maximus. Those are just different interpretations of the same character, that take place in different continuities, but they are still Fortress Maximus. The "Thunder Arrow pilot" has no fiction to support him being Skystalker. And Skystalker's ship has never been identified or done any of the jobs that the Thunder Arrow did. The Thunder Arrow was Deathsauras's ship in the Victory cartton and the Decepticon base in that cartoon, Skystalker's vessel has flown around with maybe 2 or 3 micromasters as passangers, and has never shown indication of ever being used by an Emporer of Destruction. Yes, I agree that "Thunder Arrow pilot" has no fiction or personality, but it is better for the Wiki to er on the side of caution and keep him seaperate from Skystalker. He is most likely a seaperate character for one simple reason. Skystalker commands his vessel, while "Thunder Arrow pilot" just drove it around for Deathsauras. Stevo 08:45, 16 November 2012 (EST)
- The Maximals flew the Ark's emergency shuttle all the way from Earth to Cybertron. I would promote caution in over-relying on the semantics of the word "shuttle". -LV 22:33, 15 November 2012 (EST)
- I concede on jumping the gun on the shuttle's "official" U.S. name. That was a mistake on my part. However, a shuttle is not a starship, no matter how fearsome it is. All that talk in the bio about shuttle being this awesomely powerful thing that can go across galaxies was likely originally meant to sell the toy since kids liked/like that kind of sci-fi stuff. Such exaggerations are not unheard of in TF media,. But still, the two are of an entirely different class of spacecraft. Shuttles are a lower class than starships. Like, one wouldn't consider the Enterprise a shuttle, right? --Sabrblade 21:50, 15 November 2012 (EST)
- Maybe I'm being naive, but how do you know any of that? As for the name, it's not called that in the tech spec or in the instructions. See [1] and [2]. It doesn't call it that on the box either. As far as I can tell, it's labeled interstellar shuttle in one place only, the Dreamwave profiles books. Even then it's all lower case, which argues against that being a proper name but instead a description. The tech spec also states that it's both heavily armed and "fearsome" which implies to me that it's not just a "random craft used simply as a means of transport." It also "rockets across galaxies" which sounds to me like a full-fledged starship.--Joefan 21:14, 15 November 2012 (EST)
- It's not simply that one's big and one's small. The Thunder Arrow is meant to be a very specific vessel, one that serves the purpose of being a base of operations. The Interstellar Shuttle is just a random craft used simply as a means of transport. And this case differs from Brigadoon as "Interstellar Shuttle" (as generic as that name sounds) is that shuttle's official U.S. name. But it doesn't fit with the Thunder Arrow because the Thunder Arrow is not a measly shuttle, but a full-fledged starship. --Sabrblade 15:31, 15 November 2012 (EST)
- Technically, the toy was not repurposed in Japan. It looks to me like the Japanese toy was never anything other than the Thunder Arrow. I oppose the merging of the vehicle pages for the reasons you give. Also, it would be very misleading towards the nature of the US toy if the article name was "Thunder Arrow." I don't have a strong opinion about merging the Micromasters. If he is, he should have a note after the intro paragraph similar to Wheel Blaze's. Something like,
![[2]](http://www.tfw2005.com/resources/attach/1/skystalker_1191380003.jpg){kind=link}
Ehmm AFAIK the mailaway is just the western toy people. Fiction never gives the guy a name but on the box it is still Skystalker? Argus 07:51, 26 July 2013 (EDT)
Unless there is some depiction that would directly contradict it, these things should be merged. Same mold, same deco, same faction, same basic role = same dude. And, yes, that means that Thunder Arrow and Interstellar shuttle should also be merged. --Khajidha 13:39, 31 August 2013 (EDT)
- Waaiit a minute. It does not necessarily follow that if the Micromasters are merged than the Skystalker's interstellar shuttle and the Decepticon's warship should be merged. That case should be made separately. - Starfield 15:13, 31 August 2013 (EDT)
So is this getting merged or not? Mimi (talk) 09:45, 5 February 2014 (EST)
Well it has been recently revealed that Skystalker is in fact the Thunder Arrow pilot.Projectus
- By Sideways, who the wiki is treating as "probably lying" in most situations. Riptide (talk) 10:33, 29 June 2015 (EDT)
- Sideways OFTEN lies, but he doesn't ALWAYS lie. And he likes to mix in lies and truth. I wouldn't take anything he says as conclusive, but it's not unreasonable to take it as persuasive.--Jimsorenson (talk) 10:55, 29 June 2015 (EDT)
- Jim, no. If you want to make things canon, you have to do it through the guy who at least claims to not be lying. (In seriousness, I don't think this is enough to overturn the fact that there isn't a conclusive connection between the pilot and Skystalker.) Riptide (talk) 11:09, 29 June 2015 (EDT)::::
- I'm not arguing about a merge one way or the other. I just am clearing up what I perceive as a misconception in the way Sideways is being taken. He's not some mythical demon compelled to lie. He's not even a pathological liar. He just doesn't feel bound by the truth if he thinks a lie is funnier or better for his image. I guess what I'm saying is, while the Sideways story shouldn't be definitive proof that they're one and the same, neither should it be construed in any way to indicate that they SHOULDN'T merge. If I were a third party looking at this new information, I'd probably take this as evidence in favor of a merge, albeit weak evidence. --Jimsorenson (talk) 11:12, 29 June 2015 (EDT)
- Yeah, I get you. But since he does lie whenever he thinks it's funny, etc, I don't think we should give what he says enough credence to affect page merges and the like. (Also, I was trying to make a "No, Jim" reference to the Office, but I couldn't find the gif I wanted, so the humour in my reply might have fallen flat...) Riptide (talk) 11:20, 29 June 2015 (EDT)
- how about a compromise, how about we add to both pages about what Sideways said about the Thunder arrow pilot and Skystalker being one and the same but due to it being info given by Sideways it should be treated with suspicion. Projectus
- Yeah, I get you. But since he does lie whenever he thinks it's funny, etc, I don't think we should give what he says enough credence to affect page merges and the like. (Also, I was trying to make a "No, Jim" reference to the Office, but I couldn't find the gif I wanted, so the humour in my reply might have fallen flat...) Riptide (talk) 11:20, 29 June 2015 (EDT)
- I'm not arguing about a merge one way or the other. I just am clearing up what I perceive as a misconception in the way Sideways is being taken. He's not some mythical demon compelled to lie. He's not even a pathological liar. He just doesn't feel bound by the truth if he thinks a lie is funnier or better for his image. I guess what I'm saying is, while the Sideways story shouldn't be definitive proof that they're one and the same, neither should it be construed in any way to indicate that they SHOULDN'T merge. If I were a third party looking at this new information, I'd probably take this as evidence in favor of a merge, albeit weak evidence. --Jimsorenson (talk) 11:12, 29 June 2015 (EDT)
- Jim, no. If you want to make things canon, you have to do it through the guy who at least claims to not be lying. (In seriousness, I don't think this is enough to overturn the fact that there isn't a conclusive connection between the pilot and Skystalker.) Riptide (talk) 11:09, 29 June 2015 (EDT)::::
- Sideways OFTEN lies, but he doesn't ALWAYS lie. And he likes to mix in lies and truth. I wouldn't take anything he says as conclusive, but it's not unreasonable to take it as persuasive.--Jimsorenson (talk) 10:55, 29 June 2015 (EDT)
"Japanese: Thunder Arrow no pilot (サンダーアローのパイロット, "Thunder Arrow pilot") " Did this term actually see use in Japanese sources? --Khajidha (talk) 09:25, 17 October 2016 (EDT)
- In materials for the Shouki/Daniel release. Saix (talk) 10:16, 17 October 2016 (EDT)
- Okay. I just reread the discussion and noticed that it seemed to say that "Thunder Arrow pilot" originated with us with no official support. It seems that someone has since added it to official sources. --Khajidha (talk) 10:26, 17 October 2016 (EDT)
- Should the Shouki and Daniel set be shown in the notes sections of this page and the Thunder Arrow page?--Khajidha (talk) 11:32, 17 October 2016 (EDT)