Talk:Caliburn (Armada)
Am I losing my mind? How can Caliburn be repurposed as Caliburn? I've read the Repurposing page and it makes a lot of sense. Using a blue Transmetal Rattrap as Transmetal Packrat, sure, or taking Slice and calling him Shattered Glass Wheeljack. But trying to claim that Caliburn the minion of Megazarak is a repurpose of Caliburn the minion of Megazarak seems completely asinine to me. Am I wrong? I thought the wiki was trying to stop falling all over itself to pat itself on the back about how clever it is by obfuscating the truth with some technical definition. I dunno. Someone else weigh in here. Can Caliburn be repurposed as Caliburn just because one guy is in a Unicron Trilogy-verse and another is in a RID-verse? --Giggidy (talk) 23:33, 13 September 2015 (EDT)
- Consider Beast Wars: Uprising Steamhammer, Thunderblast, and Tankor. S.H.I.E.L.D. Agent 47 (talk) 23:41, 13 September 2015 (EDT)
- Yes, exactly. Using the character in a new continuity isn't the same thing as repurposing. (Except maybe Shattered Glass. Case-by-case there I guess.) Repurposing seems like a very specific thing... an old toy becomes a new, different character. Using an old toy in a new place isn't that. It's maybe something. Continuity-reuse perhaps. Or maybe there's a better term. Probably there is. But that's not what repurposing is. At least, it shouldn't be. --Giggidy (talk) 23:47, 13 September 2015 (EDT)
- Unless said character is a dimension hopper, anytime you place a character from one continuity to another is a repurpose. Some examples are G1 Lockdown repurposed from ROTF Lockdown, G1 Bulkhead repurposed from Prime Bulkhead, RID Hound repurposed from G1 Hound, etc. It doesn't always have to be a brand new character. (Crossblades) (talk) 21:10, 14 September 2015 (EDT)
- So you've asserted. But you haven't given any reason why that assertion should be true. And it's an assertion I reject and disagree with. Let us not forget that the idea of continuity families is a construct created for wiki organization, one that the fiction has shown is arbitrary and subject to blurred lines and drift Basically, you haven't given an argument, you've just stated "I think this is what repurpose means." --Giggidy (talk) 21:32, 14 September 2015 (EDT)
- I don't think you've given any reason why it can't be true, other than you don't like it. I think the term is not only apt when you take an Armada toy and write them as a Primax guy, but is also useful in circumstances like these. When you look at the page without that note, it'd be easy to think this is the original use of the toy, when it is not. --ItsWalky (talk) 22:20, 14 September 2015 (EDT)
- So you've asserted. But you haven't given any reason why that assertion should be true. And it's an assertion I reject and disagree with. Let us not forget that the idea of continuity families is a construct created for wiki organization, one that the fiction has shown is arbitrary and subject to blurred lines and drift Basically, you haven't given an argument, you've just stated "I think this is what repurpose means." --Giggidy (talk) 21:32, 14 September 2015 (EDT)
- Unless said character is a dimension hopper, anytime you place a character from one continuity to another is a repurpose. Some examples are G1 Lockdown repurposed from ROTF Lockdown, G1 Bulkhead repurposed from Prime Bulkhead, RID Hound repurposed from G1 Hound, etc. It doesn't always have to be a brand new character. (Crossblades) (talk) 21:10, 14 September 2015 (EDT)
- Yes, exactly. Using the character in a new continuity isn't the same thing as repurposing. (Except maybe Shattered Glass. Case-by-case there I guess.) Repurposing seems like a very specific thing... an old toy becomes a new, different character. Using an old toy in a new place isn't that. It's maybe something. Continuity-reuse perhaps. Or maybe there's a better term. Probably there is. But that's not what repurposing is. At least, it shouldn't be. --Giggidy (talk) 23:47, 13 September 2015 (EDT)
