Talk:Wolfang (Maximal) - Revision history

M Sipher: /* The Curious Case Of BWV Wolfang's Missiles */

2022-08-06T10:46:23Z

The Curious Case Of BWV Wolfang's Missiles

← Older revision		Revision as of 10:46, 6 August 2022
Line 22:		Line 22:
	==The Curious Case Of BWV Wolfang's Missiles==		==The Curious Case Of BWV Wolfang's Missiles==
	I just noted this in the article proper, but BWV Wolfang's missiles have been retooled to be ''shorter'' and a bit thinner, which is like the very opposite of [[For_safety_reasons\|For Safety Reasons]] as we know it. Has this ''ever'' happened before now? I can't wrap my head around it. I wondered if it was possibly a case of them recasting the tooling off of a prototype or something, but the launcher has definitely been retooled to accommodate the thinner projectiles, and the chest holes are still sized to the originals. It is absolutely bizarre.--[[User:MCRG\|MCRG]] ([[User talk:MCRG\|talk]]) 01:48, 6 August 2022 (EDT)		I just noted this in the article proper, but BWV Wolfang's missiles have been retooled to be ''shorter'' and a bit thinner, which is like the very opposite of [[For_safety_reasons\|For Safety Reasons]] as we know it. Has this ''ever'' happened before now? I can't wrap my head around it. I wondered if it was possibly a case of them recasting the tooling off of a prototype or something, but the launcher has definitely been retooled to accommodate the thinner projectiles, and the chest holes are still sized to the originals. It is absolutely bizarre.--[[User:MCRG\|MCRG]] ([[User talk:MCRG\|talk]]) 01:48, 6 August 2022 (EDT)
			: I mean the wide "blades" of the missiles make it pretty much impossible for the missiles to accidentally get shot into the mouth in a way that could result in one falling into and lodging inside the throat no matter how short the missile shaft is, so, not really a safety concern there. My only guess is they had to re-create a mold or two and took the opportunity to shave a few pennies off by using a bit less plastic when they could. --[[User:M Sipher\|M Sipher]] ([[User talk:M Sipher\|talk]]) 06:46, 6 August 2022 (EDT)

MCRG: /* The Curious Case Of BWV Wolfang's Missiles */

2022-08-06T05:48:57Z

The Curious Case Of BWV Wolfang's Missiles

← Older revision		Revision as of 05:48, 6 August 2022
Line 21:		Line 21:

	==The Curious Case Of BWV Wolfang's Missiles==		==The Curious Case Of BWV Wolfang's Missiles==
	I just noted this in the article proper, but BWV Wolfang's missiles have been retooled to be ''shorter'' and a bit thinner, which is like the very opposite of [[For_safety_reasons\|For Safety Reasons]] as we know it. Has this ''ever'' happened before now? I can't wrap my head around it. I wondered if it was possibly a case of them recasting the tooling off of a prototype or something, but the launcher has definitely been retooled to accommodate the thinner projectiles, and the chest holes are still sized to the originals. It is absolutely bizarre.		I just noted this in the article proper, but BWV Wolfang's missiles have been retooled to be ''shorter'' and a bit thinner, which is like the very opposite of [[For_safety_reasons\|For Safety Reasons]] as we know it. Has this ''ever'' happened before now? I can't wrap my head around it. I wondered if it was possibly a case of them recasting the tooling off of a prototype or something, but the launcher has definitely been retooled to accommodate the thinner projectiles, and the chest holes are still sized to the originals. It is absolutely bizarre.--[[User:MCRG\|MCRG]] ([[User talk:MCRG\|talk]]) 01:48, 6 August 2022 (EDT)

MCRG: /* The Curious Case of BWV Wolfang's Missiles */

2022-08-06T05:48:06Z

The Curious Case of BWV Wolfang's Missiles

← Older revision		Revision as of 05:48, 6 August 2022
Line 19:		Line 19:

	[http://www.allspark.com/forums/topic/101932-tfwikinet-thread-30/page-261#entry3329053 I guess that's that.] --[[User:Sabrblade\|Sabrblade]] ([[User talk:Sabrblade\|talk]]) 23:11, 3 September 2016 (EDT)		[http://www.allspark.com/forums/topic/101932-tfwikinet-thread-30/page-261#entry3329053 I guess that's that.] --[[User:Sabrblade\|Sabrblade]] ([[User talk:Sabrblade\|talk]]) 23:11, 3 September 2016 (EDT)

			==The Curious Case Of BWV Wolfang's Missiles==
			I just noted this in the article proper, but BWV Wolfang's missiles have been retooled to be ''shorter'' and a bit thinner, which is like the very opposite of [[For_safety_reasons\|For Safety Reasons]] as we know it. Has this ''ever'' happened before now? I can't wrap my head around it. I wondered if it was possibly a case of them recasting the tooling off of a prototype or something, but the launcher has definitely been retooled to accommodate the thinner projectiles, and the chest holes are still sized to the originals. It is absolutely bizarre.

S.H.I.E.L.D. Agent 47: Removing spoiler tag.

2016-12-22T23:58:11Z

Removing spoiler tag.

← Older revision		Revision as of 23:58, 22 December 2016
Line 1:		Line 1:
	==Merge==		==Merge==
	~~{{spoiler\|Trigger Warnings\|10/2/2016}}~~
	[[Trigger Warnings]] establishes that there is a version of the [[Wolfang (Predacon)\|Predacon Wolfang]] who transforms into a Maximal. He has Maximal blue coloration in his Maximal form and Predacon red in his Predacon form. Since the two Wolfangs have never existed in the same continuity, it seems like it'd make sense to call them one and the same, since in at least one continuity they are.--[[User:Giggidy\|Giggidy]] ([[User talk:Giggidy\|talk]]) 17:17, 3 September 2016 (EDT)		[[Trigger Warnings]] establishes that there is a version of the [[Wolfang (Predacon)\|Predacon Wolfang]] who transforms into a Maximal. He has Maximal blue coloration in his Maximal form and Predacon red in his Predacon form. Since the two Wolfangs have never existed in the same continuity, it seems like it'd make sense to call them one and the same, since in at least one continuity they are.--[[User:Giggidy\|Giggidy]] ([[User talk:Giggidy\|talk]]) 17:17, 3 September 2016 (EDT)
	:They are not in Japanese continuity, where one is Howlinger and the other is "Volfang". [[User:Saix\|Saix]] ([[User talk:Saix\|talk]]) 17:22, 3 September 2016 (EDT)		:They are not in Japanese continuity, where one is Howlinger and the other is "Volfang". [[User:Saix\|Saix]] ([[User talk:Saix\|talk]]) 17:22, 3 September 2016 (EDT)

Sabrblade: /* Merge */

2016-09-04T03:11:31Z

Merge

← Older revision		Revision as of 03:11, 4 September 2016
Line 18:		Line 18:

	No. --[[User:M Sipher\|M Sipher]] ([[User talk:M Sipher\|talk]]) 22:23, 3 September 2016 (EDT)		No. --[[User:M Sipher\|M Sipher]] ([[User talk:M Sipher\|talk]]) 22:23, 3 September 2016 (EDT)

			[http://www.allspark.com/forums/topic/101932-tfwikinet-thread-30/page-261#entry3329053 I guess that's that.] --[[User:Sabrblade\|Sabrblade]] ([[User talk:Sabrblade\|talk]]) 23:11, 3 September 2016 (EDT)

M Sipher at 02:23, 4 September 2016

2016-09-04T02:23:01Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 02:23, 4 September 2016
Line 16:		Line 16:
	:^ This! This man speaks sense. This is exactly the same case as with the two Eagle Eyes. Both are the same guy in one continuity, but ONLY in that one continuity and in no others. And like both Wolfangs, both Eagle Eyes have never appeared in the same continuity as separate characters... EXCEPT for in their original toy bios, which we DO count as fiction. Both Eagle Eyes and both Wolfangs were conceived not as the same characters as one another, and each similarly-named pair has only been merged into singular persons in but ONE case that, both times, did not and do not speak on behalf of all the other cases. If the two Eagle Eyes are to remained split (as they should), then so too should Howlinger/Wolfang and Volfang/''no-English-identity''. --[[User:Sabrblade\|Sabrblade]] ([[User talk:Sabrblade\|talk]]) 19:18, 3 September 2016 (EDT)		:^ This! This man speaks sense. This is exactly the same case as with the two Eagle Eyes. Both are the same guy in one continuity, but ONLY in that one continuity and in no others. And like both Wolfangs, both Eagle Eyes have never appeared in the same continuity as separate characters... EXCEPT for in their original toy bios, which we DO count as fiction. Both Eagle Eyes and both Wolfangs were conceived not as the same characters as one another, and each similarly-named pair has only been merged into singular persons in but ONE case that, both times, did not and do not speak on behalf of all the other cases. If the two Eagle Eyes are to remained split (as they should), then so too should Howlinger/Wolfang and Volfang/''no-English-identity''. --[[User:Sabrblade\|Sabrblade]] ([[User talk:Sabrblade\|talk]]) 19:18, 3 September 2016 (EDT)
	:Unless previous bios and fiction have explicitly shown them to be separate then new fiction which explicitly declares them the same should control. "Not having been shown to be the same character" is not the same as "having been shown not to be the same character". --[[User:Khajidha\|Khajidha]] ([[User talk:Khajidha\|talk]]) 20:42, 3 September 2016 (EDT)		:Unless previous bios and fiction have explicitly shown them to be separate then new fiction which explicitly declares them the same should control. "Not having been shown to be the same character" is not the same as "having been shown not to be the same character". --[[User:Khajidha\|Khajidha]] ([[User talk:Khajidha\|talk]]) 20:42, 3 September 2016 (EDT)

			No. --[[User:M Sipher\|M Sipher]] ([[User talk:M Sipher\|talk]]) 22:23, 3 September 2016 (EDT)

Khajidha at 00:42, 4 September 2016

2016-09-04T00:42:25Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 00:42, 4 September 2016
Line 15:		Line 15:
	I think a good comparison is [[Eagle Eye (G1)]] and [[Eagle Eye (G2)]], who are the same character in Japanese cartoon continuity only. They remain on separate pages, since they have separate bios and are only ''occasionally'' the same guy. This is a little more of a head-scratcher, since Predacon Wolfang has such a minimal history it's not like he ''couldn't'' be folded into Maximal Wolfang's page with minimal effort. I'm on the fence, but at the moment I oppose a merge. --[[User:Xaaron\|Xaaron]] ([[User talk:Xaaron\|talk]]) 18:09, 3 September 2016 (EDT)		I think a good comparison is [[Eagle Eye (G1)]] and [[Eagle Eye (G2)]], who are the same character in Japanese cartoon continuity only. They remain on separate pages, since they have separate bios and are only ''occasionally'' the same guy. This is a little more of a head-scratcher, since Predacon Wolfang has such a minimal history it's not like he ''couldn't'' be folded into Maximal Wolfang's page with minimal effort. I'm on the fence, but at the moment I oppose a merge. --[[User:Xaaron\|Xaaron]] ([[User talk:Xaaron\|talk]]) 18:09, 3 September 2016 (EDT)
	:^ This! This man speaks sense. This is exactly the same case as with the two Eagle Eyes. Both are the same guy in one continuity, but ONLY in that one continuity and in no others. And like both Wolfangs, both Eagle Eyes have never appeared in the same continuity as separate characters... EXCEPT for in their original toy bios, which we DO count as fiction. Both Eagle Eyes and both Wolfangs were conceived not as the same characters as one another, and each similarly-named pair has only been merged into singular persons in but ONE case that, both times, did not and do not speak on behalf of all the other cases. If the two Eagle Eyes are to remained split (as they should), then so too should Howlinger/Wolfang and Volfang/''no-English-identity''. --[[User:Sabrblade\|Sabrblade]] ([[User talk:Sabrblade\|talk]]) 19:18, 3 September 2016 (EDT)		:^ This! This man speaks sense. This is exactly the same case as with the two Eagle Eyes. Both are the same guy in one continuity, but ONLY in that one continuity and in no others. And like both Wolfangs, both Eagle Eyes have never appeared in the same continuity as separate characters... EXCEPT for in their original toy bios, which we DO count as fiction. Both Eagle Eyes and both Wolfangs were conceived not as the same characters as one another, and each similarly-named pair has only been merged into singular persons in but ONE case that, both times, did not and do not speak on behalf of all the other cases. If the two Eagle Eyes are to remained split (as they should), then so too should Howlinger/Wolfang and Volfang/''no-English-identity''. --[[User:Sabrblade\|Sabrblade]] ([[User talk:Sabrblade\|talk]]) 19:18, 3 September 2016 (EDT)
			:Unless previous bios and fiction have explicitly shown them to be separate then new fiction which explicitly declares them the same should control. "Not having been shown to be the same character" is not the same as "having been shown not to be the same character". --[[User:Khajidha\|Khajidha]] ([[User talk:Khajidha\|talk]]) 20:42, 3 September 2016 (EDT)

Sabrblade: /* Merge */

2016-09-03T23:18:06Z

Merge

← Older revision		Revision as of 23:18, 3 September 2016
Line 14:		Line 14:
	::::::But this goes beyond using elements of both. He literally is both versions of the same guy at the same time. To me a merge makes sense because I was trying to decide which Wolfang to point to, and couldn't think of which would make more sense. Then I thought maybe put identical story elements on BOTH pages. Which seemed silly, but less silly than arbitrarily deciding which Wolfang to point it to, which is kind of writing canon. And it occurred to me that we could make a new Wolfang, Wolfang (BWU). But a merge seemed the most sensible and cleanest. Two guys with the same name and same toy who share everything but a deco and a faction, and then a story comes along and uses exactly that and has him be both at once, and switch factions more or less at the end. And I didn't see what possible harm there could be. It's more honest than arbitrarily deciding that one of these guys and not the other was in Trigger Warnings when in fact it was both simultaneously. And it's simpler than making a new page. And since they've never even both existed in the same continuity at once there are no hiccups. It'd be pretty easy to write up the intro to include all relevant elements. It'd be easy to do and I don't see much of a downside.--[[User:Giggidy\|Giggidy]] ([[User talk:Giggidy\|talk]]) 18:16, 3 September 2016 (EDT)		::::::But this goes beyond using elements of both. He literally is both versions of the same guy at the same time. To me a merge makes sense because I was trying to decide which Wolfang to point to, and couldn't think of which would make more sense. Then I thought maybe put identical story elements on BOTH pages. Which seemed silly, but less silly than arbitrarily deciding which Wolfang to point it to, which is kind of writing canon. And it occurred to me that we could make a new Wolfang, Wolfang (BWU). But a merge seemed the most sensible and cleanest. Two guys with the same name and same toy who share everything but a deco and a faction, and then a story comes along and uses exactly that and has him be both at once, and switch factions more or less at the end. And I didn't see what possible harm there could be. It's more honest than arbitrarily deciding that one of these guys and not the other was in Trigger Warnings when in fact it was both simultaneously. And it's simpler than making a new page. And since they've never even both existed in the same continuity at once there are no hiccups. It'd be pretty easy to write up the intro to include all relevant elements. It'd be easy to do and I don't see much of a downside.--[[User:Giggidy\|Giggidy]] ([[User talk:Giggidy\|talk]]) 18:16, 3 September 2016 (EDT)
	I think a good comparison is [[Eagle Eye (G1)]] and [[Eagle Eye (G2)]], who are the same character in Japanese cartoon continuity only. They remain on separate pages, since they have separate bios and are only ''occasionally'' the same guy. This is a little more of a head-scratcher, since Predacon Wolfang has such a minimal history it's not like he ''couldn't'' be folded into Maximal Wolfang's page with minimal effort. I'm on the fence, but at the moment I oppose a merge. --[[User:Xaaron\|Xaaron]] ([[User talk:Xaaron\|talk]]) 18:09, 3 September 2016 (EDT)		I think a good comparison is [[Eagle Eye (G1)]] and [[Eagle Eye (G2)]], who are the same character in Japanese cartoon continuity only. They remain on separate pages, since they have separate bios and are only ''occasionally'' the same guy. This is a little more of a head-scratcher, since Predacon Wolfang has such a minimal history it's not like he ''couldn't'' be folded into Maximal Wolfang's page with minimal effort. I'm on the fence, but at the moment I oppose a merge. --[[User:Xaaron\|Xaaron]] ([[User talk:Xaaron\|talk]]) 18:09, 3 September 2016 (EDT)
			:^ This! This man speaks sense. This is exactly the same case as with the two Eagle Eyes. Both are the same guy in one continuity, but ONLY in that one continuity and in no others. And like both Wolfangs, both Eagle Eyes have never appeared in the same continuity as separate characters... EXCEPT for in their original toy bios, which we DO count as fiction. Both Eagle Eyes and both Wolfangs were conceived not as the same characters as one another, and each similarly-named pair has only been merged into singular persons in but ONE case that, both times, did not and do not speak on behalf of all the other cases. If the two Eagle Eyes are to remained split (as they should), then so too should Howlinger/Wolfang and Volfang/''no-English-identity''. --[[User:Sabrblade\|Sabrblade]] ([[User talk:Sabrblade\|talk]]) 19:18, 3 September 2016 (EDT)

Giggidy at 22:16, 3 September 2016

2016-09-03T22:16:51Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:16, 3 September 2016
Line 12:		Line 12:
	::::Well, sorry about that. There was a note in the story itself about the same thing which is what made me think of it. I'm surprised no merge though. You didn't get from the story that the guy in Trigger Warnings was both Wolfangs?--[[User:Giggidy\|Giggidy]] ([[User talk:Giggidy\|talk]]) 17:54, 3 September 2016 (EDT)		::::Well, sorry about that. There was a note in the story itself about the same thing which is what made me think of it. I'm surprised no merge though. You didn't get from the story that the guy in Trigger Warnings was both Wolfangs?--[[User:Giggidy\|Giggidy]] ([[User talk:Giggidy\|talk]]) 17:54, 3 September 2016 (EDT)
	:::::OF COURSE HE WAS. THAT DOES NOT MEAN THEY ARE ALWAYS THE SAME CHARACTER. THEIR ORIGINAL BIOS STILL EXIST AS SEPARATE CHARACTERS. Jesus. Do you also think we should merge [[Knockout (G1)]] and [[Knock Out (G1)]] because there was a version of Knock Out in OMAM who used elements of both? --[[User:Riptide\|Riptide]] ([[User talk:Riptide\|talk]]) 17:59, 3 September 2016 (EDT)		:::::OF COURSE HE WAS. THAT DOES NOT MEAN THEY ARE ALWAYS THE SAME CHARACTER. THEIR ORIGINAL BIOS STILL EXIST AS SEPARATE CHARACTERS. Jesus. Do you also think we should merge [[Knockout (G1)]] and [[Knock Out (G1)]] because there was a version of Knock Out in OMAM who used elements of both? --[[User:Riptide\|Riptide]] ([[User talk:Riptide\|talk]]) 17:59, 3 September 2016 (EDT)
			::::::But this goes beyond using elements of both. He literally is both versions of the same guy at the same time. To me a merge makes sense because I was trying to decide which Wolfang to point to, and couldn't think of which would make more sense. Then I thought maybe put identical story elements on BOTH pages. Which seemed silly, but less silly than arbitrarily deciding which Wolfang to point it to, which is kind of writing canon. And it occurred to me that we could make a new Wolfang, Wolfang (BWU). But a merge seemed the most sensible and cleanest. Two guys with the same name and same toy who share everything but a deco and a faction, and then a story comes along and uses exactly that and has him be both at once, and switch factions more or less at the end. And I didn't see what possible harm there could be. It's more honest than arbitrarily deciding that one of these guys and not the other was in Trigger Warnings when in fact it was both simultaneously. And it's simpler than making a new page. And since they've never even both existed in the same continuity at once there are no hiccups. It'd be pretty easy to write up the intro to include all relevant elements. It'd be easy to do and I don't see much of a downside.--[[User:Giggidy\|Giggidy]] ([[User talk:Giggidy\|talk]]) 18:16, 3 September 2016 (EDT)
	I think a good comparison is [[Eagle Eye (G1)]] and [[Eagle Eye (G2)]], who are the same character in Japanese cartoon continuity only. They remain on separate pages, since they have separate bios and are only ''occasionally'' the same guy. This is a little more of a head-scratcher, since Predacon Wolfang has such a minimal history it's not like he ''couldn't'' be folded into Maximal Wolfang's page with minimal effort. I'm on the fence, but at the moment I oppose a merge. --[[User:Xaaron\|Xaaron]] ([[User talk:Xaaron\|talk]]) 18:09, 3 September 2016 (EDT)		I think a good comparison is [[Eagle Eye (G1)]] and [[Eagle Eye (G2)]], who are the same character in Japanese cartoon continuity only. They remain on separate pages, since they have separate bios and are only ''occasionally'' the same guy. This is a little more of a head-scratcher, since Predacon Wolfang has such a minimal history it's not like he ''couldn't'' be folded into Maximal Wolfang's page with minimal effort. I'm on the fence, but at the moment I oppose a merge. --[[User:Xaaron\|Xaaron]] ([[User talk:Xaaron\|talk]]) 18:09, 3 September 2016 (EDT)

Xaaron at 22:09, 3 September 2016

2016-09-03T22:09:16Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:09, 3 September 2016
Line 12:		Line 12:
	::::Well, sorry about that. There was a note in the story itself about the same thing which is what made me think of it. I'm surprised no merge though. You didn't get from the story that the guy in Trigger Warnings was both Wolfangs?--[[User:Giggidy\|Giggidy]] ([[User talk:Giggidy\|talk]]) 17:54, 3 September 2016 (EDT)		::::Well, sorry about that. There was a note in the story itself about the same thing which is what made me think of it. I'm surprised no merge though. You didn't get from the story that the guy in Trigger Warnings was both Wolfangs?--[[User:Giggidy\|Giggidy]] ([[User talk:Giggidy\|talk]]) 17:54, 3 September 2016 (EDT)
	:::::OF COURSE HE WAS. THAT DOES NOT MEAN THEY ARE ALWAYS THE SAME CHARACTER. THEIR ORIGINAL BIOS STILL EXIST AS SEPARATE CHARACTERS. Jesus. Do you also think we should merge [[Knockout (G1)]] and [[Knock Out (G1)]] because there was a version of Knock Out in OMAM who used elements of both? --[[User:Riptide\|Riptide]] ([[User talk:Riptide\|talk]]) 17:59, 3 September 2016 (EDT)		:::::OF COURSE HE WAS. THAT DOES NOT MEAN THEY ARE ALWAYS THE SAME CHARACTER. THEIR ORIGINAL BIOS STILL EXIST AS SEPARATE CHARACTERS. Jesus. Do you also think we should merge [[Knockout (G1)]] and [[Knock Out (G1)]] because there was a version of Knock Out in OMAM who used elements of both? --[[User:Riptide\|Riptide]] ([[User talk:Riptide\|talk]]) 17:59, 3 September 2016 (EDT)
			I think a good comparison is [[Eagle Eye (G1)]] and [[Eagle Eye (G2)]], who are the same character in Japanese cartoon continuity only. They remain on separate pages, since they have separate bios and are only ''occasionally'' the same guy. This is a little more of a head-scratcher, since Predacon Wolfang has such a minimal history it's not like he ''couldn't'' be folded into Maximal Wolfang's page with minimal effort. I'm on the fence, but at the moment I oppose a merge. --[[User:Xaaron\|Xaaron]] ([[User talk:Xaaron\|talk]]) 18:09, 3 September 2016 (EDT)

← Older revision		Revision as of 02:23, 4 September 2016
Line 16:		Line 16:
	:^ This! This man speaks sense. This is exactly the same case as with the two Eagle Eyes. Both are the same guy in one continuity, but ONLY in that one continuity and in no others. And like both Wolfangs, both Eagle Eyes have never appeared in the same continuity as separate characters... EXCEPT for in their original toy bios, which we DO count as fiction. Both Eagle Eyes and both Wolfangs were conceived not as the same characters as one another, and each similarly-named pair has only been merged into singular persons in but ONE case that, both times, did not and do not speak on behalf of all the other cases. If the two Eagle Eyes are to remained split (as they should), then so too should Howlinger/Wolfang and Volfang/''no-English-identity''. --[[User:Sabrblade\|Sabrblade]] ([[User talk:Sabrblade\|talk]]) 19:18, 3 September 2016 (EDT)		:^ This! This man speaks sense. This is exactly the same case as with the two Eagle Eyes. Both are the same guy in one continuity, but ONLY in that one continuity and in no others. And like both Wolfangs, both Eagle Eyes have never appeared in the same continuity as separate characters... EXCEPT for in their original toy bios, which we DO count as fiction. Both Eagle Eyes and both Wolfangs were conceived not as the same characters as one another, and each similarly-named pair has only been merged into singular persons in but ONE case that, both times, did not and do not speak on behalf of all the other cases. If the two Eagle Eyes are to remained split (as they should), then so too should Howlinger/Wolfang and Volfang/''no-English-identity''. --[[User:Sabrblade\|Sabrblade]] ([[User talk:Sabrblade\|talk]]) 19:18, 3 September 2016 (EDT)
	:Unless previous bios and fiction have explicitly shown them to be separate then new fiction which explicitly declares them the same should control. "Not having been shown to be the same character" is not the same as "having been shown not to be the same character". --[[User:Khajidha\|Khajidha]] ([[User talk:Khajidha\|talk]]) 20:42, 3 September 2016 (EDT)		:Unless previous bios and fiction have explicitly shown them to be separate then new fiction which explicitly declares them the same should control. "Not having been shown to be the same character" is not the same as "having been shown not to be the same character". --[[User:Khajidha\|Khajidha]] ([[User talk:Khajidha\|talk]]) 20:42, 3 September 2016 (EDT)

			No. --[[User:M Sipher\|M Sipher]] ([[User talk:M Sipher\|talk]]) 22:23, 3 September 2016 (EDT)

← Older revision		Revision as of 00:42, 4 September 2016
Line 15:		Line 15:
	I think a good comparison is [[Eagle Eye (G1)]] and [[Eagle Eye (G2)]], who are the same character in Japanese cartoon continuity only. They remain on separate pages, since they have separate bios and are only ''occasionally'' the same guy. This is a little more of a head-scratcher, since Predacon Wolfang has such a minimal history it's not like he ''couldn't'' be folded into Maximal Wolfang's page with minimal effort. I'm on the fence, but at the moment I oppose a merge. --[[User:Xaaron\|Xaaron]] ([[User talk:Xaaron\|talk]]) 18:09, 3 September 2016 (EDT)		I think a good comparison is [[Eagle Eye (G1)]] and [[Eagle Eye (G2)]], who are the same character in Japanese cartoon continuity only. They remain on separate pages, since they have separate bios and are only ''occasionally'' the same guy. This is a little more of a head-scratcher, since Predacon Wolfang has such a minimal history it's not like he ''couldn't'' be folded into Maximal Wolfang's page with minimal effort. I'm on the fence, but at the moment I oppose a merge. --[[User:Xaaron\|Xaaron]] ([[User talk:Xaaron\|talk]]) 18:09, 3 September 2016 (EDT)
	:^ This! This man speaks sense. This is exactly the same case as with the two Eagle Eyes. Both are the same guy in one continuity, but ONLY in that one continuity and in no others. And like both Wolfangs, both Eagle Eyes have never appeared in the same continuity as separate characters... EXCEPT for in their original toy bios, which we DO count as fiction. Both Eagle Eyes and both Wolfangs were conceived not as the same characters as one another, and each similarly-named pair has only been merged into singular persons in but ONE case that, both times, did not and do not speak on behalf of all the other cases. If the two Eagle Eyes are to remained split (as they should), then so too should Howlinger/Wolfang and Volfang/''no-English-identity''. --[[User:Sabrblade\|Sabrblade]] ([[User talk:Sabrblade\|talk]]) 19:18, 3 September 2016 (EDT)		:^ This! This man speaks sense. This is exactly the same case as with the two Eagle Eyes. Both are the same guy in one continuity, but ONLY in that one continuity and in no others. And like both Wolfangs, both Eagle Eyes have never appeared in the same continuity as separate characters... EXCEPT for in their original toy bios, which we DO count as fiction. Both Eagle Eyes and both Wolfangs were conceived not as the same characters as one another, and each similarly-named pair has only been merged into singular persons in but ONE case that, both times, did not and do not speak on behalf of all the other cases. If the two Eagle Eyes are to remained split (as they should), then so too should Howlinger/Wolfang and Volfang/''no-English-identity''. --[[User:Sabrblade\|Sabrblade]] ([[User talk:Sabrblade\|talk]]) 19:18, 3 September 2016 (EDT)
			:Unless previous bios and fiction have explicitly shown them to be separate then new fiction which explicitly declares them the same should control. "Not having been shown to be the same character" is not the same as "having been shown not to be the same character". --[[User:Khajidha\|Khajidha]] ([[User talk:Khajidha\|talk]]) 20:42, 3 September 2016 (EDT)

← Older revision		Revision as of 23:18, 3 September 2016
Line 14:		Line 14:
	::::::But this goes beyond using elements of both. He literally is both versions of the same guy at the same time. To me a merge makes sense because I was trying to decide which Wolfang to point to, and couldn't think of which would make more sense. Then I thought maybe put identical story elements on BOTH pages. Which seemed silly, but less silly than arbitrarily deciding which Wolfang to point it to, which is kind of writing canon. And it occurred to me that we could make a new Wolfang, Wolfang (BWU). But a merge seemed the most sensible and cleanest. Two guys with the same name and same toy who share everything but a deco and a faction, and then a story comes along and uses exactly that and has him be both at once, and switch factions more or less at the end. And I didn't see what possible harm there could be. It's more honest than arbitrarily deciding that one of these guys and not the other was in Trigger Warnings when in fact it was both simultaneously. And it's simpler than making a new page. And since they've never even both existed in the same continuity at once there are no hiccups. It'd be pretty easy to write up the intro to include all relevant elements. It'd be easy to do and I don't see much of a downside.--[[User:Giggidy\|Giggidy]] ([[User talk:Giggidy\|talk]]) 18:16, 3 September 2016 (EDT)		::::::But this goes beyond using elements of both. He literally is both versions of the same guy at the same time. To me a merge makes sense because I was trying to decide which Wolfang to point to, and couldn't think of which would make more sense. Then I thought maybe put identical story elements on BOTH pages. Which seemed silly, but less silly than arbitrarily deciding which Wolfang to point it to, which is kind of writing canon. And it occurred to me that we could make a new Wolfang, Wolfang (BWU). But a merge seemed the most sensible and cleanest. Two guys with the same name and same toy who share everything but a deco and a faction, and then a story comes along and uses exactly that and has him be both at once, and switch factions more or less at the end. And I didn't see what possible harm there could be. It's more honest than arbitrarily deciding that one of these guys and not the other was in Trigger Warnings when in fact it was both simultaneously. And it's simpler than making a new page. And since they've never even both existed in the same continuity at once there are no hiccups. It'd be pretty easy to write up the intro to include all relevant elements. It'd be easy to do and I don't see much of a downside.--[[User:Giggidy\|Giggidy]] ([[User talk:Giggidy\|talk]]) 18:16, 3 September 2016 (EDT)
	I think a good comparison is [[Eagle Eye (G1)]] and [[Eagle Eye (G2)]], who are the same character in Japanese cartoon continuity only. They remain on separate pages, since they have separate bios and are only ''occasionally'' the same guy. This is a little more of a head-scratcher, since Predacon Wolfang has such a minimal history it's not like he ''couldn't'' be folded into Maximal Wolfang's page with minimal effort. I'm on the fence, but at the moment I oppose a merge. --[[User:Xaaron\|Xaaron]] ([[User talk:Xaaron\|talk]]) 18:09, 3 September 2016 (EDT)		I think a good comparison is [[Eagle Eye (G1)]] and [[Eagle Eye (G2)]], who are the same character in Japanese cartoon continuity only. They remain on separate pages, since they have separate bios and are only ''occasionally'' the same guy. This is a little more of a head-scratcher, since Predacon Wolfang has such a minimal history it's not like he ''couldn't'' be folded into Maximal Wolfang's page with minimal effort. I'm on the fence, but at the moment I oppose a merge. --[[User:Xaaron\|Xaaron]] ([[User talk:Xaaron\|talk]]) 18:09, 3 September 2016 (EDT)
			:^ This! This man speaks sense. This is exactly the same case as with the two Eagle Eyes. Both are the same guy in one continuity, but ONLY in that one continuity and in no others. And like both Wolfangs, both Eagle Eyes have never appeared in the same continuity as separate characters... EXCEPT for in their original toy bios, which we DO count as fiction. Both Eagle Eyes and both Wolfangs were conceived not as the same characters as one another, and each similarly-named pair has only been merged into singular persons in but ONE case that, both times, did not and do not speak on behalf of all the other cases. If the two Eagle Eyes are to remained split (as they should), then so too should Howlinger/Wolfang and Volfang/''no-English-identity''. --[[User:Sabrblade\|Sabrblade]] ([[User talk:Sabrblade\|talk]]) 19:18, 3 September 2016 (EDT)

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:16, 3 September 2016
Line 12:		Line 12:
	::::Well, sorry about that. There was a note in the story itself about the same thing which is what made me think of it. I'm surprised no merge though. You didn't get from the story that the guy in Trigger Warnings was both Wolfangs?--[[User:Giggidy\|Giggidy]] ([[User talk:Giggidy\|talk]]) 17:54, 3 September 2016 (EDT)		::::Well, sorry about that. There was a note in the story itself about the same thing which is what made me think of it. I'm surprised no merge though. You didn't get from the story that the guy in Trigger Warnings was both Wolfangs?--[[User:Giggidy\|Giggidy]] ([[User talk:Giggidy\|talk]]) 17:54, 3 September 2016 (EDT)
	:::::OF COURSE HE WAS. THAT DOES NOT MEAN THEY ARE ALWAYS THE SAME CHARACTER. THEIR ORIGINAL BIOS STILL EXIST AS SEPARATE CHARACTERS. Jesus. Do you also think we should merge [[Knockout (G1)]] and [[Knock Out (G1)]] because there was a version of Knock Out in OMAM who used elements of both? --[[User:Riptide\|Riptide]] ([[User talk:Riptide\|talk]]) 17:59, 3 September 2016 (EDT)		:::::OF COURSE HE WAS. THAT DOES NOT MEAN THEY ARE ALWAYS THE SAME CHARACTER. THEIR ORIGINAL BIOS STILL EXIST AS SEPARATE CHARACTERS. Jesus. Do you also think we should merge [[Knockout (G1)]] and [[Knock Out (G1)]] because there was a version of Knock Out in OMAM who used elements of both? --[[User:Riptide\|Riptide]] ([[User talk:Riptide\|talk]]) 17:59, 3 September 2016 (EDT)
			::::::But this goes beyond using elements of both. He literally is both versions of the same guy at the same time. To me a merge makes sense because I was trying to decide which Wolfang to point to, and couldn't think of which would make more sense. Then I thought maybe put identical story elements on BOTH pages. Which seemed silly, but less silly than arbitrarily deciding which Wolfang to point it to, which is kind of writing canon. And it occurred to me that we could make a new Wolfang, Wolfang (BWU). But a merge seemed the most sensible and cleanest. Two guys with the same name and same toy who share everything but a deco and a faction, and then a story comes along and uses exactly that and has him be both at once, and switch factions more or less at the end. And I didn't see what possible harm there could be. It's more honest than arbitrarily deciding that one of these guys and not the other was in Trigger Warnings when in fact it was both simultaneously. And it's simpler than making a new page. And since they've never even both existed in the same continuity at once there are no hiccups. It'd be pretty easy to write up the intro to include all relevant elements. It'd be easy to do and I don't see much of a downside.--[[User:Giggidy\|Giggidy]] ([[User talk:Giggidy\|talk]]) 18:16, 3 September 2016 (EDT)
	I think a good comparison is [[Eagle Eye (G1)]] and [[Eagle Eye (G2)]], who are the same character in Japanese cartoon continuity only. They remain on separate pages, since they have separate bios and are only ''occasionally'' the same guy. This is a little more of a head-scratcher, since Predacon Wolfang has such a minimal history it's not like he ''couldn't'' be folded into Maximal Wolfang's page with minimal effort. I'm on the fence, but at the moment I oppose a merge. --[[User:Xaaron\|Xaaron]] ([[User talk:Xaaron\|talk]]) 18:09, 3 September 2016 (EDT)		I think a good comparison is [[Eagle Eye (G1)]] and [[Eagle Eye (G2)]], who are the same character in Japanese cartoon continuity only. They remain on separate pages, since they have separate bios and are only ''occasionally'' the same guy. This is a little more of a head-scratcher, since Predacon Wolfang has such a minimal history it's not like he ''couldn't'' be folded into Maximal Wolfang's page with minimal effort. I'm on the fence, but at the moment I oppose a merge. --[[User:Xaaron\|Xaaron]] ([[User talk:Xaaron\|talk]]) 18:09, 3 September 2016 (EDT)

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:09, 3 September 2016
Line 12:		Line 12:
	::::Well, sorry about that. There was a note in the story itself about the same thing which is what made me think of it. I'm surprised no merge though. You didn't get from the story that the guy in Trigger Warnings was both Wolfangs?--[[User:Giggidy\|Giggidy]] ([[User talk:Giggidy\|talk]]) 17:54, 3 September 2016 (EDT)		::::Well, sorry about that. There was a note in the story itself about the same thing which is what made me think of it. I'm surprised no merge though. You didn't get from the story that the guy in Trigger Warnings was both Wolfangs?--[[User:Giggidy\|Giggidy]] ([[User talk:Giggidy\|talk]]) 17:54, 3 September 2016 (EDT)
	:::::OF COURSE HE WAS. THAT DOES NOT MEAN THEY ARE ALWAYS THE SAME CHARACTER. THEIR ORIGINAL BIOS STILL EXIST AS SEPARATE CHARACTERS. Jesus. Do you also think we should merge [[Knockout (G1)]] and [[Knock Out (G1)]] because there was a version of Knock Out in OMAM who used elements of both? --[[User:Riptide\|Riptide]] ([[User talk:Riptide\|talk]]) 17:59, 3 September 2016 (EDT)		:::::OF COURSE HE WAS. THAT DOES NOT MEAN THEY ARE ALWAYS THE SAME CHARACTER. THEIR ORIGINAL BIOS STILL EXIST AS SEPARATE CHARACTERS. Jesus. Do you also think we should merge [[Knockout (G1)]] and [[Knock Out (G1)]] because there was a version of Knock Out in OMAM who used elements of both? --[[User:Riptide\|Riptide]] ([[User talk:Riptide\|talk]]) 17:59, 3 September 2016 (EDT)
			I think a good comparison is [[Eagle Eye (G1)]] and [[Eagle Eye (G2)]], who are the same character in Japanese cartoon continuity only. They remain on separate pages, since they have separate bios and are only ''occasionally'' the same guy. This is a little more of a head-scratcher, since Predacon Wolfang has such a minimal history it's not like he ''couldn't'' be folded into Maximal Wolfang's page with minimal effort. I'm on the fence, but at the moment I oppose a merge. --[[User:Xaaron\|Xaaron]] ([[User talk:Xaaron\|talk]]) 18:09, 3 September 2016 (EDT)