Talk:Hound (G1) - Revision history

NexusShard17 at 14:38, 26 September 2018

2018-09-26T14:38:12Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 14:38, 26 September 2018
Line 8:		Line 8:

	As [[Talk:Transformers (2010 toyline)#Tracker Hound\|I argued before]], his name, "Tracker Hound" is obviously "Hound" with a random adjective added, as Hasbro commonly does. This page was created as "Hound" and not "Tracker Hound" so I don't think there is a question about that. If this is really a new character, it is probably the first time in history that Hasbro added a random adjective to a brand new character's name. More likely he is an established character who had a random adjective added for a new recolored toy, as that is what Hasbro does. Since there is only one real choice as to who the established character is, I think this toy is [[Hound (G1)]]. - [[User:Starfield\|Starfield]] 10:40, 27 June 2010 (EDT)		As [[Talk:Transformers (2010 toyline)#Tracker Hound\|I argued before]], his name, "Tracker Hound" is obviously "Hound" with a random adjective added, as Hasbro commonly does. This page was created as "Hound" and not "Tracker Hound" so I don't think there is a question about that. If this is really a new character, it is probably the first time in history that Hasbro added a random adjective to a brand new character's name. More likely he is an established character who had a random adjective added for a new recolored toy, as that is what Hasbro does. Since there is only one real choice as to who the established character is, I think this toy is [[Hound (G1)]]. - [[User:Starfield\|Starfield]] 10:40, 27 June 2010 (EDT)
	:Since Hasbro doesn't have the trademark for plain "Hound", it's possible they didn't want to redeco a two-year-old toy for a different line with the same "Autobot Hound" name, hence his strange "Tracker Hound" name. But at the same time, that's normally done with pre-established characters. So for now, his franchise of origin is ambiguous. Reminds me of [[Sea Spray]]. --[[User:NCZ\|NCZ]] 10:45, 27 June 2010 (EDT)		:Since Hasbro doesn't have the trademark for plain "Hound", it's possible they didn't want to redeco a two-year-old toy for a different line with the same "Autobot Hound" name, hence his strange "Tracker Hound" name. But at the same time, that's normally done with pre-established characters. So for now, his franchise of origin is ambiguous. Reminds me of [[Sea Spray (TF 2010)\|Sea Spreay]]. --[[User:NCZ\|NCZ]] 10:45, 27 June 2010 (EDT)
	::Yeah, I am in favour of this being G1 Hound, since at the time of this page's creation, Hasbro hadn't put any G1 characters in this line yet. --[[User:FFN\|FFN]] 14:55, 1 August 2010 (EDT)		::Yeah, I am in favour of this being G1 Hound, since at the time of this page's creation, Hasbro hadn't put any G1 characters in this line yet. --[[User:FFN\|FFN]] 14:55, 1 August 2010 (EDT)

M Sipher: /* Marvel continuity death */

2015-12-02T23:16:27Z

Marvel continuity death

← Older revision		Revision as of 23:16, 2 December 2015
Line 53:		Line 53:
	::::::::That works. [[User:Saix\|Saix]] ([[User talk:Saix\|talk]]) 17:50, 2 December 2015 (EST)		::::::::That works. [[User:Saix\|Saix]] ([[User talk:Saix\|talk]]) 17:50, 2 December 2015 (EST)
	:::::::::That's my Official Handbook of the Marvel Universe upbringing. Don't relegate to an out-of-universe note what can be incorporated into in-universe text with appropriate wording. "At an unknown point." "Through means unknown." "Under undivulged circumstances." "An erroneous account." - [[User:Chris McFeely\|Chris McFeely]] ([[User talk:Chris McFeely\|talk]]) 18:01, 2 December 2015 (EST)		:::::::::That's my Official Handbook of the Marvel Universe upbringing. Don't relegate to an out-of-universe note what can be incorporated into in-universe text with appropriate wording. "At an unknown point." "Through means unknown." "Under undivulged circumstances." "An erroneous account." - [[User:Chris McFeely\|Chris McFeely]] ([[User talk:Chris McFeely\|talk]]) 18:01, 2 December 2015 (EST)
			::::::::::Probably the most graceful solution. --[[User:M Sipher\|M Sipher]] ([[User talk:M Sipher\|talk]]) 18:16, 2 December 2015 (EST)

Chris McFeely: /* Marvel continuity death */

2015-12-02T23:01:16Z

Marvel continuity death

← Older revision		Revision as of 23:01, 2 December 2015
Line 52:		Line 52:
	:::::::That sounds sensible. --[[User:Giggidy\|Giggidy]] ([[User talk:Giggidy\|talk]]) 17:19, 2 December 2015 (EST)		:::::::That sounds sensible. --[[User:Giggidy\|Giggidy]] ([[User talk:Giggidy\|talk]]) 17:19, 2 December 2015 (EST)
	::::::::That works. [[User:Saix\|Saix]] ([[User talk:Saix\|talk]]) 17:50, 2 December 2015 (EST)		::::::::That works. [[User:Saix\|Saix]] ([[User talk:Saix\|talk]]) 17:50, 2 December 2015 (EST)
			:::::::::That's my Official Handbook of the Marvel Universe upbringing. Don't relegate to an out-of-universe note what can be incorporated into in-universe text with appropriate wording. "At an unknown point." "Through means unknown." "Under undivulged circumstances." "An erroneous account." - [[User:Chris McFeely\|Chris McFeely]] ([[User talk:Chris McFeely\|talk]]) 18:01, 2 December 2015 (EST)

Saix: /* Marvel continuity death */

2015-12-02T22:50:24Z

Marvel continuity death

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:50, 2 December 2015
Line 51:		Line 51:
	::::::I know that McFeely has been putting "At some unknown point, they were revived" for various characters who show back up with no explanation, like Skywarp and Thundercracker in Generation 2. [[User:Escargon\|Escargon]] ([[User talk:Escargon\|talk]]) 16:53, 2 December 2015 (EST)		::::::I know that McFeely has been putting "At some unknown point, they were revived" for various characters who show back up with no explanation, like Skywarp and Thundercracker in Generation 2. [[User:Escargon\|Escargon]] ([[User talk:Escargon\|talk]]) 16:53, 2 December 2015 (EST)
	:::::::That sounds sensible. --[[User:Giggidy\|Giggidy]] ([[User talk:Giggidy\|talk]]) 17:19, 2 December 2015 (EST)		:::::::That sounds sensible. --[[User:Giggidy\|Giggidy]] ([[User talk:Giggidy\|talk]]) 17:19, 2 December 2015 (EST)
			::::::::That works. [[User:Saix\|Saix]] ([[User talk:Saix\|talk]]) 17:50, 2 December 2015 (EST)

Giggidy: /* Marvel continuity death */

2015-12-02T22:19:56Z

Marvel continuity death

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:19, 2 December 2015
Line 50:		Line 50:
	:::::This. At most, and I'm not even really advocating this, a short Note at the end of the Marvel G1 section noting Hound would appear in later stories connectioned to Marvel G1, but without explicit explanation as to how he was revived. --[[User:M Sipher\|M Sipher]] ([[User talk:M Sipher\|talk]]) 16:51, 2 December 2015 (EST)		:::::This. At most, and I'm not even really advocating this, a short Note at the end of the Marvel G1 section noting Hound would appear in later stories connectioned to Marvel G1, but without explicit explanation as to how he was revived. --[[User:M Sipher\|M Sipher]] ([[User talk:M Sipher\|talk]]) 16:51, 2 December 2015 (EST)
	::::::I know that McFeely has been putting "At some unknown point, they were revived" for various characters who show back up with no explanation, like Skywarp and Thundercracker in Generation 2. [[User:Escargon\|Escargon]] ([[User talk:Escargon\|talk]]) 16:53, 2 December 2015 (EST)		::::::I know that McFeely has been putting "At some unknown point, they were revived" for various characters who show back up with no explanation, like Skywarp and Thundercracker in Generation 2. [[User:Escargon\|Escargon]] ([[User talk:Escargon\|talk]]) 16:53, 2 December 2015 (EST)
			:::::::That sounds sensible. --[[User:Giggidy\|Giggidy]] ([[User talk:Giggidy\|talk]]) 17:19, 2 December 2015 (EST)

Escargon at 21:53, 2 December 2015

2015-12-02T21:53:37Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:53, 2 December 2015
Line 49:		Line 49:
	::::I think any option we take is disingenuous. They died. Then they showed up alive without explanation. That's canon and we'll just have to deal. [[User:Saix\|Saix]] ([[User talk:Saix\|talk]]) 16:18, 2 December 2015 (EST)		::::I think any option we take is disingenuous. They died. Then they showed up alive without explanation. That's canon and we'll just have to deal. [[User:Saix\|Saix]] ([[User talk:Saix\|talk]]) 16:18, 2 December 2015 (EST)
	:::::This. At most, and I'm not even really advocating this, a short Note at the end of the Marvel G1 section noting Hound would appear in later stories connectioned to Marvel G1, but without explicit explanation as to how he was revived. --[[User:M Sipher\|M Sipher]] ([[User talk:M Sipher\|talk]]) 16:51, 2 December 2015 (EST)		:::::This. At most, and I'm not even really advocating this, a short Note at the end of the Marvel G1 section noting Hound would appear in later stories connectioned to Marvel G1, but without explicit explanation as to how he was revived. --[[User:M Sipher\|M Sipher]] ([[User talk:M Sipher\|talk]]) 16:51, 2 December 2015 (EST)
			::::::I know that McFeely has been putting "At some unknown point, they were revived" for various characters who show back up with no explanation, like Skywarp and Thundercracker in Generation 2. [[User:Escargon\|Escargon]] ([[User talk:Escargon\|talk]]) 16:53, 2 December 2015 (EST)

M Sipher: /* Marvel continuity death */

2015-12-02T21:51:42Z

Marvel continuity death

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:51, 2 December 2015
Line 48:		Line 48:
	:::Comes down to how much speculation do we want to put on the Wiki to connect the dots, and what form is best to do it. --[[User:Xaaron\|Xaaron]] ([[User talk:Xaaron\|talk]]) 16:12, 2 December 2015 (EST)		:::Comes down to how much speculation do we want to put on the Wiki to connect the dots, and what form is best to do it. --[[User:Xaaron\|Xaaron]] ([[User talk:Xaaron\|talk]]) 16:12, 2 December 2015 (EST)
	::::I think any option we take is disingenuous. They died. Then they showed up alive without explanation. That's canon and we'll just have to deal. [[User:Saix\|Saix]] ([[User talk:Saix\|talk]]) 16:18, 2 December 2015 (EST)		::::I think any option we take is disingenuous. They died. Then they showed up alive without explanation. That's canon and we'll just have to deal. [[User:Saix\|Saix]] ([[User talk:Saix\|talk]]) 16:18, 2 December 2015 (EST)
			:::::This. At most, and I'm not even really advocating this, a short Note at the end of the Marvel G1 section noting Hound would appear in later stories connectioned to Marvel G1, but without explicit explanation as to how he was revived. --[[User:M Sipher\|M Sipher]] ([[User talk:M Sipher\|talk]]) 16:51, 2 December 2015 (EST)

Saix: /* Marvel continuity death */

2015-12-02T21:18:32Z

Marvel continuity death

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:18, 2 December 2015
Line 47:		Line 47:
	:::Might be more complicated than that. After all, RG1 and G2 are only two possible futures of the Marvel G1 comics. There's also Classics, ATAP, and more. And across continuities, we know that all Ark patients didn't ''necessarily'' revive. ''Classics'' Cliffjumper was inactive until after the battle of Klo, for instance, while the ''Regeneration One'' Monsterbots were never revived and therefore became part of Megatron's Ex-Bots. So we don't know if Hound revived in the original Marvel timeline, or only in certain splinter timelines.		:::Might be more complicated than that. After all, RG1 and G2 are only two possible futures of the Marvel G1 comics. There's also Classics, ATAP, and more. And across continuities, we know that all Ark patients didn't ''necessarily'' revive. ''Classics'' Cliffjumper was inactive until after the battle of Klo, for instance, while the ''Regeneration One'' Monsterbots were never revived and therefore became part of Megatron's Ex-Bots. So we don't know if Hound revived in the original Marvel timeline, or only in certain splinter timelines.
	:::Comes down to how much speculation do we want to put on the Wiki to connect the dots, and what form is best to do it. --[[User:Xaaron\|Xaaron]] ([[User talk:Xaaron\|talk]]) 16:12, 2 December 2015 (EST)		:::Comes down to how much speculation do we want to put on the Wiki to connect the dots, and what form is best to do it. --[[User:Xaaron\|Xaaron]] ([[User talk:Xaaron\|talk]]) 16:12, 2 December 2015 (EST)
			::::I think any option we take is disingenuous. They died. Then they showed up alive without explanation. That's canon and we'll just have to deal. [[User:Saix\|Saix]] ([[User talk:Saix\|talk]]) 16:18, 2 December 2015 (EST)

Xaaron: /* Marvel continuity death */

2015-12-02T21:12:36Z

Marvel continuity death

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:12, 2 December 2015
Line 45:		Line 45:
	:Grimlock brought everyone in the Ark's repair bay back online with Nucleon. This was dozens of characters, so many (including Hound) were not seen reviving on panel. --[[User:Xaaron\|Xaaron]] ([[User talk:Xaaron\|talk]]) 14:04, 2 December 2015 (EST)		:Grimlock brought everyone in the Ark's repair bay back online with Nucleon. This was dozens of characters, so many (including Hound) were not seen reviving on panel. --[[User:Xaaron\|Xaaron]] ([[User talk:Xaaron\|talk]]) 14:04, 2 December 2015 (EST)
	::Ah. Thank you. It might be an idea to address it on this and similar pages, though, since as-is it reads like "hound died and everyone mourned him, then he was part of a squad under optimus". Maybe a note along the lines of "Hound was not explicitly named as one of the offline Transformers revived with Nucleon, but his appearances in the Generation 2 and Regeneration One comics imply this"? --[[User:Riptide\|Riptide]] ([[User talk:Riptide\|talk]]) 15:43, 2 December 2015 (EST)		::Ah. Thank you. It might be an idea to address it on this and similar pages, though, since as-is it reads like "hound died and everyone mourned him, then he was part of a squad under optimus". Maybe a note along the lines of "Hound was not explicitly named as one of the offline Transformers revived with Nucleon, but his appearances in the Generation 2 and Regeneration One comics imply this"? --[[User:Riptide\|Riptide]] ([[User talk:Riptide\|talk]]) 15:43, 2 December 2015 (EST)
			:::Might be more complicated than that. After all, RG1 and G2 are only two possible futures of the Marvel G1 comics. There's also Classics, ATAP, and more. And across continuities, we know that all Ark patients didn't ''necessarily'' revive. ''Classics'' Cliffjumper was inactive until after the battle of Klo, for instance, while the ''Regeneration One'' Monsterbots were never revived and therefore became part of Megatron's Ex-Bots. So we don't know if Hound revived in the original Marvel timeline, or only in certain splinter timelines.
			:::Comes down to how much speculation do we want to put on the Wiki to connect the dots, and what form is best to do it. --[[User:Xaaron\|Xaaron]] ([[User talk:Xaaron\|talk]]) 16:12, 2 December 2015 (EST)

Broadside: /* Marvel continuity death */

2015-12-02T20:43:02Z

Marvel continuity death

← Older revision		Revision as of 20:43, 2 December 2015
Line 44:		Line 44:

	:Grimlock brought everyone in the Ark's repair bay back online with Nucleon. This was dozens of characters, so many (including Hound) were not seen reviving on panel. --[[User:Xaaron\|Xaaron]] ([[User talk:Xaaron\|talk]]) 14:04, 2 December 2015 (EST)		:Grimlock brought everyone in the Ark's repair bay back online with Nucleon. This was dozens of characters, so many (including Hound) were not seen reviving on panel. --[[User:Xaaron\|Xaaron]] ([[User talk:Xaaron\|talk]]) 14:04, 2 December 2015 (EST)
			::Ah. Thank you. It might be an idea to address it on this and similar pages, though, since as-is it reads like "hound died and everyone mourned him, then he was part of a squad under optimus". Maybe a note along the lines of "Hound was not explicitly named as one of the offline Transformers revived with Nucleon, but his appearances in the Generation 2 and Regeneration One comics imply this"? --[[User:Riptide\|Riptide]] ([[User talk:Riptide\|talk]]) 15:43, 2 December 2015 (EST)

← Older revision		Revision as of 14:38, 26 September 2018
Line 8:		Line 8:

	As [[Talk:Transformers (2010 toyline)#Tracker Hound\|I argued before]], his name, "Tracker Hound" is obviously "Hound" with a random adjective added, as Hasbro commonly does. This page was created as "Hound" and not "Tracker Hound" so I don't think there is a question about that. If this is really a new character, it is probably the first time in history that Hasbro added a random adjective to a brand new character's name. More likely he is an established character who had a random adjective added for a new recolored toy, as that is what Hasbro does. Since there is only one real choice as to who the established character is, I think this toy is [[Hound (G1)]]. - [[User:Starfield\|Starfield]] 10:40, 27 June 2010 (EDT)		As [[Talk:Transformers (2010 toyline)#Tracker Hound\|I argued before]], his name, "Tracker Hound" is obviously "Hound" with a random adjective added, as Hasbro commonly does. This page was created as "Hound" and not "Tracker Hound" so I don't think there is a question about that. If this is really a new character, it is probably the first time in history that Hasbro added a random adjective to a brand new character's name. More likely he is an established character who had a random adjective added for a new recolored toy, as that is what Hasbro does. Since there is only one real choice as to who the established character is, I think this toy is [[Hound (G1)]]. - [[User:Starfield\|Starfield]] 10:40, 27 June 2010 (EDT)
	:Since Hasbro doesn't have the trademark for plain "Hound", it's possible they didn't want to redeco a two-year-old toy for a different line with the same "Autobot Hound" name, hence his strange "Tracker Hound" name. But at the same time, that's normally done with pre-established characters. So for now, his franchise of origin is ambiguous. Reminds me of [[Sea Spray]]. --[[User:NCZ\|NCZ]] 10:45, 27 June 2010 (EDT)		:Since Hasbro doesn't have the trademark for plain "Hound", it's possible they didn't want to redeco a two-year-old toy for a different line with the same "Autobot Hound" name, hence his strange "Tracker Hound" name. But at the same time, that's normally done with pre-established characters. So for now, his franchise of origin is ambiguous. Reminds me of [[Sea Spray (TF 2010)\|Sea Spreay]]. --[[User:NCZ\|NCZ]] 10:45, 27 June 2010 (EDT)
	::Yeah, I am in favour of this being G1 Hound, since at the time of this page's creation, Hasbro hadn't put any G1 characters in this line yet. --[[User:FFN\|FFN]] 14:55, 1 August 2010 (EDT)		::Yeah, I am in favour of this being G1 Hound, since at the time of this page's creation, Hasbro hadn't put any G1 characters in this line yet. --[[User:FFN\|FFN]] 14:55, 1 August 2010 (EDT)

← Older revision		Revision as of 23:16, 2 December 2015
Line 53:		Line 53:
	::::::::That works. [[User:Saix\|Saix]] ([[User talk:Saix\|talk]]) 17:50, 2 December 2015 (EST)		::::::::That works. [[User:Saix\|Saix]] ([[User talk:Saix\|talk]]) 17:50, 2 December 2015 (EST)
	:::::::::That's my Official Handbook of the Marvel Universe upbringing. Don't relegate to an out-of-universe note what can be incorporated into in-universe text with appropriate wording. "At an unknown point." "Through means unknown." "Under undivulged circumstances." "An erroneous account." - [[User:Chris McFeely\|Chris McFeely]] ([[User talk:Chris McFeely\|talk]]) 18:01, 2 December 2015 (EST)		:::::::::That's my Official Handbook of the Marvel Universe upbringing. Don't relegate to an out-of-universe note what can be incorporated into in-universe text with appropriate wording. "At an unknown point." "Through means unknown." "Under undivulged circumstances." "An erroneous account." - [[User:Chris McFeely\|Chris McFeely]] ([[User talk:Chris McFeely\|talk]]) 18:01, 2 December 2015 (EST)
			::::::::::Probably the most graceful solution. --[[User:M Sipher\|M Sipher]] ([[User talk:M Sipher\|talk]]) 18:16, 2 December 2015 (EST)

← Older revision		Revision as of 23:01, 2 December 2015
Line 52:		Line 52:
	:::::::That sounds sensible. --[[User:Giggidy\|Giggidy]] ([[User talk:Giggidy\|talk]]) 17:19, 2 December 2015 (EST)		:::::::That sounds sensible. --[[User:Giggidy\|Giggidy]] ([[User talk:Giggidy\|talk]]) 17:19, 2 December 2015 (EST)
	::::::::That works. [[User:Saix\|Saix]] ([[User talk:Saix\|talk]]) 17:50, 2 December 2015 (EST)		::::::::That works. [[User:Saix\|Saix]] ([[User talk:Saix\|talk]]) 17:50, 2 December 2015 (EST)
			:::::::::That's my Official Handbook of the Marvel Universe upbringing. Don't relegate to an out-of-universe note what can be incorporated into in-universe text with appropriate wording. "At an unknown point." "Through means unknown." "Under undivulged circumstances." "An erroneous account." - [[User:Chris McFeely\|Chris McFeely]] ([[User talk:Chris McFeely\|talk]]) 18:01, 2 December 2015 (EST)

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:50, 2 December 2015
Line 51:		Line 51:
	::::::I know that McFeely has been putting "At some unknown point, they were revived" for various characters who show back up with no explanation, like Skywarp and Thundercracker in Generation 2. [[User:Escargon\|Escargon]] ([[User talk:Escargon\|talk]]) 16:53, 2 December 2015 (EST)		::::::I know that McFeely has been putting "At some unknown point, they were revived" for various characters who show back up with no explanation, like Skywarp and Thundercracker in Generation 2. [[User:Escargon\|Escargon]] ([[User talk:Escargon\|talk]]) 16:53, 2 December 2015 (EST)
	:::::::That sounds sensible. --[[User:Giggidy\|Giggidy]] ([[User talk:Giggidy\|talk]]) 17:19, 2 December 2015 (EST)		:::::::That sounds sensible. --[[User:Giggidy\|Giggidy]] ([[User talk:Giggidy\|talk]]) 17:19, 2 December 2015 (EST)
			::::::::That works. [[User:Saix\|Saix]] ([[User talk:Saix\|talk]]) 17:50, 2 December 2015 (EST)

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:19, 2 December 2015
Line 50:		Line 50:
	:::::This. At most, and I'm not even really advocating this, a short Note at the end of the Marvel G1 section noting Hound would appear in later stories connectioned to Marvel G1, but without explicit explanation as to how he was revived. --[[User:M Sipher\|M Sipher]] ([[User talk:M Sipher\|talk]]) 16:51, 2 December 2015 (EST)		:::::This. At most, and I'm not even really advocating this, a short Note at the end of the Marvel G1 section noting Hound would appear in later stories connectioned to Marvel G1, but without explicit explanation as to how he was revived. --[[User:M Sipher\|M Sipher]] ([[User talk:M Sipher\|talk]]) 16:51, 2 December 2015 (EST)
	::::::I know that McFeely has been putting "At some unknown point, they were revived" for various characters who show back up with no explanation, like Skywarp and Thundercracker in Generation 2. [[User:Escargon\|Escargon]] ([[User talk:Escargon\|talk]]) 16:53, 2 December 2015 (EST)		::::::I know that McFeely has been putting "At some unknown point, they were revived" for various characters who show back up with no explanation, like Skywarp and Thundercracker in Generation 2. [[User:Escargon\|Escargon]] ([[User talk:Escargon\|talk]]) 16:53, 2 December 2015 (EST)
			:::::::That sounds sensible. --[[User:Giggidy\|Giggidy]] ([[User talk:Giggidy\|talk]]) 17:19, 2 December 2015 (EST)