Talk:Convobat - Revision history

Cyberlink420 at 17:29, 25 April 2023

2023-04-25T17:29:38Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:29, 25 April 2023
Line 6:		Line 6:
	:::Don't get me wrong, I don't outright hate AVP as much as some others here do, but I'm getting increasingly tired of editing justifications/arguments hinging on "well, AVP said..." [[User:Saix\|Saix]] ([[User talk:Saix\|talk]]) 22:40, 27 January 2016 (EST)		:::Don't get me wrong, I don't outright hate AVP as much as some others here do, but I'm getting increasingly tired of editing justifications/arguments hinging on "well, AVP said..." [[User:Saix\|Saix]] ([[User talk:Saix\|talk]]) 22:40, 27 January 2016 (EST)
	::::Well... it is canon, so it's a valid reason to make a straightforward, non-controversial edit. On the other hand, if it's a controversial edit, I'm starting to think maybe there has to be an extra level of thought put into it. In this case, I think that it's ambiguous enough to not jump straight to an edit. If AVP said, yes, this toy existed in this universe as this character, sure, put it on there. But here we know that Convobat exists as his own bot in a universe where there are no beast modes, so it's clearly drawing from some part of the source material but not all of it. --[[User:Giggidy\|Giggidy]] ([[User talk:Giggidy\|talk]]) 22:57, 27 January 2016 (EST)		::::Well... it is canon, so it's a valid reason to make a straightforward, non-controversial edit. On the other hand, if it's a controversial edit, I'm starting to think maybe there has to be an extra level of thought put into it. In this case, I think that it's ambiguous enough to not jump straight to an edit. If AVP said, yes, this toy existed in this universe as this character, sure, put it on there. But here we know that Convobat exists as his own bot in a universe where there are no beast modes, so it's clearly drawing from some part of the source material but not all of it. --[[User:Giggidy\|Giggidy]] ([[User talk:Giggidy\|talk]]) 22:57, 27 January 2016 (EST)
	::::::I don't really have a preference for this, as I don't care what the final decision ends up being. But I would suggest building a case around pre-existing articles, and what we settled on for those. I think both [[Jawbreaker]] and [[Goldbug (IDW)]]'s articles have had similar premises, though each is different enough from this one. Mainly, that both had at least a visual to reinforce a connection to a toy that isn't a perfect match for their appearance. Maybe what is different, and what is similar, should be used as determinations on whether or not this edit is to go through. There's undoubtedly other articles that could be used for the argument that I have not thought of. --[[User:Ascendron\|Ascendron]] ([[User talk:Ascendron\|talk]]) 23:33, 27 January 2016 (EST)		::::::I don't really have a preference for this, as I don't care what the final decision ends up being. But I would suggest building a case around pre-existing articles, and what we settled on for those. I think both [[Jawbreaker (BW)\|Jawbreaker]] and [[Goldbug (IDW)]]'s articles have had similar premises, though each is different enough from this one. Mainly, that both had at least a visual to reinforce a connection to a toy that isn't a perfect match for their appearance. Maybe what is different, and what is similar, should be used as determinations on whether or not this edit is to go through. There's undoubtedly other articles that could be used for the argument that I have not thought of. --[[User:Ascendron\|Ascendron]] ([[User talk:Ascendron\|talk]]) 23:33, 27 January 2016 (EST)
	:::::::Can you explain Jawbreaker's relevance to this? [[User:Saix\|Saix]] ([[User talk:Saix\|talk]]) 23:35, 27 January 2016 (EST)		:::::::Can you explain Jawbreaker's relevance to this? [[User:Saix\|Saix]] ([[User talk:Saix\|talk]]) 23:35, 27 January 2016 (EST)
	::::::::Isn't it somewhat of a similar situation? Both "beast era" toys represented in their only fictional appearances, (or in this case, implied representation), as a pre-Earth body? I felt it to be relevant, especially since it takes place in the same Universe. --[[User:Ascendron\|Ascendron]] ([[User talk:Ascendron\|talk]]) 23:47, 27 January 2016 (EST)		::::::::Isn't it somewhat of a similar situation? Both "beast era" toys represented in their only fictional appearances, (or in this case, implied representation), as a pre-Earth body? I felt it to be relevant, especially since it takes place in the same Universe. --[[User:Ascendron\|Ascendron]] ([[User talk:Ascendron\|talk]]) 23:47, 27 January 2016 (EST)

Cyberlink420 at 19:51, 11 September 2022

2022-09-11T19:51:03Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:51, 11 September 2022
Line 6:		Line 6:
	:::Don't get me wrong, I don't outright hate AVP as much as some others here do, but I'm getting increasingly tired of editing justifications/arguments hinging on "well, AVP said..." [[User:Saix\|Saix]] ([[User talk:Saix\|talk]]) 22:40, 27 January 2016 (EST)		:::Don't get me wrong, I don't outright hate AVP as much as some others here do, but I'm getting increasingly tired of editing justifications/arguments hinging on "well, AVP said..." [[User:Saix\|Saix]] ([[User talk:Saix\|talk]]) 22:40, 27 January 2016 (EST)
	::::Well... it is canon, so it's a valid reason to make a straightforward, non-controversial edit. On the other hand, if it's a controversial edit, I'm starting to think maybe there has to be an extra level of thought put into it. In this case, I think that it's ambiguous enough to not jump straight to an edit. If AVP said, yes, this toy existed in this universe as this character, sure, put it on there. But here we know that Convobat exists as his own bot in a universe where there are no beast modes, so it's clearly drawing from some part of the source material but not all of it. --[[User:Giggidy\|Giggidy]] ([[User talk:Giggidy\|talk]]) 22:57, 27 January 2016 (EST)		::::Well... it is canon, so it's a valid reason to make a straightforward, non-controversial edit. On the other hand, if it's a controversial edit, I'm starting to think maybe there has to be an extra level of thought put into it. In this case, I think that it's ambiguous enough to not jump straight to an edit. If AVP said, yes, this toy existed in this universe as this character, sure, put it on there. But here we know that Convobat exists as his own bot in a universe where there are no beast modes, so it's clearly drawing from some part of the source material but not all of it. --[[User:Giggidy\|Giggidy]] ([[User talk:Giggidy\|talk]]) 22:57, 27 January 2016 (EST)
	::::::I don't really have a preference for this, as I don't care what the final decision ends up being. But I would suggest building a case around pre-existing articles, and what we settled on for those. I think both [[Jawbreaker]] and [[Goldbug (IDW)]]'s articles have had similar premises, though each is different enough from this one. Mainly, that both had at least a visual to reinforce a connection to a toy that isn't a perfect match for their appearance. Maybe what is different, and what is similar, should be used as determinations on whether or not this edit is to go through. There's undoubtedly other articles that could be used for the argument that I have not thought of. --[[User:Ascendron\|Ascendron]] ([[User		::::::I don't really have a preference for this, as I don't care what the final decision ends up being. But I would suggest building a case around pre-existing articles, and what we settled on for those. I think both [[Jawbreaker]] and [[Goldbug (IDW)]]'s articles have had similar premises, though each is different enough from this one. Mainly, that both had at least a visual to reinforce a connection to a toy that isn't a perfect match for their appearance. Maybe what is different, and what is similar, should be used as determinations on whether or not this edit is to go through. There's undoubtedly other articles that could be used for the argument that I have not thought of. --[[User:Ascendron\|Ascendron]] ([[User talk:Ascendron\|talk]]) 23:33, 27 January 2016 (EST)
	talk:Ascendron\|talk]]) 23:33, 27 January 2016 (EST)
	:::::::Can you explain Jawbreaker's relevance to this? [[User:Saix\|Saix]] ([[User talk:Saix\|talk]]) 23:35, 27 January 2016 (EST)		:::::::Can you explain Jawbreaker's relevance to this? [[User:Saix\|Saix]] ([[User talk:Saix\|talk]]) 23:35, 27 January 2016 (EST)
	::::::::Isn't it somewhat of a similar situation? Both "beast era" toys represented in their only fictional appearances, (or in this case, implied representation), as a pre-Earth body? I felt it to be relevant, especially since it takes place in the same Universe. --[[User:Ascendron\|Ascendron]] ([[User talk:Ascendron\|talk]]) 23:47, 27 January 2016 (EST)		::::::::Isn't it somewhat of a similar situation? Both "beast era" toys represented in their only fictional appearances, (or in this case, implied representation), as a pre-Earth body? I felt it to be relevant, especially since it takes place in the same Universe. --[[User:Ascendron\|Ascendron]] ([[User talk:Ascendron\|talk]]) 23:47, 27 January 2016 (EST)
	:::::::::BWU Jawbreaker is just a version of BW Jawbreaker, though. Convobat as a unique character didn't exist till last year and is just a homage to an alternate name. Like, [[Lionhead]] is a reference to [[Under-3]]'s alternate name, but we're not putting Under-3 stuff on Lionhead's page. [[User:Saix\|Saix]] ([[User talk:Saix\|talk]]) 00:18, 28 January 2016 (EST)		:::::::::BWU Jawbreaker is just a version of BW Jawbreaker, though. Convobat as a unique character didn't exist till last year and is just a homage to an alternate name. Like, [[Lionhead]] is a reference to [[Under-3]]'s alternate name, but we're not putting Under-3 stuff on Lionhead's page. [[User:Saix\|Saix]] ([[User talk:Saix\|talk]]) 00:18, 28 January 2016 (EST)
	::::::::::Hmm, yes. Your argument is quite sound. Having read your explanation, I personally can't really think up of a solid counterpoint, even if I were to want to play devil's advocate. --[[User:Ascendron\|Ascendron]] ([[User talk:Ascendron\|talk]]) 00:27, 28 January 2016 (EST)		::::::::::Hmm, yes. Your argument is quite sound. Having read your explanation, I personally can't really think up of a solid counterpoint, even if I were to want to play devil's advocate. --[[User:Ascendron\|Ascendron]] ([[User talk:Ascendron\|talk]]) 00:27, 28 January 2016 (EST)



	~~==Tfwiki headache==~~

	~~The TR/legends variant says the head is a Nucleon retool, an Apeface retool, and an Infinitus retool. Please clarify. -[[User:Liokaser19\|Liokaset19]]~~
	:Re-read the toy write-up more carefully. ''Legends'' Convobat's head is an Infinitus redeco. The accessories list includes a [[Megalligator#Legends\|''second'' Titan Master]] redecoed from Nucleon and a [[Ape X Arms#Legends\|monkey/jet/gun thing]] redecoed from [[Apeface#Titans Return\|the one included with the Apeface Titan Master]]. -[[User:AzimuthAcolyte\|AzimuthAcolyte]] ([[User talk:AzimuthAcolyte\|talk]]) 14:49, 11 September 2022 (EDT)

	== "Repurposed" as "Beast Convoy"? ==		== "Repurposed" as "Beast Convoy"? ==
Line 37:		Line 29:
	Jim's addition was almost certainly for BW:U Convobat, no? [[User:Escargon\|Escargon]] ([[User talk:Escargon\|talk]]) 21:35, 3 February 2021 (EST)		Jim's addition was almost certainly for BW:U Convobat, no? [[User:Escargon\|Escargon]] ([[User talk:Escargon\|talk]]) 21:35, 3 February 2021 (EST)
	:Blue is fine. It's silly not to have this toy here in some form given the long complicated history.--[[User:Jimsorenson\|Jimsorenson]] ([[User talk:Jimsorenson\|talk]]) 21:37, 3 February 2021 (EST)		:Blue is fine. It's silly not to have this toy here in some form given the long complicated history.--[[User:Jimsorenson\|Jimsorenson]] ([[User talk:Jimsorenson\|talk]]) 21:37, 3 February 2021 (EST)

			==Tfwiki headache==

			The TR/legends variant says the head is a Nucleon retool, an Apeface retool, and an Infinitus retool. Please clarify. -[[User:Liokaser19\|Liokaset19]]
			:Re-read the toy write-up more carefully. ''Legends'' Convobat's head is an Infinitus redeco. The accessories list includes a [[Megalligator#Legends\|''second'' Titan Master]] redecoed from Nucleon and a [[Ape X Arms#Legends\|monkey/jet/gun thing]] redecoed from [[Apeface#Titans Return\|the one included with the Apeface Titan Master]]. -[[User:AzimuthAcolyte\|AzimuthAcolyte]] ([[User talk:AzimuthAcolyte\|talk]]) 14:49, 11 September 2022 (EDT)

AzimuthAcolyte: /* Tfwiki headache */

2022-09-11T18:49:23Z

Tfwiki headache

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:49, 11 September 2022
Line 18:		Line 18:

	The TR/legends variant says the head is a Nucleon retool, an Apeface retool, and an Infinitus retool. Please clarify. -[[User:Liokaser19\|Liokaset19]]		The TR/legends variant says the head is a Nucleon retool, an Apeface retool, and an Infinitus retool. Please clarify. -[[User:Liokaser19\|Liokaset19]]
			:Re-read the toy write-up more carefully. ''Legends'' Convobat's head is an Infinitus redeco. The accessories list includes a [[Megalligator#Legends\|''second'' Titan Master]] redecoed from Nucleon and a [[Ape X Arms#Legends\|monkey/jet/gun thing]] redecoed from [[Apeface#Titans Return\|the one included with the Apeface Titan Master]]. -[[User:AzimuthAcolyte\|AzimuthAcolyte]] ([[User talk:AzimuthAcolyte\|talk]]) 14:49, 11 September 2022 (EDT)

	== "Repurposed" as "Beast Convoy"? ==		== "Repurposed" as "Beast Convoy"? ==

Liokaser19: /* Tfwiki headache */

2022-09-11T18:35:27Z

Tfwiki headache

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:35, 11 September 2022
Line 17:		Line 17:
	==Tfwiki headache==		==Tfwiki headache==

	The TR/legends variant says the head is a Nucleon retool, an Apeface retool, and an Infinitus retool. Please clarify. -[[User:Liokaser19~~/talk~~]]		The TR/legends variant says the head is a Nucleon retool, an Apeface retool, and an Infinitus retool. Please clarify. -[[User:Liokaser19\|Liokaset19]]

	== "Repurposed" as "Beast Convoy"? ==		== "Repurposed" as "Beast Convoy"? ==

Liokaser19: /* Tfwiki headache */

2022-09-11T18:34:55Z

Tfwiki headache

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:34, 11 September 2022
Line 17:		Line 17:
	==Tfwiki headache==		==Tfwiki headache==

	The TR/legends variant says the head is a Nucleon retool, an Apeface retool, and an Infinitus retool. Please clarify.		The TR/legends variant says the head is a Nucleon retool, an Apeface retool, and an Infinitus retool. Please clarify. -[[User:Liokaser19/talk]]

	== "Repurposed" as "Beast Convoy"? ==		== "Repurposed" as "Beast Convoy"? ==

Liokaser19: /* Revert Convobat/Megalligator? */

2022-09-11T18:34:09Z

Revert Convobat/Megalligator?

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:34, 11 September 2022
Line 6:		Line 6:
	:::Don't get me wrong, I don't outright hate AVP as much as some others here do, but I'm getting increasingly tired of editing justifications/arguments hinging on "well, AVP said..." [[User:Saix\|Saix]] ([[User talk:Saix\|talk]]) 22:40, 27 January 2016 (EST)		:::Don't get me wrong, I don't outright hate AVP as much as some others here do, but I'm getting increasingly tired of editing justifications/arguments hinging on "well, AVP said..." [[User:Saix\|Saix]] ([[User talk:Saix\|talk]]) 22:40, 27 January 2016 (EST)
	::::Well... it is canon, so it's a valid reason to make a straightforward, non-controversial edit. On the other hand, if it's a controversial edit, I'm starting to think maybe there has to be an extra level of thought put into it. In this case, I think that it's ambiguous enough to not jump straight to an edit. If AVP said, yes, this toy existed in this universe as this character, sure, put it on there. But here we know that Convobat exists as his own bot in a universe where there are no beast modes, so it's clearly drawing from some part of the source material but not all of it. --[[User:Giggidy\|Giggidy]] ([[User talk:Giggidy\|talk]]) 22:57, 27 January 2016 (EST)		::::Well... it is canon, so it's a valid reason to make a straightforward, non-controversial edit. On the other hand, if it's a controversial edit, I'm starting to think maybe there has to be an extra level of thought put into it. In this case, I think that it's ambiguous enough to not jump straight to an edit. If AVP said, yes, this toy existed in this universe as this character, sure, put it on there. But here we know that Convobat exists as his own bot in a universe where there are no beast modes, so it's clearly drawing from some part of the source material but not all of it. --[[User:Giggidy\|Giggidy]] ([[User talk:Giggidy\|talk]]) 22:57, 27 January 2016 (EST)
	::::::I don't really have a preference for this, as I don't care what the final decision ends up being. But I would suggest building a case around pre-existing articles, and what we settled on for those. I think both [[Jawbreaker]] and [[Goldbug (IDW)]]'s articles have had similar premises, though each is different enough from this one. Mainly, that both had at least a visual to reinforce a connection to a toy that isn't a perfect match for their appearance. Maybe what is different, and what is similar, should be used as determinations on whether or not this edit is to go through. There's undoubtedly other articles that could be used for the argument that I have not thought of. --[[User:Ascendron\|Ascendron]] ([[User talk:Ascendron\|talk]]) 23:33, 27 January 2016 (EST)		::::::I don't really have a preference for this, as I don't care what the final decision ends up being. But I would suggest building a case around pre-existing articles, and what we settled on for those. I think both [[Jawbreaker]] and [[Goldbug (IDW)]]'s articles have had similar premises, though each is different enough from this one. Mainly, that both had at least a visual to reinforce a connection to a toy that isn't a perfect match for their appearance. Maybe what is different, and what is similar, should be used as determinations on whether or not this edit is to go through. There's undoubtedly other articles that could be used for the argument that I have not thought of. --[[User:Ascendron\|Ascendron]] ([[User
			talk:Ascendron\|talk]]) 23:33, 27 January 2016 (EST)
	:::::::Can you explain Jawbreaker's relevance to this? [[User:Saix\|Saix]] ([[User talk:Saix\|talk]]) 23:35, 27 January 2016 (EST)		:::::::Can you explain Jawbreaker's relevance to this? [[User:Saix\|Saix]] ([[User talk:Saix\|talk]]) 23:35, 27 January 2016 (EST)
	::::::::Isn't it somewhat of a similar situation? Both "beast era" toys represented in their only fictional appearances, (or in this case, implied representation), as a pre-Earth body? I felt it to be relevant, especially since it takes place in the same Universe. --[[User:Ascendron\|Ascendron]] ([[User talk:Ascendron\|talk]]) 23:47, 27 January 2016 (EST)		::::::::Isn't it somewhat of a similar situation? Both "beast era" toys represented in their only fictional appearances, (or in this case, implied representation), as a pre-Earth body? I felt it to be relevant, especially since it takes place in the same Universe. --[[User:Ascendron\|Ascendron]] ([[User talk:Ascendron\|talk]]) 23:47, 27 January 2016 (EST)
	:::::::::BWU Jawbreaker is just a version of BW Jawbreaker, though. Convobat as a unique character didn't exist till last year and is just a homage to an alternate name. Like, [[Lionhead]] is a reference to [[Under-3]]'s alternate name, but we're not putting Under-3 stuff on Lionhead's page. [[User:Saix\|Saix]] ([[User talk:Saix\|talk]]) 00:18, 28 January 2016 (EST)		:::::::::BWU Jawbreaker is just a version of BW Jawbreaker, though. Convobat as a unique character didn't exist till last year and is just a homage to an alternate name. Like, [[Lionhead]] is a reference to [[Under-3]]'s alternate name, but we're not putting Under-3 stuff on Lionhead's page. [[User:Saix\|Saix]] ([[User talk:Saix\|talk]]) 00:18, 28 January 2016 (EST)
	::::::::::Hmm, yes. Your argument is quite sound. Having read your explanation, I personally can't really think up of a solid counterpoint, even if I were to want to play devil's advocate. --[[User:Ascendron\|Ascendron]] ([[User talk:Ascendron\|talk]]) 00:27, 28 January 2016 (EST)		::::::::::Hmm, yes. Your argument is quite sound. Having read your explanation, I personally can't really think up of a solid counterpoint, even if I were to want to play devil's advocate. --[[User:Ascendron\|Ascendron]] ([[User talk:Ascendron\|talk]]) 00:27, 28 January 2016 (EST)



			==Tfwiki headache==

			The TR/legends variant says the head is a Nucleon retool, an Apeface retool, and an Infinitus retool. Please clarify.

	== "Repurposed" as "Beast Convoy"? ==		== "Repurposed" as "Beast Convoy"? ==

Jimsorenson: /* Red Convobat */

2021-02-04T02:37:46Z

Red Convobat

← Older revision		Revision as of 02:37, 4 February 2021
Line 28:		Line 28:

	Jim's addition was almost certainly for BW:U Convobat, no? [[User:Escargon\|Escargon]] ([[User talk:Escargon\|talk]]) 21:35, 3 February 2021 (EST)		Jim's addition was almost certainly for BW:U Convobat, no? [[User:Escargon\|Escargon]] ([[User talk:Escargon\|talk]]) 21:35, 3 February 2021 (EST)
	:Blue is fine. It's silly not to have this toy here im some form given the long complicated history.--[[User:Jimsorenson\|Jimsorenson]] ([[User talk:Jimsorenson\|talk]]) 21:37, 3 February 2021 (EST)		:Blue is fine. It's silly not to have this toy here in some form given the long complicated history.--[[User:Jimsorenson\|Jimsorenson]] ([[User talk:Jimsorenson\|talk]]) 21:37, 3 February 2021 (EST)

Jimsorenson: /* Red Convobat */

2021-02-04T02:37:13Z

Red Convobat

← Older revision		Revision as of 02:37, 4 February 2021
Line 28:		Line 28:

	Jim's addition was almost certainly for BW:U Convobat, no? [[User:Escargon\|Escargon]] ([[User talk:Escargon\|talk]]) 21:35, 3 February 2021 (EST)		Jim's addition was almost certainly for BW:U Convobat, no? [[User:Escargon\|Escargon]] ([[User talk:Escargon\|talk]]) 21:35, 3 February 2021 (EST)
			:Blue is fine. It's silly not to have this toy here im some form given the long complicated history.--[[User:Jimsorenson\|Jimsorenson]] ([[User talk:Jimsorenson\|talk]]) 21:37, 3 February 2021 (EST)

Escargon: /* Red Convobat */ new section

2021-02-04T02:35:25Z

Red Convobat: new section

← Older revision		Revision as of 02:35, 4 February 2021
Line 24:		Line 24:
	:: Sorry, I got a little wordy there, but yes, I was curious if the 2016/17 e-Hobby figure (the one using the TR Infinitus and Mindwipe molds) could also be used for Optimus Primal, since the G1-colored Bat Primal and Purple crocodile Megatron were released in Japan as "Convobat" and "Megalligator". It's sounding like no; I think I saw somewhere that the fiction attached to the 2016/17 figure explicitly defines them as new dudes. I have no opinion as to whether any other figures called "Convobat" should go here, though. [[User:Magaroja\|Magaroja]] ([[User talk:Magaroja\|talk]]) 12:24, 20 September 2016 (EDT)		:: Sorry, I got a little wordy there, but yes, I was curious if the 2016/17 e-Hobby figure (the one using the TR Infinitus and Mindwipe molds) could also be used for Optimus Primal, since the G1-colored Bat Primal and Purple crocodile Megatron were released in Japan as "Convobat" and "Megalligator". It's sounding like no; I think I saw somewhere that the fiction attached to the 2016/17 figure explicitly defines them as new dudes. I have no opinion as to whether any other figures called "Convobat" should go here, though. [[User:Magaroja\|Magaroja]] ([[User talk:Magaroja\|talk]]) 12:24, 20 September 2016 (EDT)
	:::At this point, we just don't know if this toy will be used to represent Optimus Primal or not because we simply don't have enough information pertaining to that notion yet. We have to wait and see what the 16-page comic that's gonna come with the figure will say about the toy's identity before we can do anything about it here. --[[User:Sabrblade\|Sabrblade]] ([[User talk:Sabrblade\|talk]]) 12:43, 20 September 2016 (EDT)		:::At this point, we just don't know if this toy will be used to represent Optimus Primal or not because we simply don't have enough information pertaining to that notion yet. We have to wait and see what the 16-page comic that's gonna come with the figure will say about the toy's identity before we can do anything about it here. --[[User:Sabrblade\|Sabrblade]] ([[User talk:Sabrblade\|talk]]) 12:43, 20 September 2016 (EDT)

			== Red Convobat ==

			Jim's addition was almost certainly for BW:U Convobat, no? [[User:Escargon\|Escargon]] ([[User talk:Escargon\|talk]]) 21:35, 3 February 2021 (EST)

Sabrblade: /* "Repurposed" as "Beast Convoy"? */

2016-09-20T16:43:15Z

"Repurposed" as "Beast Convoy"?

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:43, 20 September 2016
Line 23:		Line 23:
	:::::::I apologize. I had a tough day at school. I shouldn't edit angry. That's why I deleted the comment. I do think that it would make alot of sense to add the two Convobat toys to this page, in light of this new toy bio and what happened in Ask Vector Prime. --[[User:Giggidy\|Giggidy]] ([[User talk:Giggidy\|talk]]) 18:39, 8 September 2016 (EDT)		:::::::I apologize. I had a tough day at school. I shouldn't edit angry. That's why I deleted the comment. I do think that it would make alot of sense to add the two Convobat toys to this page, in light of this new toy bio and what happened in Ask Vector Prime. --[[User:Giggidy\|Giggidy]] ([[User talk:Giggidy\|talk]]) 18:39, 8 September 2016 (EDT)
	:: Sorry, I got a little wordy there, but yes, I was curious if the 2016/17 e-Hobby figure (the one using the TR Infinitus and Mindwipe molds) could also be used for Optimus Primal, since the G1-colored Bat Primal and Purple crocodile Megatron were released in Japan as "Convobat" and "Megalligator". It's sounding like no; I think I saw somewhere that the fiction attached to the 2016/17 figure explicitly defines them as new dudes. I have no opinion as to whether any other figures called "Convobat" should go here, though. [[User:Magaroja\|Magaroja]] ([[User talk:Magaroja\|talk]]) 12:24, 20 September 2016 (EDT)		:: Sorry, I got a little wordy there, but yes, I was curious if the 2016/17 e-Hobby figure (the one using the TR Infinitus and Mindwipe molds) could also be used for Optimus Primal, since the G1-colored Bat Primal and Purple crocodile Megatron were released in Japan as "Convobat" and "Megalligator". It's sounding like no; I think I saw somewhere that the fiction attached to the 2016/17 figure explicitly defines them as new dudes. I have no opinion as to whether any other figures called "Convobat" should go here, though. [[User:Magaroja\|Magaroja]] ([[User talk:Magaroja\|talk]]) 12:24, 20 September 2016 (EDT)
			:::At this point, we just don't know if this toy will be used to represent Optimus Primal or not because we simply don't have enough information pertaining to that notion yet. We have to wait and see what the 16-page comic that's gonna come with the figure will say about the toy's identity before we can do anything about it here. --[[User:Sabrblade\|Sabrblade]] ([[User talk:Sabrblade\|talk]]) 12:43, 20 September 2016 (EDT)

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:29, 25 April 2023
Line 6:		Line 6:
	:::Don't get me wrong, I don't outright hate AVP as much as some others here do, but I'm getting increasingly tired of editing justifications/arguments hinging on "well, AVP said..." [[User:Saix\|Saix]] ([[User talk:Saix\|talk]]) 22:40, 27 January 2016 (EST)		:::Don't get me wrong, I don't outright hate AVP as much as some others here do, but I'm getting increasingly tired of editing justifications/arguments hinging on "well, AVP said..." [[User:Saix\|Saix]] ([[User talk:Saix\|talk]]) 22:40, 27 January 2016 (EST)
	::::Well... it is canon, so it's a valid reason to make a straightforward, non-controversial edit. On the other hand, if it's a controversial edit, I'm starting to think maybe there has to be an extra level of thought put into it. In this case, I think that it's ambiguous enough to not jump straight to an edit. If AVP said, yes, this toy existed in this universe as this character, sure, put it on there. But here we know that Convobat exists as his own bot in a universe where there are no beast modes, so it's clearly drawing from some part of the source material but not all of it. --[[User:Giggidy\|Giggidy]] ([[User talk:Giggidy\|talk]]) 22:57, 27 January 2016 (EST)		::::Well... it is canon, so it's a valid reason to make a straightforward, non-controversial edit. On the other hand, if it's a controversial edit, I'm starting to think maybe there has to be an extra level of thought put into it. In this case, I think that it's ambiguous enough to not jump straight to an edit. If AVP said, yes, this toy existed in this universe as this character, sure, put it on there. But here we know that Convobat exists as his own bot in a universe where there are no beast modes, so it's clearly drawing from some part of the source material but not all of it. --[[User:Giggidy\|Giggidy]] ([[User talk:Giggidy\|talk]]) 22:57, 27 January 2016 (EST)
	::::::I don't really have a preference for this, as I don't care what the final decision ends up being. But I would suggest building a case around pre-existing articles, and what we settled on for those. I think both [[Jawbreaker]] and [[Goldbug (IDW)]]'s articles have had similar premises, though each is different enough from this one. Mainly, that both had at least a visual to reinforce a connection to a toy that isn't a perfect match for their appearance. Maybe what is different, and what is similar, should be used as determinations on whether or not this edit is to go through. There's undoubtedly other articles that could be used for the argument that I have not thought of. --[[User:Ascendron\|Ascendron]] ([[User talk:Ascendron\|talk]]) 23:33, 27 January 2016 (EST)		::::::I don't really have a preference for this, as I don't care what the final decision ends up being. But I would suggest building a case around pre-existing articles, and what we settled on for those. I think both [[Jawbreaker (BW)\|Jawbreaker]] and [[Goldbug (IDW)]]'s articles have had similar premises, though each is different enough from this one. Mainly, that both had at least a visual to reinforce a connection to a toy that isn't a perfect match for their appearance. Maybe what is different, and what is similar, should be used as determinations on whether or not this edit is to go through. There's undoubtedly other articles that could be used for the argument that I have not thought of. --[[User:Ascendron\|Ascendron]] ([[User talk:Ascendron\|talk]]) 23:33, 27 January 2016 (EST)
	:::::::Can you explain Jawbreaker's relevance to this? [[User:Saix\|Saix]] ([[User talk:Saix\|talk]]) 23:35, 27 January 2016 (EST)		:::::::Can you explain Jawbreaker's relevance to this? [[User:Saix\|Saix]] ([[User talk:Saix\|talk]]) 23:35, 27 January 2016 (EST)
	::::::::Isn't it somewhat of a similar situation? Both "beast era" toys represented in their only fictional appearances, (or in this case, implied representation), as a pre-Earth body? I felt it to be relevant, especially since it takes place in the same Universe. --[[User:Ascendron\|Ascendron]] ([[User talk:Ascendron\|talk]]) 23:47, 27 January 2016 (EST)		::::::::Isn't it somewhat of a similar situation? Both "beast era" toys represented in their only fictional appearances, (or in this case, implied representation), as a pre-Earth body? I felt it to be relevant, especially since it takes place in the same Universe. --[[User:Ascendron\|Ascendron]] ([[User talk:Ascendron\|talk]]) 23:47, 27 January 2016 (EST)

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:51, 11 September 2022
Line 6:		Line 6:
	:::Don't get me wrong, I don't outright hate AVP as much as some others here do, but I'm getting increasingly tired of editing justifications/arguments hinging on "well, AVP said..." [[User:Saix\|Saix]] ([[User talk:Saix\|talk]]) 22:40, 27 January 2016 (EST)		:::Don't get me wrong, I don't outright hate AVP as much as some others here do, but I'm getting increasingly tired of editing justifications/arguments hinging on "well, AVP said..." [[User:Saix\|Saix]] ([[User talk:Saix\|talk]]) 22:40, 27 January 2016 (EST)
	::::Well... it is canon, so it's a valid reason to make a straightforward, non-controversial edit. On the other hand, if it's a controversial edit, I'm starting to think maybe there has to be an extra level of thought put into it. In this case, I think that it's ambiguous enough to not jump straight to an edit. If AVP said, yes, this toy existed in this universe as this character, sure, put it on there. But here we know that Convobat exists as his own bot in a universe where there are no beast modes, so it's clearly drawing from some part of the source material but not all of it. --[[User:Giggidy\|Giggidy]] ([[User talk:Giggidy\|talk]]) 22:57, 27 January 2016 (EST)		::::Well... it is canon, so it's a valid reason to make a straightforward, non-controversial edit. On the other hand, if it's a controversial edit, I'm starting to think maybe there has to be an extra level of thought put into it. In this case, I think that it's ambiguous enough to not jump straight to an edit. If AVP said, yes, this toy existed in this universe as this character, sure, put it on there. But here we know that Convobat exists as his own bot in a universe where there are no beast modes, so it's clearly drawing from some part of the source material but not all of it. --[[User:Giggidy\|Giggidy]] ([[User talk:Giggidy\|talk]]) 22:57, 27 January 2016 (EST)
	::::::I don't really have a preference for this, as I don't care what the final decision ends up being. But I would suggest building a case around pre-existing articles, and what we settled on for those. I think both [[Jawbreaker]] and [[Goldbug (IDW)]]'s articles have had similar premises, though each is different enough from this one. Mainly, that both had at least a visual to reinforce a connection to a toy that isn't a perfect match for their appearance. Maybe what is different, and what is similar, should be used as determinations on whether or not this edit is to go through. There's undoubtedly other articles that could be used for the argument that I have not thought of. --[[User:Ascendron\|Ascendron]] ([[User		::::::I don't really have a preference for this, as I don't care what the final decision ends up being. But I would suggest building a case around pre-existing articles, and what we settled on for those. I think both [[Jawbreaker]] and [[Goldbug (IDW)]]'s articles have had similar premises, though each is different enough from this one. Mainly, that both had at least a visual to reinforce a connection to a toy that isn't a perfect match for their appearance. Maybe what is different, and what is similar, should be used as determinations on whether or not this edit is to go through. There's undoubtedly other articles that could be used for the argument that I have not thought of. --[[User:Ascendron\|Ascendron]] ([[User talk:Ascendron\|talk]]) 23:33, 27 January 2016 (EST)
	talk:Ascendron\|talk]]) 23:33, 27 January 2016 (EST)
	:::::::Can you explain Jawbreaker's relevance to this? [[User:Saix\|Saix]] ([[User talk:Saix\|talk]]) 23:35, 27 January 2016 (EST)		:::::::Can you explain Jawbreaker's relevance to this? [[User:Saix\|Saix]] ([[User talk:Saix\|talk]]) 23:35, 27 January 2016 (EST)
	::::::::Isn't it somewhat of a similar situation? Both "beast era" toys represented in their only fictional appearances, (or in this case, implied representation), as a pre-Earth body? I felt it to be relevant, especially since it takes place in the same Universe. --[[User:Ascendron\|Ascendron]] ([[User talk:Ascendron\|talk]]) 23:47, 27 January 2016 (EST)		::::::::Isn't it somewhat of a similar situation? Both "beast era" toys represented in their only fictional appearances, (or in this case, implied representation), as a pre-Earth body? I felt it to be relevant, especially since it takes place in the same Universe. --[[User:Ascendron\|Ascendron]] ([[User talk:Ascendron\|talk]]) 23:47, 27 January 2016 (EST)
	:::::::::BWU Jawbreaker is just a version of BW Jawbreaker, though. Convobat as a unique character didn't exist till last year and is just a homage to an alternate name. Like, [[Lionhead]] is a reference to [[Under-3]]'s alternate name, but we're not putting Under-3 stuff on Lionhead's page. [[User:Saix\|Saix]] ([[User talk:Saix\|talk]]) 00:18, 28 January 2016 (EST)		:::::::::BWU Jawbreaker is just a version of BW Jawbreaker, though. Convobat as a unique character didn't exist till last year and is just a homage to an alternate name. Like, [[Lionhead]] is a reference to [[Under-3]]'s alternate name, but we're not putting Under-3 stuff on Lionhead's page. [[User:Saix\|Saix]] ([[User talk:Saix\|talk]]) 00:18, 28 January 2016 (EST)
	::::::::::Hmm, yes. Your argument is quite sound. Having read your explanation, I personally can't really think up of a solid counterpoint, even if I were to want to play devil's advocate. --[[User:Ascendron\|Ascendron]] ([[User talk:Ascendron\|talk]]) 00:27, 28 January 2016 (EST)		::::::::::Hmm, yes. Your argument is quite sound. Having read your explanation, I personally can't really think up of a solid counterpoint, even if I were to want to play devil's advocate. --[[User:Ascendron\|Ascendron]] ([[User talk:Ascendron\|talk]]) 00:27, 28 January 2016 (EST)



	~~==Tfwiki headache==~~

	~~The TR/legends variant says the head is a Nucleon retool, an Apeface retool, and an Infinitus retool. Please clarify. -[[User:Liokaser19\|Liokaset19]]~~
	:Re-read the toy write-up more carefully. ''Legends'' Convobat's head is an Infinitus redeco. The accessories list includes a [[Megalligator#Legends\|''second'' Titan Master]] redecoed from Nucleon and a [[Ape X Arms#Legends\|monkey/jet/gun thing]] redecoed from [[Apeface#Titans Return\|the one included with the Apeface Titan Master]]. -[[User:AzimuthAcolyte\|AzimuthAcolyte]] ([[User talk:AzimuthAcolyte\|talk]]) 14:49, 11 September 2022 (EDT)

	== "Repurposed" as "Beast Convoy"? ==		== "Repurposed" as "Beast Convoy"? ==
Line 37:		Line 29:
	Jim's addition was almost certainly for BW:U Convobat, no? [[User:Escargon\|Escargon]] ([[User talk:Escargon\|talk]]) 21:35, 3 February 2021 (EST)		Jim's addition was almost certainly for BW:U Convobat, no? [[User:Escargon\|Escargon]] ([[User talk:Escargon\|talk]]) 21:35, 3 February 2021 (EST)
	:Blue is fine. It's silly not to have this toy here in some form given the long complicated history.--[[User:Jimsorenson\|Jimsorenson]] ([[User talk:Jimsorenson\|talk]]) 21:37, 3 February 2021 (EST)		:Blue is fine. It's silly not to have this toy here in some form given the long complicated history.--[[User:Jimsorenson\|Jimsorenson]] ([[User talk:Jimsorenson\|talk]]) 21:37, 3 February 2021 (EST)

			==Tfwiki headache==

			The TR/legends variant says the head is a Nucleon retool, an Apeface retool, and an Infinitus retool. Please clarify. -[[User:Liokaser19\|Liokaset19]]
			:Re-read the toy write-up more carefully. ''Legends'' Convobat's head is an Infinitus redeco. The accessories list includes a [[Megalligator#Legends\|''second'' Titan Master]] redecoed from Nucleon and a [[Ape X Arms#Legends\|monkey/jet/gun thing]] redecoed from [[Apeface#Titans Return\|the one included with the Apeface Titan Master]]. -[[User:AzimuthAcolyte\|AzimuthAcolyte]] ([[User talk:AzimuthAcolyte\|talk]]) 14:49, 11 September 2022 (EDT)

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:34, 11 September 2022
Line 6:		Line 6:
	:::Don't get me wrong, I don't outright hate AVP as much as some others here do, but I'm getting increasingly tired of editing justifications/arguments hinging on "well, AVP said..." [[User:Saix\|Saix]] ([[User talk:Saix\|talk]]) 22:40, 27 January 2016 (EST)		:::Don't get me wrong, I don't outright hate AVP as much as some others here do, but I'm getting increasingly tired of editing justifications/arguments hinging on "well, AVP said..." [[User:Saix\|Saix]] ([[User talk:Saix\|talk]]) 22:40, 27 January 2016 (EST)
	::::Well... it is canon, so it's a valid reason to make a straightforward, non-controversial edit. On the other hand, if it's a controversial edit, I'm starting to think maybe there has to be an extra level of thought put into it. In this case, I think that it's ambiguous enough to not jump straight to an edit. If AVP said, yes, this toy existed in this universe as this character, sure, put it on there. But here we know that Convobat exists as his own bot in a universe where there are no beast modes, so it's clearly drawing from some part of the source material but not all of it. --[[User:Giggidy\|Giggidy]] ([[User talk:Giggidy\|talk]]) 22:57, 27 January 2016 (EST)		::::Well... it is canon, so it's a valid reason to make a straightforward, non-controversial edit. On the other hand, if it's a controversial edit, I'm starting to think maybe there has to be an extra level of thought put into it. In this case, I think that it's ambiguous enough to not jump straight to an edit. If AVP said, yes, this toy existed in this universe as this character, sure, put it on there. But here we know that Convobat exists as his own bot in a universe where there are no beast modes, so it's clearly drawing from some part of the source material but not all of it. --[[User:Giggidy\|Giggidy]] ([[User talk:Giggidy\|talk]]) 22:57, 27 January 2016 (EST)
	::::::I don't really have a preference for this, as I don't care what the final decision ends up being. But I would suggest building a case around pre-existing articles, and what we settled on for those. I think both [[Jawbreaker]] and [[Goldbug (IDW)]]'s articles have had similar premises, though each is different enough from this one. Mainly, that both had at least a visual to reinforce a connection to a toy that isn't a perfect match for their appearance. Maybe what is different, and what is similar, should be used as determinations on whether or not this edit is to go through. There's undoubtedly other articles that could be used for the argument that I have not thought of. --[[User:Ascendron\|Ascendron]] ([[User talk:Ascendron\|talk]]) 23:33, 27 January 2016 (EST)		::::::I don't really have a preference for this, as I don't care what the final decision ends up being. But I would suggest building a case around pre-existing articles, and what we settled on for those. I think both [[Jawbreaker]] and [[Goldbug (IDW)]]'s articles have had similar premises, though each is different enough from this one. Mainly, that both had at least a visual to reinforce a connection to a toy that isn't a perfect match for their appearance. Maybe what is different, and what is similar, should be used as determinations on whether or not this edit is to go through. There's undoubtedly other articles that could be used for the argument that I have not thought of. --[[User:Ascendron\|Ascendron]] ([[User
			talk:Ascendron\|talk]]) 23:33, 27 January 2016 (EST)
	:::::::Can you explain Jawbreaker's relevance to this? [[User:Saix\|Saix]] ([[User talk:Saix\|talk]]) 23:35, 27 January 2016 (EST)		:::::::Can you explain Jawbreaker's relevance to this? [[User:Saix\|Saix]] ([[User talk:Saix\|talk]]) 23:35, 27 January 2016 (EST)
	::::::::Isn't it somewhat of a similar situation? Both "beast era" toys represented in their only fictional appearances, (or in this case, implied representation), as a pre-Earth body? I felt it to be relevant, especially since it takes place in the same Universe. --[[User:Ascendron\|Ascendron]] ([[User talk:Ascendron\|talk]]) 23:47, 27 January 2016 (EST)		::::::::Isn't it somewhat of a similar situation? Both "beast era" toys represented in their only fictional appearances, (or in this case, implied representation), as a pre-Earth body? I felt it to be relevant, especially since it takes place in the same Universe. --[[User:Ascendron\|Ascendron]] ([[User talk:Ascendron\|talk]]) 23:47, 27 January 2016 (EST)
	:::::::::BWU Jawbreaker is just a version of BW Jawbreaker, though. Convobat as a unique character didn't exist till last year and is just a homage to an alternate name. Like, [[Lionhead]] is a reference to [[Under-3]]'s alternate name, but we're not putting Under-3 stuff on Lionhead's page. [[User:Saix\|Saix]] ([[User talk:Saix\|talk]]) 00:18, 28 January 2016 (EST)		:::::::::BWU Jawbreaker is just a version of BW Jawbreaker, though. Convobat as a unique character didn't exist till last year and is just a homage to an alternate name. Like, [[Lionhead]] is a reference to [[Under-3]]'s alternate name, but we're not putting Under-3 stuff on Lionhead's page. [[User:Saix\|Saix]] ([[User talk:Saix\|talk]]) 00:18, 28 January 2016 (EST)
	::::::::::Hmm, yes. Your argument is quite sound. Having read your explanation, I personally can't really think up of a solid counterpoint, even if I were to want to play devil's advocate. --[[User:Ascendron\|Ascendron]] ([[User talk:Ascendron\|talk]]) 00:27, 28 January 2016 (EST)		::::::::::Hmm, yes. Your argument is quite sound. Having read your explanation, I personally can't really think up of a solid counterpoint, even if I were to want to play devil's advocate. --[[User:Ascendron\|Ascendron]] ([[User talk:Ascendron\|talk]]) 00:27, 28 January 2016 (EST)



			==Tfwiki headache==

			The TR/legends variant says the head is a Nucleon retool, an Apeface retool, and an Infinitus retool. Please clarify.

	== "Repurposed" as "Beast Convoy"? ==		== "Repurposed" as "Beast Convoy"? ==

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:43, 20 September 2016
Line 23:		Line 23:
	:::::::I apologize. I had a tough day at school. I shouldn't edit angry. That's why I deleted the comment. I do think that it would make alot of sense to add the two Convobat toys to this page, in light of this new toy bio and what happened in Ask Vector Prime. --[[User:Giggidy\|Giggidy]] ([[User talk:Giggidy\|talk]]) 18:39, 8 September 2016 (EDT)		:::::::I apologize. I had a tough day at school. I shouldn't edit angry. That's why I deleted the comment. I do think that it would make alot of sense to add the two Convobat toys to this page, in light of this new toy bio and what happened in Ask Vector Prime. --[[User:Giggidy\|Giggidy]] ([[User talk:Giggidy\|talk]]) 18:39, 8 September 2016 (EDT)
	:: Sorry, I got a little wordy there, but yes, I was curious if the 2016/17 e-Hobby figure (the one using the TR Infinitus and Mindwipe molds) could also be used for Optimus Primal, since the G1-colored Bat Primal and Purple crocodile Megatron were released in Japan as "Convobat" and "Megalligator". It's sounding like no; I think I saw somewhere that the fiction attached to the 2016/17 figure explicitly defines them as new dudes. I have no opinion as to whether any other figures called "Convobat" should go here, though. [[User:Magaroja\|Magaroja]] ([[User talk:Magaroja\|talk]]) 12:24, 20 September 2016 (EDT)		:: Sorry, I got a little wordy there, but yes, I was curious if the 2016/17 e-Hobby figure (the one using the TR Infinitus and Mindwipe molds) could also be used for Optimus Primal, since the G1-colored Bat Primal and Purple crocodile Megatron were released in Japan as "Convobat" and "Megalligator". It's sounding like no; I think I saw somewhere that the fiction attached to the 2016/17 figure explicitly defines them as new dudes. I have no opinion as to whether any other figures called "Convobat" should go here, though. [[User:Magaroja\|Magaroja]] ([[User talk:Magaroja\|talk]]) 12:24, 20 September 2016 (EDT)
			:::At this point, we just don't know if this toy will be used to represent Optimus Primal or not because we simply don't have enough information pertaining to that notion yet. We have to wait and see what the 16-page comic that's gonna come with the figure will say about the toy's identity before we can do anything about it here. --[[User:Sabrblade\|Sabrblade]] ([[User talk:Sabrblade\|talk]]) 12:43, 20 September 2016 (EDT)