Talk:Alignment - Revision history

Saix: /* Killzone */clean up, replaced: [[Fasttrack (Scorponok) → [[Fasttrack (G1)

2020-06-19T22:38:37Z

Killzone: clean up, replaced: [[Fasttrack (Scorponok) → [[Fasttrack (G1)

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:38, 19 June 2020
Line 48:		Line 48:
	::::::::::::::::::We'll see.--[[User:Jimsorenson\|Jimsorenson]] 01:18, 3 April 2010 (EDT)		::::::::::::::::::We'll see.--[[User:Jimsorenson\|Jimsorenson]] 01:18, 3 April 2010 (EDT)
	::::::::::::::Even if Alignment was canon or canonized the two Killzones wouldn't be the same character. [[Sideswipe (Movie)\|Sideswipe]] and "Sideswipe (ROTF)" weren't judged to be the same character since the creators of the second Sideswipe didn't have the first Sideswipe in mind. I argued they should still be the same character since they have a common inspiration (the movie-verse version of [[Sideswipe (G1)]]) but that argument didn't fly. The two Killzones don't even have a common inspiration. I don't even think the note on Killzone's page is appropriate. - [[User:Starfield\|Starfield]] 22:46, 2 April 2010 (EDT)		::::::::::::::Even if Alignment was canon or canonized the two Killzones wouldn't be the same character. [[Sideswipe (Movie)\|Sideswipe]] and "Sideswipe (ROTF)" weren't judged to be the same character since the creators of the second Sideswipe didn't have the first Sideswipe in mind. I argued they should still be the same character since they have a common inspiration (the movie-verse version of [[Sideswipe (G1)]]) but that argument didn't fly. The two Killzones don't even have a common inspiration. I don't even think the note on Killzone's page is appropriate. - [[User:Starfield\|Starfield]] 22:46, 2 April 2010 (EDT)
	Even if Alignment was canon, the Killzones would not be linked by anything more than a disamg page. In [[Spotlight: Blurr]], Shane McCarthy created a character named Fasttrack, apparently with no knowledge of Scorponok's drone-guy, and the two were otherwise different in appearance and role, other than both being Decepticons. Thus, we now have [[Fasttrack (IDW)]] and [[Fasttrack (~~Scorponok~~)]]. --[[User:Xaaron\|Xaaron]] 23:14, 2 April 2010 (EDT)		Even if Alignment was canon, the Killzones would not be linked by anything more than a disamg page. In [[Spotlight: Blurr]], Shane McCarthy created a character named Fasttrack, apparently with no knowledge of Scorponok's drone-guy, and the two were otherwise different in appearance and role, other than both being Decepticons. Thus, we now have [[Fasttrack (IDW)]] and [[Fasttrack (G1)]]. --[[User:Xaaron\|Xaaron]] 23:14, 2 April 2010 (EDT)
	:Actually, Fasttrack from IDW wasn't a Decepticon. AND they were visually completely different. There, I feel, there is plenty of evidence (actual, in-story evidence) that they're not the same guy. Here the case is much more ambiguous. Though, of course, I did concede the point for the moment, so I don't see that much reason to proceed.--[[User:Jimsorenson\|Jimsorenson]] 00:43, 3 April 2010 (EDT)		:Actually, Fasttrack from IDW wasn't a Decepticon. AND they were visually completely different. There, I feel, there is plenty of evidence (actual, in-story evidence) that they're not the same guy. Here the case is much more ambiguous. Though, of course, I did concede the point for the moment, so I don't see that much reason to proceed.--[[User:Jimsorenson\|Jimsorenson]] 00:43, 3 April 2010 (EDT)
	::Actually, IDW Fasttrack became a Decepticon. When his corpse is seen by the end... he's sporting the Decepticon insignia on his chest. --[[User:Detour\|Detour]] 01:17, 3 April 2010 (EDT)		::Actually, IDW Fasttrack became a Decepticon. When his corpse is seen by the end... he's sporting the Decepticon insignia on his chest. --[[User:Detour\|Detour]] 01:17, 3 April 2010 (EDT)

NexusShard17 at 00:32, 7 January 2019

2019-01-07T00:32:35Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 00:32, 7 January 2019
Line 47:		Line 47:
	:::::::::::::::::Just pointing out that actually intent ''does'' sometimes mean something for wiki purposes, so we can ''not'' have this type of dumbass argument ever again. --[[User:Jeysie\|Jeysie]] 01:12, 3 April 2010 (EDT)		:::::::::::::::::Just pointing out that actually intent ''does'' sometimes mean something for wiki purposes, so we can ''not'' have this type of dumbass argument ever again. --[[User:Jeysie\|Jeysie]] 01:12, 3 April 2010 (EDT)
	::::::::::::::::::We'll see.--[[User:Jimsorenson\|Jimsorenson]] 01:18, 3 April 2010 (EDT)		::::::::::::::::::We'll see.--[[User:Jimsorenson\|Jimsorenson]] 01:18, 3 April 2010 (EDT)
	::::::::::::::Even if Alignment was canon or canonized the two Killzones wouldn't be the same character. [[Sideswipe (Movie)\|Sideswipe]] and [[Sideswipe (ROTF)]] weren't judged to be the same character since the creators of the second Sideswipe didn't have the first Sideswipe in mind. I argued they should still be the same character since they have a common inspiration (the movie-verse version of [[Sideswipe (G1)]]) but that argument didn't fly. The two Killzones don't even have a common inspiration. I don't even think the note on Killzone's page is appropriate. - [[User:Starfield\|Starfield]] 22:46, 2 April 2010 (EDT)		::::::::::::::Even if Alignment was canon or canonized the two Killzones wouldn't be the same character. [[Sideswipe (Movie)\|Sideswipe]] and "Sideswipe (ROTF)" weren't judged to be the same character since the creators of the second Sideswipe didn't have the first Sideswipe in mind. I argued they should still be the same character since they have a common inspiration (the movie-verse version of [[Sideswipe (G1)]]) but that argument didn't fly. The two Killzones don't even have a common inspiration. I don't even think the note on Killzone's page is appropriate. - [[User:Starfield\|Starfield]] 22:46, 2 April 2010 (EDT)
	Even if Alignment was canon, the Killzones would not be linked by anything more than a disamg page. In [[Spotlight: Blurr]], Shane McCarthy created a character named Fasttrack, apparently with no knowledge of Scorponok's drone-guy, and the two were otherwise different in appearance and role, other than both being Decepticons. Thus, we now have [[Fasttrack (IDW)]] and [[Fasttrack (Scorponok)]]. --[[User:Xaaron\|Xaaron]] 23:14, 2 April 2010 (EDT)		Even if Alignment was canon, the Killzones would not be linked by anything more than a disamg page. In [[Spotlight: Blurr]], Shane McCarthy created a character named Fasttrack, apparently with no knowledge of Scorponok's drone-guy, and the two were otherwise different in appearance and role, other than both being Decepticons. Thus, we now have [[Fasttrack (IDW)]] and [[Fasttrack (Scorponok)]]. --[[User:Xaaron\|Xaaron]] 23:14, 2 April 2010 (EDT)
	:Actually, Fasttrack from IDW wasn't a Decepticon. AND they were visually completely different. There, I feel, there is plenty of evidence (actual, in-story evidence) that they're not the same guy. Here the case is much more ambiguous. Though, of course, I did concede the point for the moment, so I don't see that much reason to proceed.--[[User:Jimsorenson\|Jimsorenson]] 00:43, 3 April 2010 (EDT)		:Actually, Fasttrack from IDW wasn't a Decepticon. AND they were visually completely different. There, I feel, there is plenty of evidence (actual, in-story evidence) that they're not the same guy. Here the case is much more ambiguous. Though, of course, I did concede the point for the moment, so I don't see that much reason to proceed.--[[User:Jimsorenson\|Jimsorenson]] 00:43, 3 April 2010 (EDT)

S.H.I.E.L.D. Agent 47: /* Vanguard Command ships */ new section

2015-10-25T08:16:56Z

Vanguard Command ships: new section

← Older revision		Revision as of 08:16, 25 October 2015
Line 83:		Line 83:
	:::::::::::Yeah, but the last couple of these likely weren't very close to getting drawn. It is, indeed, very plausible that some of these stories didn't get the Hasbro stamp before everything went tits up. That's probably a valid point regarding the information's inclusion on the articles - I used to put them in notes sections myself, but when that resulted in overbearingly large note-boxes, I think I stopped. - [[User:Chris McFeely\|Chris McFeely]] ([[User talk:Chris McFeely\|talk]]) 12:57, 18 August 2015 (EDT)		:::::::::::Yeah, but the last couple of these likely weren't very close to getting drawn. It is, indeed, very plausible that some of these stories didn't get the Hasbro stamp before everything went tits up. That's probably a valid point regarding the information's inclusion on the articles - I used to put them in notes sections myself, but when that resulted in overbearingly large note-boxes, I think I stopped. - [[User:Chris McFeely\|Chris McFeely]] ([[User talk:Chris McFeely\|talk]]) 12:57, 18 August 2015 (EDT)
	::::::::::::Hrm. The difference, I suppose, is that we know Alignment wasn't approved by Hasbro and wasn't entered to be, while we can be reasonably sure that at least ''some'' of the Dreamwave issues were approved, and the others would have been entered for Hasbro approval. But since we don't know where the cut-off was, should the Apocrypha template go back on those pages? --[[User:Riptide\|Riptide]] ([[User talk:Riptide\|talk]]) 13:06, 18 August 2015 (EDT)		::::::::::::Hrm. The difference, I suppose, is that we know Alignment wasn't approved by Hasbro and wasn't entered to be, while we can be reasonably sure that at least ''some'' of the Dreamwave issues were approved, and the others would have been entered for Hasbro approval. But since we don't know where the cut-off was, should the Apocrypha template go back on those pages? --[[User:Riptide\|Riptide]] ([[User talk:Riptide\|talk]]) 13:06, 18 August 2015 (EDT)

			== Vanguard Command ships ==

			Does the designation "Vanguard Command ships" from ''Alignment'' have any relation to the [[Vanguard-class Deep Space Interceptor]] which has been the starship class designation for iterations of the ''Ark'' since ''The Ultimate Guide''? [[User:S.H.I.E.L.D. Agent 47\|S.H.I.E.L.D. Agent 47]] ([[User talk:S.H.I.E.L.D. Agent 47\|talk]]) 04:16, 25 October 2015 (EDT)

Broadside: /* Aye or Nay Canon? */

2015-08-18T17:06:43Z

Aye or Nay Canon?

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:06, 18 August 2015
Line 82:		Line 82:
	::::::::::I'm pretty sure that comic scripts get approved by Hasbro before they start getting drawn. --[[User:Riptide\|Riptide]] ([[User talk:Riptide\|talk]]) 12:55, 18 August 2015 (EDT)		::::::::::I'm pretty sure that comic scripts get approved by Hasbro before they start getting drawn. --[[User:Riptide\|Riptide]] ([[User talk:Riptide\|talk]]) 12:55, 18 August 2015 (EDT)
	:::::::::::Yeah, but the last couple of these likely weren't very close to getting drawn. It is, indeed, very plausible that some of these stories didn't get the Hasbro stamp before everything went tits up. That's probably a valid point regarding the information's inclusion on the articles - I used to put them in notes sections myself, but when that resulted in overbearingly large note-boxes, I think I stopped. - [[User:Chris McFeely\|Chris McFeely]] ([[User talk:Chris McFeely\|talk]]) 12:57, 18 August 2015 (EDT)		:::::::::::Yeah, but the last couple of these likely weren't very close to getting drawn. It is, indeed, very plausible that some of these stories didn't get the Hasbro stamp before everything went tits up. That's probably a valid point regarding the information's inclusion on the articles - I used to put them in notes sections myself, but when that resulted in overbearingly large note-boxes, I think I stopped. - [[User:Chris McFeely\|Chris McFeely]] ([[User talk:Chris McFeely\|talk]]) 12:57, 18 August 2015 (EDT)
			::::::::::::Hrm. The difference, I suppose, is that we know Alignment wasn't approved by Hasbro and wasn't entered to be, while we can be reasonably sure that at least ''some'' of the Dreamwave issues were approved, and the others would have been entered for Hasbro approval. But since we don't know where the cut-off was, should the Apocrypha template go back on those pages? --[[User:Riptide\|Riptide]] ([[User talk:Riptide\|talk]]) 13:06, 18 August 2015 (EDT)

Chris McFeely: /* Aye or Nay Canon? */

2015-08-18T16:58:38Z

Aye or Nay Canon?

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:58, 18 August 2015
Line 81:		Line 81:
	:::::::::Were they? Maybe #31 was ready to release, but what we got for #36 hadn't even gone to an artist yet, much less an editor.--[[User:Xaaron\|Xaaron]] ([[User talk:Xaaron\|talk]]) 12:45, 18 August 2015 (EDT)		:::::::::Were they? Maybe #31 was ready to release, but what we got for #36 hadn't even gone to an artist yet, much less an editor.--[[User:Xaaron\|Xaaron]] ([[User talk:Xaaron\|talk]]) 12:45, 18 August 2015 (EDT)
	::::::::::I'm pretty sure that comic scripts get approved by Hasbro before they start getting drawn. --[[User:Riptide\|Riptide]] ([[User talk:Riptide\|talk]]) 12:55, 18 August 2015 (EDT)		::::::::::I'm pretty sure that comic scripts get approved by Hasbro before they start getting drawn. --[[User:Riptide\|Riptide]] ([[User talk:Riptide\|talk]]) 12:55, 18 August 2015 (EDT)
	:::::::::::Yeah, but the last couple of these likely weren't very close to getting drawn. It is, indeed, very plausible that some of these stories didn't get the Hasbro stamp before everything went tits up. - [[User:Chris McFeely\|Chris McFeely]] ([[User talk:Chris McFeely\|talk]]) 12:57, 18 August 2015 (EDT)		:::::::::::Yeah, but the last couple of these likely weren't very close to getting drawn. It is, indeed, very plausible that some of these stories didn't get the Hasbro stamp before everything went tits up. That's probably a valid point regarding the information's inclusion on the articles - I used to put them in notes sections myself, but when that resulted in overbearingly large note-boxes, I think I stopped. - [[User:Chris McFeely\|Chris McFeely]] ([[User talk:Chris McFeely\|talk]]) 12:57, 18 August 2015 (EDT)

Chris McFeely: /* Aye or Nay Canon? */

2015-08-18T16:57:12Z

Aye or Nay Canon?

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:57, 18 August 2015
Line 81:		Line 81:
	:::::::::Were they? Maybe #31 was ready to release, but what we got for #36 hadn't even gone to an artist yet, much less an editor.--[[User:Xaaron\|Xaaron]] ([[User talk:Xaaron\|talk]]) 12:45, 18 August 2015 (EDT)		:::::::::Were they? Maybe #31 was ready to release, but what we got for #36 hadn't even gone to an artist yet, much less an editor.--[[User:Xaaron\|Xaaron]] ([[User talk:Xaaron\|talk]]) 12:45, 18 August 2015 (EDT)
	::::::::::I'm pretty sure that comic scripts get approved by Hasbro before they start getting drawn. --[[User:Riptide\|Riptide]] ([[User talk:Riptide\|talk]]) 12:55, 18 August 2015 (EDT)		::::::::::I'm pretty sure that comic scripts get approved by Hasbro before they start getting drawn. --[[User:Riptide\|Riptide]] ([[User talk:Riptide\|talk]]) 12:55, 18 August 2015 (EDT)
			:::::::::::Yeah, but the last couple of these likely weren't very close to getting drawn. It is, indeed, very plausible that some of these stories didn't get the Hasbro stamp before everything went tits up. - [[User:Chris McFeely\|Chris McFeely]] ([[User talk:Chris McFeely\|talk]]) 12:57, 18 August 2015 (EDT)

Broadside: /* Aye or Nay Canon? */

2015-08-18T16:55:34Z

Aye or Nay Canon?

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:55, 18 August 2015
Line 80:		Line 80:
	::::::::Dreamwave Energon has just had the apocrypha template taken off its unreleased issue pages, because even though they weren't released, they were approved by Hasbro. Alignment, as it's been said repeatedly, was not. --[[User:Riptide\|Riptide]] ([[User talk:Riptide\|talk]]) 12:03, 18 August 2015 (EDT)		::::::::Dreamwave Energon has just had the apocrypha template taken off its unreleased issue pages, because even though they weren't released, they were approved by Hasbro. Alignment, as it's been said repeatedly, was not. --[[User:Riptide\|Riptide]] ([[User talk:Riptide\|talk]]) 12:03, 18 August 2015 (EDT)
	:::::::::Were they? Maybe #31 was ready to release, but what we got for #36 hadn't even gone to an artist yet, much less an editor.--[[User:Xaaron\|Xaaron]] ([[User talk:Xaaron\|talk]]) 12:45, 18 August 2015 (EDT)		:::::::::Were they? Maybe #31 was ready to release, but what we got for #36 hadn't even gone to an artist yet, much less an editor.--[[User:Xaaron\|Xaaron]] ([[User talk:Xaaron\|talk]]) 12:45, 18 August 2015 (EDT)
			::::::::::I'm pretty sure that comic scripts get approved by Hasbro before they start getting drawn. --[[User:Riptide\|Riptide]] ([[User talk:Riptide\|talk]]) 12:55, 18 August 2015 (EDT)

Xaaron: /* Aye or Nay Canon? */

2015-08-18T16:45:37Z

Aye or Nay Canon?

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:45, 18 August 2015
Line 79:		Line 79:
	:::::::Dreamwave's ''Energon'' #31-36 info appears on individual character pages and articles. What would be the difference? --[[User:Xaaron\|Xaaron]] ([[User talk:Xaaron\|talk]]) 11:59, 18 August 2015 (EDT)		:::::::Dreamwave's ''Energon'' #31-36 info appears on individual character pages and articles. What would be the difference? --[[User:Xaaron\|Xaaron]] ([[User talk:Xaaron\|talk]]) 11:59, 18 August 2015 (EDT)
	::::::::Dreamwave Energon has just had the apocrypha template taken off its unreleased issue pages, because even though they weren't released, they were approved by Hasbro. Alignment, as it's been said repeatedly, was not. --[[User:Riptide\|Riptide]] ([[User talk:Riptide\|talk]]) 12:03, 18 August 2015 (EDT)		::::::::Dreamwave Energon has just had the apocrypha template taken off its unreleased issue pages, because even though they weren't released, they were approved by Hasbro. Alignment, as it's been said repeatedly, was not. --[[User:Riptide\|Riptide]] ([[User talk:Riptide\|talk]]) 12:03, 18 August 2015 (EDT)
			:::::::::Were they? Maybe #31 was ready to release, but what we got for #36 hadn't even gone to an artist yet, much less an editor.--[[User:Xaaron\|Xaaron]] ([[User talk:Xaaron\|talk]]) 12:45, 18 August 2015 (EDT)

Thylacine 2000: Undo revision 999570 by Thylacine 2000 (talk)

2015-08-18T16:06:12Z

Undo revision 999570 by Thylacine 2000 (talk)

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:06, 18 August 2015
Line 79:		Line 79:
	:::::::Dreamwave's ''Energon'' #31-36 info appears on individual character pages and articles. What would be the difference? --[[User:Xaaron\|Xaaron]] ([[User talk:Xaaron\|talk]]) 11:59, 18 August 2015 (EDT)		:::::::Dreamwave's ''Energon'' #31-36 info appears on individual character pages and articles. What would be the difference? --[[User:Xaaron\|Xaaron]] ([[User talk:Xaaron\|talk]]) 11:59, 18 August 2015 (EDT)
	::::::::Dreamwave Energon has just had the apocrypha template taken off its unreleased issue pages, because even though they weren't released, they were approved by Hasbro. Alignment, as it's been said repeatedly, was not. --[[User:Riptide\|Riptide]] ([[User talk:Riptide\|talk]]) 12:03, 18 August 2015 (EDT)		::::::::Dreamwave Energon has just had the apocrypha template taken off its unreleased issue pages, because even though they weren't released, they were approved by Hasbro. Alignment, as it's been said repeatedly, was not. --[[User:Riptide\|Riptide]] ([[User talk:Riptide\|talk]]) 12:03, 18 August 2015 (EDT)
	::::::::::DW issues were commissioned and licensed by Hasbro - they just never came out, like a canceled toy. Alignment has never gone through official review or publication. --[[User:Thylacine 2000\|Thylacine 2000]] ([[User talk:Thylacine 2000\|talk]]) 12:05, 18 August 2015 (EDT)

Thylacine 2000: /* Aye or Nay Canon? */

2015-08-18T16:05:36Z

Aye or Nay Canon?

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:05, 18 August 2015
Line 79:		Line 79:
	:::::::Dreamwave's ''Energon'' #31-36 info appears on individual character pages and articles. What would be the difference? --[[User:Xaaron\|Xaaron]] ([[User talk:Xaaron\|talk]]) 11:59, 18 August 2015 (EDT)		:::::::Dreamwave's ''Energon'' #31-36 info appears on individual character pages and articles. What would be the difference? --[[User:Xaaron\|Xaaron]] ([[User talk:Xaaron\|talk]]) 11:59, 18 August 2015 (EDT)
	::::::::Dreamwave Energon has just had the apocrypha template taken off its unreleased issue pages, because even though they weren't released, they were approved by Hasbro. Alignment, as it's been said repeatedly, was not. --[[User:Riptide\|Riptide]] ([[User talk:Riptide\|talk]]) 12:03, 18 August 2015 (EDT)		::::::::Dreamwave Energon has just had the apocrypha template taken off its unreleased issue pages, because even though they weren't released, they were approved by Hasbro. Alignment, as it's been said repeatedly, was not. --[[User:Riptide\|Riptide]] ([[User talk:Riptide\|talk]]) 12:03, 18 August 2015 (EDT)
			::::::::::DW issues were commissioned and licensed by Hasbro - they just never came out, like a canceled toy. Alignment has never gone through official review or publication. --[[User:Thylacine 2000\|Thylacine 2000]] ([[User talk:Thylacine 2000\|talk]]) 12:05, 18 August 2015 (EDT)

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:38, 19 June 2020
Line 48:		Line 48:
	::::::::::::::::::We'll see.--[[User:Jimsorenson\|Jimsorenson]] 01:18, 3 April 2010 (EDT)		::::::::::::::::::We'll see.--[[User:Jimsorenson\|Jimsorenson]] 01:18, 3 April 2010 (EDT)
	::::::::::::::Even if Alignment was canon or canonized the two Killzones wouldn't be the same character. [[Sideswipe (Movie)\|Sideswipe]] and "Sideswipe (ROTF)" weren't judged to be the same character since the creators of the second Sideswipe didn't have the first Sideswipe in mind. I argued they should still be the same character since they have a common inspiration (the movie-verse version of [[Sideswipe (G1)]]) but that argument didn't fly. The two Killzones don't even have a common inspiration. I don't even think the note on Killzone's page is appropriate. - [[User:Starfield\|Starfield]] 22:46, 2 April 2010 (EDT)		::::::::::::::Even if Alignment was canon or canonized the two Killzones wouldn't be the same character. [[Sideswipe (Movie)\|Sideswipe]] and "Sideswipe (ROTF)" weren't judged to be the same character since the creators of the second Sideswipe didn't have the first Sideswipe in mind. I argued they should still be the same character since they have a common inspiration (the movie-verse version of [[Sideswipe (G1)]]) but that argument didn't fly. The two Killzones don't even have a common inspiration. I don't even think the note on Killzone's page is appropriate. - [[User:Starfield\|Starfield]] 22:46, 2 April 2010 (EDT)
	Even if Alignment was canon, the Killzones would not be linked by anything more than a disamg page. In [[Spotlight: Blurr]], Shane McCarthy created a character named Fasttrack, apparently with no knowledge of Scorponok's drone-guy, and the two were otherwise different in appearance and role, other than both being Decepticons. Thus, we now have [[Fasttrack (IDW)]] and [[Fasttrack (~~Scorponok~~)]]. --[[User:Xaaron\|Xaaron]] 23:14, 2 April 2010 (EDT)		Even if Alignment was canon, the Killzones would not be linked by anything more than a disamg page. In [[Spotlight: Blurr]], Shane McCarthy created a character named Fasttrack, apparently with no knowledge of Scorponok's drone-guy, and the two were otherwise different in appearance and role, other than both being Decepticons. Thus, we now have [[Fasttrack (IDW)]] and [[Fasttrack (G1)]]. --[[User:Xaaron\|Xaaron]] 23:14, 2 April 2010 (EDT)
	:Actually, Fasttrack from IDW wasn't a Decepticon. AND they were visually completely different. There, I feel, there is plenty of evidence (actual, in-story evidence) that they're not the same guy. Here the case is much more ambiguous. Though, of course, I did concede the point for the moment, so I don't see that much reason to proceed.--[[User:Jimsorenson\|Jimsorenson]] 00:43, 3 April 2010 (EDT)		:Actually, Fasttrack from IDW wasn't a Decepticon. AND they were visually completely different. There, I feel, there is plenty of evidence (actual, in-story evidence) that they're not the same guy. Here the case is much more ambiguous. Though, of course, I did concede the point for the moment, so I don't see that much reason to proceed.--[[User:Jimsorenson\|Jimsorenson]] 00:43, 3 April 2010 (EDT)
	::Actually, IDW Fasttrack became a Decepticon. When his corpse is seen by the end... he's sporting the Decepticon insignia on his chest. --[[User:Detour\|Detour]] 01:17, 3 April 2010 (EDT)		::Actually, IDW Fasttrack became a Decepticon. When his corpse is seen by the end... he's sporting the Decepticon insignia on his chest. --[[User:Detour\|Detour]] 01:17, 3 April 2010 (EDT)

← Older revision		Revision as of 00:32, 7 January 2019
Line 47:		Line 47:
	:::::::::::::::::Just pointing out that actually intent ''does'' sometimes mean something for wiki purposes, so we can ''not'' have this type of dumbass argument ever again. --[[User:Jeysie\|Jeysie]] 01:12, 3 April 2010 (EDT)		:::::::::::::::::Just pointing out that actually intent ''does'' sometimes mean something for wiki purposes, so we can ''not'' have this type of dumbass argument ever again. --[[User:Jeysie\|Jeysie]] 01:12, 3 April 2010 (EDT)
	::::::::::::::::::We'll see.--[[User:Jimsorenson\|Jimsorenson]] 01:18, 3 April 2010 (EDT)		::::::::::::::::::We'll see.--[[User:Jimsorenson\|Jimsorenson]] 01:18, 3 April 2010 (EDT)
	::::::::::::::Even if Alignment was canon or canonized the two Killzones wouldn't be the same character. [[Sideswipe (Movie)\|Sideswipe]] and [[Sideswipe (ROTF)]] weren't judged to be the same character since the creators of the second Sideswipe didn't have the first Sideswipe in mind. I argued they should still be the same character since they have a common inspiration (the movie-verse version of [[Sideswipe (G1)]]) but that argument didn't fly. The two Killzones don't even have a common inspiration. I don't even think the note on Killzone's page is appropriate. - [[User:Starfield\|Starfield]] 22:46, 2 April 2010 (EDT)		::::::::::::::Even if Alignment was canon or canonized the two Killzones wouldn't be the same character. [[Sideswipe (Movie)\|Sideswipe]] and "Sideswipe (ROTF)" weren't judged to be the same character since the creators of the second Sideswipe didn't have the first Sideswipe in mind. I argued they should still be the same character since they have a common inspiration (the movie-verse version of [[Sideswipe (G1)]]) but that argument didn't fly. The two Killzones don't even have a common inspiration. I don't even think the note on Killzone's page is appropriate. - [[User:Starfield\|Starfield]] 22:46, 2 April 2010 (EDT)
	Even if Alignment was canon, the Killzones would not be linked by anything more than a disamg page. In [[Spotlight: Blurr]], Shane McCarthy created a character named Fasttrack, apparently with no knowledge of Scorponok's drone-guy, and the two were otherwise different in appearance and role, other than both being Decepticons. Thus, we now have [[Fasttrack (IDW)]] and [[Fasttrack (Scorponok)]]. --[[User:Xaaron\|Xaaron]] 23:14, 2 April 2010 (EDT)		Even if Alignment was canon, the Killzones would not be linked by anything more than a disamg page. In [[Spotlight: Blurr]], Shane McCarthy created a character named Fasttrack, apparently with no knowledge of Scorponok's drone-guy, and the two were otherwise different in appearance and role, other than both being Decepticons. Thus, we now have [[Fasttrack (IDW)]] and [[Fasttrack (Scorponok)]]. --[[User:Xaaron\|Xaaron]] 23:14, 2 April 2010 (EDT)
	:Actually, Fasttrack from IDW wasn't a Decepticon. AND they were visually completely different. There, I feel, there is plenty of evidence (actual, in-story evidence) that they're not the same guy. Here the case is much more ambiguous. Though, of course, I did concede the point for the moment, so I don't see that much reason to proceed.--[[User:Jimsorenson\|Jimsorenson]] 00:43, 3 April 2010 (EDT)		:Actually, Fasttrack from IDW wasn't a Decepticon. AND they were visually completely different. There, I feel, there is plenty of evidence (actual, in-story evidence) that they're not the same guy. Here the case is much more ambiguous. Though, of course, I did concede the point for the moment, so I don't see that much reason to proceed.--[[User:Jimsorenson\|Jimsorenson]] 00:43, 3 April 2010 (EDT)

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:06, 18 August 2015
Line 82:		Line 82:
	::::::::::I'm pretty sure that comic scripts get approved by Hasbro before they start getting drawn. --[[User:Riptide\|Riptide]] ([[User talk:Riptide\|talk]]) 12:55, 18 August 2015 (EDT)		::::::::::I'm pretty sure that comic scripts get approved by Hasbro before they start getting drawn. --[[User:Riptide\|Riptide]] ([[User talk:Riptide\|talk]]) 12:55, 18 August 2015 (EDT)
	:::::::::::Yeah, but the last couple of these likely weren't very close to getting drawn. It is, indeed, very plausible that some of these stories didn't get the Hasbro stamp before everything went tits up. That's probably a valid point regarding the information's inclusion on the articles - I used to put them in notes sections myself, but when that resulted in overbearingly large note-boxes, I think I stopped. - [[User:Chris McFeely\|Chris McFeely]] ([[User talk:Chris McFeely\|talk]]) 12:57, 18 August 2015 (EDT)		:::::::::::Yeah, but the last couple of these likely weren't very close to getting drawn. It is, indeed, very plausible that some of these stories didn't get the Hasbro stamp before everything went tits up. That's probably a valid point regarding the information's inclusion on the articles - I used to put them in notes sections myself, but when that resulted in overbearingly large note-boxes, I think I stopped. - [[User:Chris McFeely\|Chris McFeely]] ([[User talk:Chris McFeely\|talk]]) 12:57, 18 August 2015 (EDT)
			::::::::::::Hrm. The difference, I suppose, is that we know Alignment wasn't approved by Hasbro and wasn't entered to be, while we can be reasonably sure that at least ''some'' of the Dreamwave issues were approved, and the others would have been entered for Hasbro approval. But since we don't know where the cut-off was, should the Apocrypha template go back on those pages? --[[User:Riptide\|Riptide]] ([[User talk:Riptide\|talk]]) 13:06, 18 August 2015 (EDT)

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:58, 18 August 2015
Line 81:		Line 81:
	:::::::::Were they? Maybe #31 was ready to release, but what we got for #36 hadn't even gone to an artist yet, much less an editor.--[[User:Xaaron\|Xaaron]] ([[User talk:Xaaron\|talk]]) 12:45, 18 August 2015 (EDT)		:::::::::Were they? Maybe #31 was ready to release, but what we got for #36 hadn't even gone to an artist yet, much less an editor.--[[User:Xaaron\|Xaaron]] ([[User talk:Xaaron\|talk]]) 12:45, 18 August 2015 (EDT)
	::::::::::I'm pretty sure that comic scripts get approved by Hasbro before they start getting drawn. --[[User:Riptide\|Riptide]] ([[User talk:Riptide\|talk]]) 12:55, 18 August 2015 (EDT)		::::::::::I'm pretty sure that comic scripts get approved by Hasbro before they start getting drawn. --[[User:Riptide\|Riptide]] ([[User talk:Riptide\|talk]]) 12:55, 18 August 2015 (EDT)
	:::::::::::Yeah, but the last couple of these likely weren't very close to getting drawn. It is, indeed, very plausible that some of these stories didn't get the Hasbro stamp before everything went tits up. - [[User:Chris McFeely\|Chris McFeely]] ([[User talk:Chris McFeely\|talk]]) 12:57, 18 August 2015 (EDT)		:::::::::::Yeah, but the last couple of these likely weren't very close to getting drawn. It is, indeed, very plausible that some of these stories didn't get the Hasbro stamp before everything went tits up. That's probably a valid point regarding the information's inclusion on the articles - I used to put them in notes sections myself, but when that resulted in overbearingly large note-boxes, I think I stopped. - [[User:Chris McFeely\|Chris McFeely]] ([[User talk:Chris McFeely\|talk]]) 12:57, 18 August 2015 (EDT)

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:57, 18 August 2015
Line 81:		Line 81:
	:::::::::Were they? Maybe #31 was ready to release, but what we got for #36 hadn't even gone to an artist yet, much less an editor.--[[User:Xaaron\|Xaaron]] ([[User talk:Xaaron\|talk]]) 12:45, 18 August 2015 (EDT)		:::::::::Were they? Maybe #31 was ready to release, but what we got for #36 hadn't even gone to an artist yet, much less an editor.--[[User:Xaaron\|Xaaron]] ([[User talk:Xaaron\|talk]]) 12:45, 18 August 2015 (EDT)
	::::::::::I'm pretty sure that comic scripts get approved by Hasbro before they start getting drawn. --[[User:Riptide\|Riptide]] ([[User talk:Riptide\|talk]]) 12:55, 18 August 2015 (EDT)		::::::::::I'm pretty sure that comic scripts get approved by Hasbro before they start getting drawn. --[[User:Riptide\|Riptide]] ([[User talk:Riptide\|talk]]) 12:55, 18 August 2015 (EDT)
			:::::::::::Yeah, but the last couple of these likely weren't very close to getting drawn. It is, indeed, very plausible that some of these stories didn't get the Hasbro stamp before everything went tits up. - [[User:Chris McFeely\|Chris McFeely]] ([[User talk:Chris McFeely\|talk]]) 12:57, 18 August 2015 (EDT)