Template talk:Repurposed

Why exactly are we not having this within the actual prose itself? This isn't a fiction section where we have to use notes to avoid breaking the fourth wall. —Interrobang 20:31, 26 May 2011 (EDT)

To highlight it. If someone were scanning a page to see what toys a character has, there isn't anything to let them know which toys were borrowed from another character without reading inside a block of text. Personally I think they should be under a "Repurposed toys" heading instead of under the "Toys" heading. - Starfield 21:28, 26 May 2011 (EDT)

I don't understand why being repurposed is a special quality that needs us to call it out harder on a page. What makes it a more important bit of information than anything else about a toy? What if I want to quickly scan a page to see which toys came with Robot Points? --ItsWalky 21:30, 26 May 2011 (EDT)

I'm with Starfield on this one. To me, a repurposed toy is not the same as a toy actually released as a character. You can't actually buy a toy of Generation 1 Lockdown, you have to buy the ROTF one and make pretend. In some sense, repurposed toys don't actually belong on the page of the character they have been repurposed as, it seems useful to me to make this distinction as clear as possible. --Khajidha 22:01, 26 May 2011 (EDT)

Packrat's repurposed Transmetal toy is listed under the "Beast Wars" heading, but if you go to the Beast Wars (toyline) page there is no listing for Transmetal Packrat—because there was no "Transmetal Packrat" in the Beast Wars toyline. It just seems like the wiki is being unclear. If there is a toy listed under the "Beast Wars" heading we are leading people to assume that character had that toy released in the Beast Wars toyline, unless they care to read the text to find out the real history of the toy. - Starfield 22:42, 26 May 2011 (EDT)

I don't see your point. If they only look at the table of contents or the header, they're not going to see the note. Lots of things on this wiki are "unclear" but we're not going to make notes for everything just because people cannot read. You are making this unnecessarily complicated and insulting readers' intelligence. —Interrobang 11:26, 27 May 2011 (EDT)

I favor the template because, if I'm scanning the toys for a character and run across one with completely the wrong name on it, I get puzzled and think someone has made a mistake. I think an obvious note close to the top that says "Repurposed!" is better than an unobvious note down near the bottom buried in the text. (I also note that I'm just formalizing something that popped up on a couple pages weeks ago. Bobpiecheese, for example, added the note to Lockdown (G1).) JW 07:09, 27 May 2011 (EDT)

Why is the template linking to the character the toy was repurposed into, if it's listed on that character's page in the first place? A page linking to itself seems kinda dumb to me. (Unless of course linking to a specific section of that page). I know this toy has been repurposed into this character, because I'm already on this character's page. If it links into which character the toy becomes repurposed into, it should be on the original character's page. (Which I'm against because it almost seems to imply the toy "stopped" being the original character somehow after it was repurposed, which isn't the case at all.) If it's on the page of the character the toy was repurposed into, it should refer to the character the toy was originally made for. Which, again is pointless, because the toy is listed under the original character's name. I really hope my phrasing wasn't too confusing. In short, I think this template is pointless too. I wouldn't bring up a three year old discussion if not for the fact that inconsistency in formatting really bugs me. Can I go ahead and make everything consistent for this? --Ascendron (talk) 02:01, 19 February 2014 (EST)