Talk:Terradive (G2)
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Why is there a link to this guys G2 page, and when you click on it, it brings you to this G1 page. Shouldn't it be a G2 page since that's where he appeared first?--Megatron Prime 12:38, 16 March 2011 (EDT)
- His toy writeup says he's gang-molded with "Hawk (G1)", too, so my guess is someone decided that the para-G1 Euro releases should have precedence over the US releases. Which I'm pretty sure is wrong, but way more important is that I just learned that Eagle Eye's Japanese name is "Hawking". Awesome. -LV
- There's been a lot of confusion about these guys over the years. I was just thinking the other day that we need to ask Hasbro what their dividing line between G1 and G2 is. Looking at the G2 series toys from Universe 2008, the timeframe listed would seem to subsume the so-called G1.5 characters into G2. Which is what I've thought should be done all along. --Khajidha 13:17, 16 March 2011 (EDT)
- Everything I've read indicates that the Skyscorchers were released in European G1 first. That's really all there is to it. —Interrobang 14:33, 16 March 2011 (EDT)
- Turbofire and Windbreaker aren't at Hotrider or Zap as their defaults, so I don't think this is as cut and dried as you seem to consider it. I don't know whether the wiki has a policy on orders of precedence in English-speaking countries, but I would think the US names would be used if only to keep them consistent with what the characters are called/will almost certainly be called in every other reference (ie fiction). -LV 14:48, 16 March 2011 (EDT)
- Yes. Once again, we should not be setting things up in a way to obfuscate and confuse people simply because of rebar-strut-up-the-ass pedantry. The Skyscorchers should be at their US names for the reasons listed both above and below. --M Sipher 15:40, 16 March 2011 (EDT)
- Fiction? You mean like "War Zone" and "War Without End", which use European names? I mean, never mind the fact that you're conflating the franchise parenthesis issue with the naming issue. "Obfuscating and confusing people" (Over some bit characters. O NOES!) has been long passed by our decision to have Sideways (RID) and Cryotek (RID). —Interrobang 15:54, 16 March 2011 (EDT)
- Yes. Once again, we should not be setting things up in a way to obfuscate and confuse people simply because of rebar-strut-up-the-ass pedantry. The Skyscorchers should be at their US names for the reasons listed both above and below. --M Sipher 15:40, 16 March 2011 (EDT)
- Turbofire and Windbreaker aren't at Hotrider or Zap as their defaults, so I don't think this is as cut and dried as you seem to consider it. I don't know whether the wiki has a policy on orders of precedence in English-speaking countries, but I would think the US names would be used if only to keep them consistent with what the characters are called/will almost certainly be called in every other reference (ie fiction). -LV 14:48, 16 March 2011 (EDT)
- And I'm not even arguing that point. Except for the part about it being G1. My point is that official Hasbro product seems to indicate that G2 ran from 1992 to 1995 inclusive (see the back of U08 Inferno's box). Thus, all of these "late G1" or "G1.5" or "G1 after it ended in the US" figures are actually supposed to be G2. --Khajidha 15:29, 16 March 2011 (EDT)
- They're not, though. Because "Generation 2" didn't appear on the packaging till 1993 in the United States and 1994 in Europe. It's. That. Simple. Your attempts to make exception for this case is pointlessly convoluted. —Interrobang 15:54, 16 March 2011 (EDT)
- Not my attempt. HASBRO's. I'm pointing out that official Hasbro material says that anything from 1992 to 1995 is Generation 2. --Khajidha 16:01, 16 March 2011 (EDT)
- And I'm pointing out that "Generation 2" did not exist till 1993 (and in Europe till 1994). There are more 1992 and prior boxes without "Generation 2" on them than there are 2009 boxes saying that G2 started in 1992. —Interrobang 16:09, 16 March 2011 (EDT)
- Those pre-1993 boxes didn't say "Generation 1" either. If you are comfortable with Hasbro retconning that term into existence, why are you uncomfortable with them retconning what G2 is? Especially since many of the toys in question already had the G2 symbol, which by your reasoning makes it a G1 symbol. --Khajidha 16:12, 16 March 2011 (EDT)
- HAH. --M Sipher 16:17, 16 March 2011 (EDT)
- HURR DURR.
- Do you not see the difference between adopting a synonym for the original series out of necessity and saying something existed before it actually did? Especially since the two different markets introduced G2 in different years? Are you also going to say all Japanese toys 1992-1994 are also G2? —Interrobang 16:49, 16 March 2011 (EDT)
- No, I don't see the difference. The figures and symbols from that time show an obvious developmental disconnect from the previous years and a similarity to those that came later. Eventually Hasbro decided to mark this as a fresh start by adding the "Generation 2" logo to the packaging. Still later, Hasbro decided to acknowledge the continuity of these toys by extending the G2 name to them. Japanese toys from 1992 are already "Operation Combination" and there were no toys released in Japan in 1993 and 1994, so I don't see the problem. --Khajidha 16:58, 16 March 2011 (EDT)
- They didn't start using the new symbols till 1993. Characters from 1992 have appeared in stories that are absolutely Generation 1. You are taking some package's minor text far too seriously and over what the boxes of the time actually say—what their toyline was. If, hypothetically, they included Beast Machines into "Beast Wars 1996-2001", it would still not change the fact that their packaging states "Beast Machines" and that it was the toyline they were being sold as. —Interrobang 18:00, 16 March 2011 (EDT)
- That's my point. There is no unambiguously Generation 1 branded material (not toys, not fiction, nothing) from that time. Everything before 1994 has been assumed to be Generation 1 because of the absence of evidence of belonging to another franchise. But absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence. As minor as the evidence of the G2 series U08 toys is, it is evidence. While I find it enough, I accept that others might not. That's why I mentioned asking Hasbro. Our disagreement basically boils down to whether the addition of the G2 logo indicates the start of a new franchise (your position) or is an acknowledgement that such a new start has already occurred (my position). At any other transition, your position would clearly be right. But, this is the first such transition ever seen in the brand. Standard procedures may not apply because those standards had yet to be set at the time in question. --Khajidha 19:13, 16 March 2011 (EDT)
- They didn't start using the new symbols till 1993. Characters from 1992 have appeared in stories that are absolutely Generation 1. You are taking some package's minor text far too seriously and over what the boxes of the time actually say—what their toyline was. If, hypothetically, they included Beast Machines into "Beast Wars 1996-2001", it would still not change the fact that their packaging states "Beast Machines" and that it was the toyline they were being sold as. —Interrobang 18:00, 16 March 2011 (EDT)
- No, I don't see the difference. The figures and symbols from that time show an obvious developmental disconnect from the previous years and a similarity to those that came later. Eventually Hasbro decided to mark this as a fresh start by adding the "Generation 2" logo to the packaging. Still later, Hasbro decided to acknowledge the continuity of these toys by extending the G2 name to them. Japanese toys from 1992 are already "Operation Combination" and there were no toys released in Japan in 1993 and 1994, so I don't see the problem. --Khajidha 16:58, 16 March 2011 (EDT)
- HAH. --M Sipher 16:17, 16 March 2011 (EDT)
- Those pre-1993 boxes didn't say "Generation 1" either. If you are comfortable with Hasbro retconning that term into existence, why are you uncomfortable with them retconning what G2 is? Especially since many of the toys in question already had the G2 symbol, which by your reasoning makes it a G1 symbol. --Khajidha 16:12, 16 March 2011 (EDT)
- And I'm pointing out that "Generation 2" did not exist till 1993 (and in Europe till 1994). There are more 1992 and prior boxes without "Generation 2" on them than there are 2009 boxes saying that G2 started in 1992. —Interrobang 16:09, 16 March 2011 (EDT)
- Not my attempt. HASBRO's. I'm pointing out that official Hasbro material says that anything from 1992 to 1995 is Generation 2. --Khajidha 16:01, 16 March 2011 (EDT)
- They're not, though. Because "Generation 2" didn't appear on the packaging till 1993 in the United States and 1994 in Europe. It's. That. Simple. Your attempts to make exception for this case is pointlessly convoluted. —Interrobang 15:54, 16 March 2011 (EDT)
- Everything I've read indicates that the Skyscorchers were released in European G1 first. That's really all there is to it. —Interrobang 14:33, 16 March 2011 (EDT)
- There's been a lot of confusion about these guys over the years. I was just thinking the other day that we need to ask Hasbro what their dividing line between G1 and G2 is. Looking at the G2 series toys from Universe 2008, the timeframe listed would seem to subsume the so-called G1.5 characters into G2. Which is what I've thought should be done all along. --Khajidha 13:17, 16 March 2011 (EDT)
Fine, we're at an impasse here, since we seem to be the only ones arguing this. I guess in the meantime, we can focus on proposing to move some guys to their original English names:
- Windrazor (G2) → Tornado (Skyscorcher) or Tornado (G2) — Appeared in fiction named as such
- Eagle Eye (G2) → Hawk (G1) or Hawk (G2) — Appeared in fiction named as such
- Afterburner (G2) → Snipe
- Turbofire → Hotrider
- Windbreaker → Zap
That seems to be all of them. —Interrobang 21:36, 16 March 2011 (EDT)
- No. Just no. We had this discussion long ago, and we're keeping the American names, because this is an American wiki, the vast, overwhelming majority of our readership is American, we don't have all of RID's guys under their Japanese names, and I guaren-damn-tee you that if/when these characters show up again, they ain't gonna be using their European names. Stop it. This is not helping the wiki in any capacity. --M Sipher 01:56, 17 March 2011 (EDT)
- I should probably mention that I actually agree with Interrobang as far as the names go. First English name, whether US or European, should be the page name. I just think that if these characters need parentheticals that they should be G2 per Hasbro. --Khajidha 16:27, 16 March 2011 (EDT)
- We agree on something, at least. (I like how everybody has ignored that their first names in fiction were the European ones.) —Interrobang 16:49, 16 March 2011 (EDT)
- Lots of characters' first names used in fiction weren't American names, and yet we use the American names. --ItsWalky 01:59, 17 March 2011 (EDT)
- Indeed. Once again, a lot of this IS situational. For the eleven-millionth time, the standards are loosened if it's getting in the way of presenting material to its primary audience. --M Sipher 02:06, 17 March 2011 (EDT)
- Lots of characters' first names used in fiction weren't American names, and yet we use the American names. --ItsWalky 01:59, 17 March 2011 (EDT)
- We agree on something, at least. (I like how everybody has ignored that their first names in fiction were the European ones.) —Interrobang 16:49, 16 March 2011 (EDT)
- I should probably mention that I actually agree with Interrobang as far as the names go. First English name, whether US or European, should be the page name. I just think that if these characters need parentheticals that they should be G2 per Hasbro. --Khajidha 16:27, 16 March 2011 (EDT)
Stay with the US names. Its how 95% of people know them and would search for them. Even considering changing them to the UK names is dumb and obfuscating. --76.28.76.206 03:51, 17 March 2011 (EDT)