Talk:Transformers: Best of the Rarities: Difference between revisions
From MediaWiki
Jump to navigationJump to search
No edit summary |
ChristalIsMe (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 4: | Line 4: | ||
::Yeah, fully-written, completed—the link at the bottom of the article has all five, you can read them for yourself! Each deserves its own wiki page in my opinion, just nobody's gotten around to it yet. There's no info in Roberts' endnotes on why they never materialised at the time, i.e. what if anything Hasbro thought about them, but even if they weren't approved at the time, I think this publication renders them non-apocryphal in the technical sense of the term. —[[User:The Wadapan|The Wadapan]] ([[User talk:The Wadapan|talk]]) 12:43, 7 September 2022 (EDT) | ::Yeah, fully-written, completed—the link at the bottom of the article has all five, you can read them for yourself! Each deserves its own wiki page in my opinion, just nobody's gotten around to it yet. There's no info in Roberts' endnotes on why they never materialised at the time, i.e. what if anything Hasbro thought about them, but even if they weren't approved at the time, I think this publication renders them non-apocryphal in the technical sense of the term. —[[User:The Wadapan|The Wadapan]] ([[User talk:The Wadapan|talk]]) 12:43, 7 September 2022 (EDT) | ||
:::I agree that now that they've been approved and published, they are "real". The last one is actually kinda good, considering how short it is. --[[User:Thylacine 2000|Thylacine 2000]] ([[User talk:Thylacine 2000|talk]]) 14:03, 7 September 2022 (EDT) | :::I agree that now that they've been approved and published, they are "real". The last one is actually kinda good, considering how short it is. --[[User:Thylacine 2000|Thylacine 2000]] ([[User talk:Thylacine 2000|talk]]) 14:03, 7 September 2022 (EDT) | ||
:::: Those are pretty good, actually.•[[User:ChristalIsMe|ChristalIsMe]] ([[User talk:ChristalIsMe|talk]]) 14:45, 7 September 2022 (EDT) | |||
Revision as of 18:45, 7 September 2022
"Never-before-seen one-page strips"
Can we get more coverage on these, please? Are these fully-written, completed stories? Were they approved and licensed by Hasbro, then not published? --Thylacine 2000 (talk) 12:01, 7 September 2022 (EDT)
- If also like clarification on that. •ChristalIsMe (talk) 12:11, 7 September 2022 (EDT)
- Yeah, fully-written, completed—the link at the bottom of the article has all five, you can read them for yourself! Each deserves its own wiki page in my opinion, just nobody's gotten around to it yet. There's no info in Roberts' endnotes on why they never materialised at the time, i.e. what if anything Hasbro thought about them, but even if they weren't approved at the time, I think this publication renders them non-apocryphal in the technical sense of the term. —The Wadapan (talk) 12:43, 7 September 2022 (EDT)
- I agree that now that they've been approved and published, they are "real". The last one is actually kinda good, considering how short it is. --Thylacine 2000 (talk) 14:03, 7 September 2022 (EDT)
- Those are pretty good, actually.•ChristalIsMe (talk) 14:45, 7 September 2022 (EDT)
- I agree that now that they've been approved and published, they are "real". The last one is actually kinda good, considering how short it is. --Thylacine 2000 (talk) 14:03, 7 September 2022 (EDT)
- Yeah, fully-written, completed—the link at the bottom of the article has all five, you can read them for yourself! Each deserves its own wiki page in my opinion, just nobody's gotten around to it yet. There's no info in Roberts' endnotes on why they never materialised at the time, i.e. what if anything Hasbro thought about them, but even if they weren't approved at the time, I think this publication renders them non-apocryphal in the technical sense of the term. —The Wadapan (talk) 12:43, 7 September 2022 (EDT)
