Editing Talk:Galvatron (G1)

[[File:GalvatronOhiraOX.jpg|right|200px|thumb|He has a weird tendency to aim at his own troops.]]

==Galvatron 2==
What you have cavalierly retiled 'Galvatron IV' (Rhythms of Darkness) was explicitly called Galvatron 2 in Alignment, like as an actual title or somejunk.  (It's confusing.)  So a specific number has meaning in reference to this character, and his numbering should not be reassigned for aesthetic reasons- doing so removes meaning.

Also, we have at least 1 explicit letters page reference (Backed up, IIRC by the Titan Compilation recap pages) saying he's the same incarnation of the character as the one from Perchance to Dream.

The 2nd Future-Galvie is difficult.  I don't object toc alling him III, but since the numbers kinda have meaning for the other two (and reflect a need to label two distinct individuals who visited the past, as opposed to a 3rd individual who didn't, and instead exists in a timeline where no such disambuigation was needed) I think it'd be better to say "Also, a new Galvatron showed up int he future after Straxus died." -[[User:Derik|Derik]] 12:22, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
: Yeah.  Who numbered all these Galvatrons?  The Rhythms of Darkness one is specifically Galvatron II.  None of the others officially got any numbers.  (Galvatron II gets his own page, as well.)  --[[User:ItsWalky|ItsWalky]] 15:09, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, that's why I requested an expert come in and rework what I wrote.  I was mostly going by what Cliffy wrote at the Archive ( http://www.tfarchive.com/comics/faq/#2q ).  The extent of *my* actual knowledge of Marvel Comics UK Galvatron goes no further than Target: 2006 and Perchance to Dream.--[[User:DrSpengler|DrSpengler]] 21:38, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

== IDW Galvatron ==

So, not spoiling too much be IDW Galvatron has been confirmed to not only not be Megatron, but to not even have had anything to do with Megatron, ever. I knida lean toward giving him his own page. Thoughts?--[[User:71.235.136.203|71.235.136.203]] 10:59, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
: I'm going to say no.  Galvatron II gets his own page because he's explicitly a separate entity from a world which has already had a Galvatron.  I see him in the same light as I see TM2 Dinobot.  IDW Galvatron may be a different concept, but he's still just a new continuity's take on the character, and that's nothing new. [[User:Chip|Chip]] 15:57, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
::I don't know. He's got his own background, and though originally he only was in his Spotlight, he's about to get a ''lot'' more screentime. Giving him his own page would mean we could give the new character design a good central place and separate his unique backstory from his fiction appearances.--[[User:Rosicrucian|Rosicrucian]][[User Talk:Rosicrucian|<sup>Talk</sup>]] 19:54, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
:::I say we keep him here for reasons that Chip stated.  He '''is''' an incarnation of his G1 self, even if he doesn't evolve from Megatron. --[[User:MistaTee|MistaTee]] 20:04, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

===Splitting?===
Now we got [[Goldbug (IDW)]] now, I'd like to propose splitting the IDW section into "Galvatron (IDW)". --'''[[User:TX55|<span style= "color:#00FA9A">TX55</span>]]'''<small><SUP>''[[User talk:TX55|<span style= "color:#0000CD">TALK</span>]]''</SUP></small> 00:33, 23 July 2009 (EDT)
:IDW Goldbug needed a separate page because G1 Goldbug was simply an extension of G1 Bumblebee, and so he was part of G1 Bumblebee's page. Galvatron is already a separate page from Megatron. Lots of characters have contradictory backstories within a single page. - [[User:Cattleprod|Cattleprod]] 00:31, 23 July 2009 (EDT)
::Concur. I don't see much point in splitting off another G1 Galvatron. --[[User:M Sipher|M Sipher]] 01:52, 23 July 2009 (EDT)
:::I am also against split. Something else to consider. Toy Galvatron is already a different character than Megatron. - [[User:Starfield|Starfield]] 09:24, 23 July 2009 (EDT)

:I agree with the splitting, he is a seperate character.[[Special:Contributions/71.255.161.143|71.255.161.143]] 21:24, 12 September 2011 (EDT)

== Marvel Comics x2? ==
Why is there a second Marvel Comics section after Japanese continuity?  That says absolutely nothing about what happened in the comics, but is instead dilled with badly-written speculation about the events of the 'toon version of the movie?   Doesn't that sort of thing belong on Wikipedia, not here?  -[[User:Derik|Derik]] 01:49, 9 July 2007 (UTC)



== Scramble City (toys) OVA (Japan-only)==


(Note: this OVA is not canon to anything in the known universe.) 

WHAT??!??
HAVE EVEN SEEN THIS?  Galvatron is now where in the Scramble City OVA which should be canon no problem.  What I think you are talking about are the live action TOY ADVERTISMENTS that were done in conjunction of Scramble City(I guess the ad's were a continuation of Scramble City, but all it did was re tell the story)What is described in this article does happen in these toy comercials.   GALVATRON IS NO WHERE IN SCRAMBLE CITY, HE IS IN THE TOY COMMERCIALS! --Unknown IP Address

:I think you're confused, Mr. Unknown IP Address.  The section is titled "Scramble City (toys)" which is the name used to seperate the animated Scramble City OVA from the stop-motion OVA.  Footage from the stop-motion OVA was used for toy commercials, but never the less, the footage originated in said OVA, which ISN'T canon to the animated series, though the animated Scramble City most certainly is.  So, again, there is a difference between "Scramble City" and "Scramble City (toys)" as noted in the section covering Galvatron's appearance in that OVA's fiction.  Scramble City (toys) was a full-length stop-motion OVA which combined stock footage from the television series with a completely new voice track, making it more than just a standard toy commercial as it is about half an hour long and tells a story.  It might do you wonders to actually ''watch'' the complete Scramble City (toys) OVA before going off the handle, just so you have some semblance of a clue as to what you're talking about.  You can read a detailed synopsis of the OVA [http://www.tfarchive.com/cartoons/guide.php?s=scramblecity#toys here].  Also, TALKING IN ALL CAPS!1!1! doesn't make you appear more intelligent, particularly when you're wrong. --[[User:DrSpengler|DrSpengler]] 22:34, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

If it's just a toy commercial and isn't cannon then why should it be included in the Galvatron article?  Oh and the CAPS was to indicate irritation that some NERD decided to include an actual half hour toy commercial(I say actual because, as we all know, Transformers was nothing more than a half-hour toy commercial in the guise of "cartoon").  I realize that it apparently had some sort of story, but come on it's a toy commercial...also, why the personal stab?  Did you write this article?  Because I wasn't trying to attack anyone, but you were, why?  Are you still bitter that they killed off Optimus Prime?  
PS Don't go locking yourself in your bedroom. --Unkown IP Address Guy

:It is canon (not "cannon", there's a difference) with itself and would qualify as a [[micro-continuity]] just like the various Big Looker storybooks and other ridiculous oddities that fill Generation 1.  The fact that segments of it are stop-motion (while just as much is animated) does not mean it should be disqualified from inclusion.  The fact that it marks the first appearance of Galvatron in Japan is most certainly notable.  ''Also'', if you spent a little time perusing this wiki you might notice that we actually ''do'' include the story tidbits [[Nightbeat (G1)|revealed]] [[Horrorcon|in]] [[Gutcruncher (G1)|television]] [[Stratotronic Jet|commercials]].  The fact that the Scramble City (toys) OVA was actually ''sold in stores'' and lasted a half hour makes it even ''more'' notable than television commercials.  ''Imagine that''.  Furthermore, combining clips of various episodes to make new stories is something done routinely in Japanese Transformer animation, once again making the Scramble City (toys) OVA more than just a "half hour toy commercial" (though I feel like laughing every time I hear that).
The fact of the matter is, at this wiki we strive to be as comprehensive as possible, including all different continuities, large or small, whether they're canon with any primary fiction or not.  That includes [[Action Master|toy packaging blurbs]], [[Rad (G1)|television commercials]], [[Decoy|pack-in comics]] and, yes, the bizarre stop-motion OVA such as "Scramble City (toys)". --[[User:DrSpengler|DrSpengler]] 05:24, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Wow.

In terms of the Marvel Continuities, should any mention be made of the characters appearances in Marvel's Transformers the Movie Adaption? Even though they are out of the normal continuity of the comics, a lot of the characters like Hot Rod, Galavtron, and Blurr were introduced there before anywhere else in the Marvel comics and the Marvel Universe profiles even make mention of this. Or would that really just confuse things? -[[User:RiddlerJ|RiddlerJ]] October 19 2007

==Weapon name==
What was Galvatron's weapon called again? A chemical-electric laser cannon? -- [[User:SFH|SFH]] 05:25, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
:In the 1989 Annual, Megatron's and Galvatron's weapons were called "Fusion cannon" and "particle accelerator cannon" but I forget which one was which. [[User:Takeshi357|Takeshi357]] 20:53, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
::In his bio and/or TFU profile, Galv's cannon is said to be a "laser that shoots chemically-induced, direct current electricity."  --[[User:Thylacine 2000|Thylacine 2000]] 22:04, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
:::It was a "particle cannon" on the cover of UK #118, and the Wreckers called it a "particle accelerator cannon" in #172. --[[User:Xaaron|Xaaron]] 22:44, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

::::IIRC it's also been called a proton rocket cannon and a proton cannon. A UK letters page suggested the tech specs are the most accurate of the five names/descriptions. [[User:Timrollpickering|Timrollpickering]] 19:25, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

==Universe==

Anyone know WHY galvatron's altmode is changed from a cannon/gun to a tank?--[[User:Grand-majin|Grand-majin]] 18:48, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
: Because Hasbro hates you.  --[[User:ItsWalky|ItsWalky]] 18:51, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
:  That's something i know for a long time.--[[User:Grand-majin|Grand-majin]] 18:52, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
::Because Hasbro has said that part of the motivation behind the Universe line is to pick up "realistic modern vehicle modes" when the Movie line ends. Galvatron's old form doesn't fit that criteria, but a tank does. --[[User:ZacWilliam|ZacWilliam]] 18:54, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
:::Considering that tank mode is hardly what I consider "realistic", I see no reason for the change...[[User:Takeshi357|Takeshi357]] 20:48, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
::::That is why we make fun of this reasoning in the toy's description.--[[User:Rosicrucian|Rosicrucian]][[User Talk:Rosicrucian|<sup>Talk</sup>]] 20:53, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
:::::His cannon-on-treads mode was reasonably close to a tank anyway, and this design allows them to pull off a legitimate transformation and the grey-to-purple color swap--both of which are firsts for this character and his homages.  If anything, I was mostly surprised they used a vehicle not from the U.S., E.U., or Russia.  --[[User:Thylacine 2000|Thylacine 2000]] 22:07, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
:http://www.tfw2005.com/boards/transformers-news-rumors/223379-takaratomy-staff-interview-generations-2009-vol-1-translation.html It's interesting that this article states that they abandoned the tripple changing aspect because shockwave from the animated line was made at the same time.--[[User:Sunjumper|Sunjumper]] 16:05, 22 September 2009 (EDT)

==The Making of the Transformers Visual Universe: Galvatron, Rodimus Prime==
:The link is dead for over a year.--[[User:Sunjumper|Sunjumper]] 12:15, 4 July 2009 (EDT)

== The number of Marvel Galvatrons ==

We say there are "between 2 and 5 different Galvatrons" but mention only four - is the fifth one assuming Aspects of Evil: Unicron features a different Galvatron to AoE: Galvatron (as the TF Archive FAQ does) or are we into the mess of whether there's yet more timeline divergences around the movie that could make the Target: 2006 Galvatron either a standalone or multiple predecessor? (My head hurts on all this.) [[User:Timrollpickering|Timrollpickering]] 15:01, 2 August 2009 (EDT)

== IDW split proposal take2 ==

Ok now I do think we should split the idw Galvatron from this page due to his origin being completely different and that he has a completely different personality from all the other incarnation he had. I think he should ether go to "Galvatron (idw)" or "Galvatron (Dead Universe)" or something similar. I think he would benefit from that move simply for the aforementioned difference in personality and origin and his goals.  [[User:Dead Metal|Dead Metal]] 17:03, 11 August 2009 (EDT)
:IDW seems like the less unwieldy parenthetical, and it's consistent with Goldbug.--[[User:Rosicrucian|Rosicrucian]][[User Talk:Rosicrucian|<sup>Talk</sup>]] 17:06, 11 August 2009 (EDT)
::Agreed.  Also, "Galvatron (G1)" would then be too broad a title for this article, so it should change to something like "Galvatron (Megatron)". - [[User:Jackpot|Jackpot]] 17:14, 11 August 2009 (EDT)
:The reason I was okay with IDW Galvatron staying on Galvatron (G1) is because it was already a separate page from Megatron. If Galvatron was fully integrated into Megatron's page the way Goldbug was with Bumblebee's, than a new page would be justified.
:I don't see why separate origins make any difference. Do we need separate pages for the Dinobots who were built on Earth and the ones who were from Cybertron? - [[User:Cattleprod|Cattleprod]] 17:24, 11 August 2009 (EDT)
::It's less about "origin" and more about "identity."  If the fact that a character used to be a different character is germane enough to who they are now, then an incarnation where that's not the case could be considered to have a sufficiently different identity to merit his own page.  At least, that's how I read this proposal.  For example, nobody has brought up the fact that different incarnations of [[Cyclonus (G1)]] show evidence of originating from different characters, because Cyclonus's personality seems totally unaffected by his previous "self."  Goldbug is a lot more clear-cut in that regard, and Galvatron is kind of a fuzzy middle.
::My personal standard is the "intro test":  If you find that writing a universal intro requires an excessive amount of qualifiers or paring-down to suit all the incarnations in an article, then maybe not all of those incarnations belong.  But that's entirely my personal take.
::- [[User:Jackpot|Jackpot]] 17:31, 11 August 2009 (EDT)
:::I will enjoy splitting Grimlock into (Marvel) and (Sunbow), then.  --[[User:ItsWalky|ItsWalky]] 17:40, 11 August 2009 (EDT)
:::FWIW, that would require splitting virtually all of the 1987 Headmaster character articles. -- [[User:Repowers|Repowers]] 17:39, 11 August 2009 (EDT)
:::What about tech spec bio micro-continuity Galvatron? That guy is much closer to IDW Galvatron than cartoon/Marvel Galvatron. - [[User:Starfield|Starfield]] 17:59, 11 August 2009 (EDT)
::: Two words. "Cartoon Constructicons". --[[User:M Sipher|M Sipher]] 13:35, 12 August 2009 (EDT)

I know I kinda brought this one up in Goldbug, but upon consideration, I don't think it needs to be split. Goldbug needed his own article because he was a separate character from Bumblebee. But IDW Galvatron doesn't need one because he's a separate character from Megatron, as are most/all of the others, to a greater/lesser degree. We need an article on Galvatron the character, who exists separate from Megatron. And we've got one. While IDW Galvatron is a completely separate being from his Megatron, the principle is essentially the same as Marvel Galvatron being separate because he existed alongside his Megatron

And Galvatron (Megatron) is pretty ridiculous.

[[User:Eire]] 22.59 Aug 11 09 (UTC)
:Here's my take on the matter: either we split all the IDW characters to their own separate articles, or we keep them all in their G1 articles. Picking and choosing which characters are the same and which are different is incredibly arbitrary and doesn't adhere at all to wiki standards, not to mention being confusing as all hell. -- [[User:Dark T Zeratul|Dark T Zeratul]] 18:08, 11 August 2009 (EDT)
::Being selective is ''not'' the same as being arbitrary.  There ''are'' standards and tests we can apply here.  Goldbug basically just Bumblebee with some cosmetic changes.  Take away the Bumblebee aspect, and you've removed ''everything'' which defines the character.  Galvatron is less clear-cut, but he's one of a rare handful of borderline cases.  Most IDW guys follow their previous incarnations far more neatly, however.  Trying to apply a one-size-fits-all standard to such a diverse set of circumstances?  Now ''that'' is arbitrary.  It's saying, "Well, we're going to make our rules neat and simple, no matter how messy and complex the reality we're trying to describe is!" [[User:Repowers|Repowers]] 11:23, 12 August 2009 (EDT)
:::I'm in complete agreement with Rob here. If we've learned ''anything at all'' since this wiki went up, it's that this franchise can and will throw up ''something'' that bucks "standards", and that it is impossible to come up with an actual broad applies-to-everything rule that doesn't overcomplicate things horribly. I mean... if "different origins" is ''really'' supposed to be a standard, then are we going to have '''three''' different pages for the G1 cartoon Constructicons alone? It's not just saying "Well, we're going to make our rules neat and simple, no matter how messy and complex the reality we're trying to describe is!", it's saying "Well, we're going to make our rules neat and simple, no matter how messy and complex it's going to make finding a goddamn thing on this wiki!". Sometimes, duct tape and chewing gum ''is'' the optimum fix for a problem, no renovating the house required. We're dealing with a problem that seriously only affects like %0.1 of our character database ''if that''. Baby, bathwather, etc. --[[User:M Sipher|M Sipher]] 13:34, 12 August 2009 (EDT)

:Galvatron's multiplicity is too well-established for us to start splitting this page up now.  We already include Time Wars Galv and Aspects Of Evil Galv--and the latter is specifically the ''opposite'' of the former, but they're both the same character.  We never see where Worlds Collide's bizarrely Unicron-asskissing Galv's came from, so maybe he's no more Megatron than IDW's was, or only as much as Henkei's was (basically just Megatron consciously cosplaying).  We split off [[Galvatron II]] because [[Unicron|word of God]] comes out and says "you're not the REAL Galvatron, Mister Future Doppelganger Dude."  
:''Fun fact:  in that same conversation, Unicron says the Unicron that GalvII had known "was a Unicron I may or may not become," and Hook/Line/Sinker even say it was a "different Unicron."  Doesn't that kinda... not mesh with the whole [[multiversal singularity]] thing?  (No, there will never be an end to the shit-stirring).''--[[User:Thylacine 2000|Thylacine 2000]] 22:00, 11 August 2009 (EDT)
::I'd love to understand why Galvatron II is split off. He's just another alternate-universe version of G1 Galvatron, isn't he? Why is his identity more distinct that any other G1 Galvatron? -[[User:Crockalley|Crockalley]] 10:58, 12 August 2009 (EDT)
:::Because he has a toy of his own? --[[User:KilMichaelMcC|KilMichaelMcC]] 11:04, 12 August 2009 (EDT)
::::But, he's still a G1 Galvatron, isn't he? So you mean, if we got a toy of IDW Galvaron, he'd get his own page? What about the new Masterpiece Grimlock who's colored like Marvel Grimlock and comes with the crown? He's different than cartoon Grimlock. Should he get his own page? -[[User:Crockalley|Crockalley]] 11:18, 12 August 2009 (EDT)
:Galvatron II has a different name and was a stranger in the universe his fiction continuity came from. [[User:Dead Metal|Dead Metal]] 11:34, 12 August 2009 (EDT)
::But the universe where Galvatron II came from is still part of the G1 family, isn't it? This article covers G1 Galvatrons from the cartoon, several Marvel comic versions, as well as [[Worlds Collide]] Galvatron. And IDW Galvatron. I don't understand why Galvatron II is an exception. He was created in the same way as comic and cartoon Galvatron, and he's from a G1 universe. He has more in common with most G1 Galvatrons than IDW Galvy, but IDW Galvy is here, and GII isn't. I'm sorry if I'm causing trouble, I just don't get it. -[[User:Crockalley|Crockalley]] 12:26, 12 August 2009 (EDT)
:::Galvatron II has an '''official designation''', and he's the second Galvatron to appear within a single continuity, which is the entire reason he ''got'' a distint title in the first place.  (Originally from Alignment... IIRC; The name stemmed from a need for characters in-universe to distinguish which Galvatron they were talking about.)
:::I'd just like to underline... this is '''not''' an either/or decision.  We're not really discussing "Split to Galvatron (IDW) or keep as is."  The article as-is is a mess.  I'd also like to point out that [[Galvatron II]], despite originating in the Marvel comics, appears in '''at least two continuities''', which is the fundamental problem I have with a publisher-specific (IDW) designation.  So if ''any'' other non-Megatron Galvatron shows up, '''he''' needs to get his own article too?  Does Galvatron  from "[[Worlds Collide]]" need to be "Galvatron (Dreamwave)"?  We don't know ''he'' was ever Megatron.  -[[User:Derik|Derik]] 12:53, 12 August 2009 (EDT)
::::To build on Derik's point:  If we didn't have an ''in-universe sequence of in-universe characters COMING OUT AND SAYING "this dude isn't the real Galvatron",'' Galvatron II would be treated as the real Galvatron and would be on this page.  But we do have that, so he isn't here.  
::::As for all the other multiples of Galvatron.... the trouble is, he really may be the exception to any rule we could come up with, just because it IS so established over so many years that there are a lot of him from a lot of different dimensions.  Between "Rhythms," "Time Wars," and "Aspects of Evil" (and TWICE in that one!), the multiverse concept was demonstrated with Galvatron about 13 years before it was really applied to the rest of TF storytelling as a whole.  I do not believe it would be possible--much less worthwhile--to retroactively give the CSI treatment to every little Galvatron variant and try to figure out if he was the "real" one.  We cut out the one that the in-story characters say isn't the real Galvatron; but there's not much consistent ground on which to try to cut out anyone else.  --[[User:Thylacine 2000|Thylacine 2000]] 13:12, 12 August 2009 (EDT)
:::::Looking at it the thing with Galvatron is insane, in the Marvel comics we have a whole army and then there is that DW one, who I personally don't believe is Galvatron as we know him from the 80's, he's too calm and not insane. So if we do decide to split this article I propose following designations:

*Galvatron (G1) for the cartoon and first comic version 
*Galvatron (reset) for the one that is mentioned by the dyeing Rodimus Prime
*Galvatron (Earthforce) for the earthforce one
*Galvatron (WC) for the Worlds Collide one
*Galvatron (DU) for the idw one
Fuck I can see us dividing by zero. Why can't they just stick to one thing?[[User:Dead Metal|Dead Metal]] 13:28, 12 August 2009 (EDT)

:Now, I don't understand the idea of Galvatron II not being the real Galvatron. He's the real Galvatron from the universe he comes from, isn't he? And the universe he's from is a G1 universe, isn't it? Just because the stories he takes part in are mostly set in a different G1 universe doesn't mean Galvatron II isn't '''a''' valid G1 Galvatron. -[[User:Crockalley|Crockalley]] 19:24, 12 August 2009 (EDT)
:Galvatron II is a second Galvatron in the same continuity. He's valid, but he is an independent Galvatron from the first Galvatron. [[User:Eire]] 00.52 Aug 13 09 (UTC)
::I think I understand the reason for the separate articles, but it's still a bit silly. The whole thing revolves around the two Galvatrons in Marvel comics. Both Marvel Galvatrons are G1 Galvatrons from separate G1 continuities, just like cartoon Galvatron (US, Japan), Henkei Galvatron, etc are each from separate G1 continuities, but we don't separate those articles. It seems weird that the two or three Galvatrons who have a very similar origin (Galvatrons I & II and cartoon) are separated, but dissimilar Galvatrons (like IDW) are on this page. I understand that he has been pointed out as a separate Galvatron in-fiction, but he's still a '''G1''' Galvatron. To shut myself up, I'll point out that, technically, Gavatron II ''is'' a part of the [[Galvatron (G1)]] article, but is pulled out of the article in a similar fashion as [[Optimus Prime (G1)/toys]].  Sort of a "Galvatron (G1)/II" situation. -[[User:Crockalley|Crockalley]] 21:45, 12 August 2009 (EDT)
:::Bingo.  Your last point is ''exactly'' what the Galvatron II article is.  The reason it exists, as far as I can tell, is because NOT having it would mean basically telling two different "life stories" in the same series summary.  Yeah, there are multiple Galvies in the Marvel summary anyway, and the variation between them can be argued, but from the moment Galvy II was "born" (in 2005, not 2006 like the other comic Galvies), he was on a separate track.  The fact that he has a canonically different designator that we can use for a title is icing on that cake. - [[User:Jackpot|Jackpot]] 21:51, 12 August 2009 (EDT)

I think Dead Metals proposed splits would be the best idea. We're establishing that a bunch of characters from G1 say that Galv II is not the original means that he gets a separate page,yet being created before Megatron seems to establish him as the same person as the orig, which is not possible unless he goes from G to M and then back to G.[[User:Burnout|Burnout]] 06:56, 27 February 2011 (EST)Burnout
:This proposal is from two and a half years ago. That we haven't followed through clearly indicates that common sense and logic have prevailed. Just read Crockalley and Jackpot's posts to know why this extra splitting is a dumb idea. --[[User:Detour|Detour]] 07:14, 27 February 2011 (EST)

==New Disambig==
I find it a rather awkward read.  Also, "Aspects of Evil" had ANOTHER Galvatron from an alternate future of the Marvel universe.  I tend to think the original disambig was good enough.  --[[User:Thylacine 2000|Thylacine 2000]] 09:39, 4 October 2010 (EDT)
:While I can see the argument that a disambig3.5 fits the situation better, I have to agree that the phrasing actually used is not very good. --[[User:Khajidha|Khajidha]] 10:32, 4 October 2010 (EDT)
::"Aspects of Evil" Galvatron is almost certainly just [[Galvatron II]].  --[[User:ItsWalky|ItsWalky]] 10:44, 4 October 2010 (EDT)
:::Alternate timeline thereof, but yes.  -[[User:Derik|Derik]] 10:45, 4 October 2010 (EDT)
::::I'm not sure how much of an "alternate of Galvatron II" you can become while still being the character, since the whole point of his existence is that he ''is'' an alternate within specific conditions.  Galvatron II exists insofar as he helped Unicron destroy Cybertron circa 1986; in AoE, Cybertron still exists around 2300 and only ''then'' does Unicron try to eat it.  I'm not sure what else we could use to tell II apart from I, and it seems just as likely that this is actually just a "III".  And, uh, apparently he's also Straxus.  --[[User:Thylacine 2000|Thylacine 2000]] 22:09, 4 October 2010 (EDT)

== It looks like Galvatron was a G2 Autobot ==
Judging by [[:Image:G2merch-Galvatronwatch.jpg|his watch package]], Galvatron was a G2 Autobot. - [[User:Starfield|Starfield]] 00:15, 18 December 2010 (EST)

==Split==
I was going to split the G1 cartoon bit out for Galvy too, but I am not sure how to do that with the whole "Who is Galvatron?" part. And as an aside, if I were to split out a part for Kup's page, should I give precedence to the toy section for being the toy section or the cartoon section for being the longest section? [[User:Geewunling|Geewunling]] 05:57, 9 July 2011 (EDT)

== Split take 3 ==
I think we should split all marvel Galvatron's into seperate articles or just rewrite it so that there are 5 Galvatrons listed instead of three since that's how many there really are. That ends the Marvel conflict.

We should split or note that Dreamwave's World's Collide Galvatron may not be Megatron.

We should split IDW's Galvatron since their Galvatron is definitely a seperate character from the rest of the Galvatrons listed on this page. 

Before we argue over all that, please note that the lead section of the article says that "Galvatron was once Megatron" and that he was "Born from the fires of Unicron himself".

IDW Galvatron has no relation to Unicron nor Megatron. 

Dreamwave's Galvatron's identity is unknown and may be like the other Galvatron's who may or may not be Megatrons. 

And even if they are, they are from parallel universes, and are seperate entities, and merit seperate articles.[[Special:Contributions/71.162.108.63|71.162.108.63]] 17:19, 5 December 2011 (EST)
:No. Stop pushing this. [[User:Interrobang|—Interrobang]] 17:26, 5 December 2011 (EST)
::Another thing I could say is to keep track of all these Galvatrons is use a suite. But lets work this out. 
::I know I'm requesting to much. So no split for now. We should atleast rewrite somethings to make them more accurate. Like the Marvel section. 
::But lets wait to see what other people think of this. Then we can agree on something.[[Special:Contributions/71.162.108.63|71.162.108.63]] 17:32, 5 December 2011 (EST)
:::What is there to "rewrite"? The Galvatron page has been fine for years now and the debate about whether the incarnations are the "same character" played out several times. We're not splitting (excepting cases of size) and we likely never will. [[User:Interrobang|—Interrobang]] 17:36, 5 December 2011 (EST)
::::Yeah. But as long as you do that, the lead will be innaccurate.[[Special:Contributions/71.162.108.63|71.162.108.63]] 17:41, 5 December 2011 (EST)
:::::Because of one incarnation? We've lived with worse. [[User:Interrobang|—Interrobang]] 17:45, 5 December 2011 (EST)
::::::Would it be better for the anon to actually present a draft proposal? I mean, it does seem to be a major issue if inaccurate information is being presented, especially on a high-profile character like this.[[Special:Contributions/192.249.47.196|192.249.47.196]] 18:41, 5 December 2011 (EST)
:::::::We have had "drafts" and numerous discussions about this. Read this talk page and find something more useful to do than rehashing old arguments. [[User:Interrobang|—Interrobang]] 18:49, 5 December 2011 (EST)

It's not because of one incarnation, it's because of 8 (5 Marvel, 1 IDW, 1 Dreamwave, 1 Ladybird Books).[[Special:Contributions/71.162.108.63|71.162.108.63]] 20:39, 5 December 2011 (EST)
: Do something, anything, other than this, please.  Find a new pet project, one that hopefully won't waste our time.  --[[User:ItsWalky|ItsWalky]] 21:49, 5 December 2011 (EST)

== Notes ==

Shouldn't the notes relating to the G1 cartoon Galvatron be split to that page?[[Special:Contributions/71.255.166.125|71.255.166.125]] 17:23, 9 March 2012 (EST)
:Hi, Noob saibot red. Being blocked means we don't want you here. [[User:Interrobang|—Interrobang]] 17:33, 9 March 2012 (EST)
::While that is true, he actually has a point here. I've moved the cartoon continuity specific notes to the cartoon continuity page. --[[User:Khajidha|Khajidha]] 13:00, 30 April 2012 (EDT)

== Marvel page? ==

Since Galvatron had a big role in the Marvel universe, shouldn't we split it into [[Galvatron (G1)/Marvel Comics continuity]]?[[Special:Contributions/71.255.163.24|71.255.163.24]] 13:59, 25 August 2012 (EDT)
:IMHO the article isn't big enough to warrant splitting more of it off. --[[User:Abates|abates]] 18:54, 25 August 2012 (EDT)
:I couldn't help but to notice that the section header says events taking place in the UK comics are in italics...and then the ''entire section is in italics''. Wouldn't it be better to just have the section renamed "Marvel UK"? The single US comic is already under it's own subsection anyway. [[User:Takeshi357|Takeshi357]] ([[User talk:Takeshi357|talk]]) 20:41, 27 July 2015 (EDT)

== IDW Apperances ==

Have Galvatron and Megatron ever appeared in the same story in IDW?[[User:Transfan 1992|Transfan 1992]] 18:31, 2 December 2012 (EST)
: Yes.  --[[User:ItsWalky|ItsWalky]] 18:52, 2 December 2012 (EST)
Name one, because I can't find one.[[User:Transfan 1992|Transfan 1992]] 15:49, 10 December 2012 (EST)
:[[Devastation issue 6]]. - [[User:Starfield|Starfield]] 16:00, 10 December 2012 (EST)

== Galvatron II linkout ==

I feel like the bit that links to Galvatron II should have an image from the Marvel comic,rather than the stuff added after-the-fact to him. Anyone got any good ideas? The last page of issue 71, perhaps? [[User:Escargon|Escargon]] ([[User talk:Escargon|talk]]) 17:56, 24 February 2019 (EST)

== Galvatron == Megatron, or Unicron likes to waste time ==

Unicron can create new life from the dead we must assume: that or he can modify the life essences of the living/dying, giving them not only new personalities but also setting different levels of intellect.

Taking the characters seen to be reformatted:

Shrapnel -- slightly demented, verbal tic, cynical, loyal only to Insecticon cause.
Kickback -- suave blackmailer. Cynical, loyal only to Insecticon cause.
Bombshell -- sadistic mind controller, some scientific skill shown in cartoon universe, e.g. Enter the Nightbird. Cynical, loyal only to Insecticon cause.
Skywarp -- unbelievably dumb, cruel, violent.
Thundercracker -- not too bright, but has some objectivity. Arrogant, contemptuous of those that cannot fly but cynical about how the cause should be fought, pities as well as looks down upon "the inferior". Insecure.

They become:

Cyclonus -- extremely loyal to Galvatron specifically, fairly intelligent, fearless, leadership skills, supposedly emotionless but the cartoon version is a bit highly strung at times and is even shown to have a sense of humour.
Scourge -- not brave but a thinker, strong enough will to resist Starscream, ambitious (Burden Hardest to Bear), some leadership skills but Sweeps don't respect him.
Sweeps -- generally whiny, occasionally disobedient, fearful of Cyclonus.

No comparisons there. But Galvatron is Megatron, and that's that. Why would Unicron waste time negotiating with him if he could just reprogram him? Unicron wanted Megatron because he was a natural leader, cunning, hated the Autobots and had a wealth of knowledge about his enemies. He could have programmed out the ambition, treacherousness etc but didn't because he needed Megatron's mind whole. The whole "Megatron wouldn't have killed Starscream" argument has merit given the long history of forgiving even worse treachery (Countdown to Extinction, for example). But Galvatron is more powerful, it seems, and he now has Cyclonus and Scourge. Starscream had additionally thrown him out when he was dying, which is more obvious in the older scripts (e.g. the "Enshrine me!" line) and that's different to betraying him while he was at full fitness -- there would be a new leader anyway, but Starscream wasn't even going to give him a dignified end, perhaps that was the last straw.

But one way or another, he's still Megatron. [[User:PaMat1000|PaMat1000]] ([[User talk:PaMat1000|talk]]) 17:15, 18 July 2021 (EDT)