Talk:Dinobot (RID)

Does this need the 2015 in the paranthetical? I don't remember there being any Dinobots in RID 2001. --abates (talk) 04:13, 12 August 2016 (EDT)

Well, retroactively speaking... --KilMichaelMcC (talk) 18:02, 12 August 2016 (EDT)

Why does someone keep deleting the prime cartoon page, is there any proof that bulkhead wasn't talking about this subspecies of transformers?--Projectus (talk) 10:22, 12 August 2016 (EDT)

This subspecies didn't even exist when Miko and Bulkhead made that reference. --Sabrblade (talk) 11:04, 12 August 2016 (EDT)

(Rolls eyes) yes, but considering the broadstrokes prime had in the aligned universe, we can't exactly trust it to connect to the previous or comic. Heck considering it was just a passing reference, one could argue there is no proof they were referring to the FOC version of the dinobots at all, it might've been a mythology gag.--Projectus (talk) 17:09, 12 August 2016 (EDT)

Do you have any evidence that the Prime cartoon reference should go on this page at all? S.H.I.E.L.D. Agent 47 (talk) 17:10, 12 August 2016 (EDT)

Well lets look at it logically shall we. 'RID' 2015 is the sequel to 'Prime' Correct? They feature a dinobot as a main character. dinobots were briefly mention in season 3. logically then shouldn't that reference be on this page.--Projectus (talk) 17:25, 12 August 2016 (EDT)

There is no logic in assuming that Miko and Bulkhead were referring to something that was nonexistent at the time that they made that reference. The FOC Dinobots, however, did exist, and were part of an active attempt to better unify the Aligned media between the games, the tie-in comics, and the Prime cartoon. Miko's and Bulkhead's Dinobots reference only makes sense in regards to the FOC Dinobots since they were only Aligned Dinobots that existed at the time the reference was made, and at which time the Prime cartoon was throwing in all kinds of references to the games, such as several instances of the Great War deliberatley being referred to as the "War for Cybertron", the use of the games' design for Cybertron's Core, Cliffjumper referring to a time he got lost in the Sea of Rust (which was a whole level in FOC), the Nemesis having its own mind referencing its having been built from the deceased Trypticon in the games, and more.

Not to mention all the comics that starred the FOC Dinobots had many deliberate connections to the Prime cartoon, such Rage of the Dinobots ending with Prime Ultra Magnus leaving Cybertron aboard the ship he would arrive on Earth in in the Prime cartoon, and the Beast Hunters comics taking place both during and after Prime season 3, with even Arcee, Bulkhead, and Bumblebee showing up near the end to help out the FOC Dinobots in a post-Predacons Rising setting.

What you're asking is for us to declare Miko's and Bulkhead's reference as having been retconned into referring to a subspecies that would not come into existence until later on, instead of it referring to the only possible kind of then-existent Dinobots that it could have referred to, yet there has been no official media that has made such a retcon. We as fans have ZERO authority on such matters and are not going to start declaring our own unofficial retcons for virtually no other reason than "because we want to", as you seem to want us to do.

Besides, Bulkhead's referring to Dinobots as something "Totally different" from how the Predacons were like a natural Cybertronian dinosaur species makes no sense in regards to the RID Dinobots, since the RID Dinobots for all intents and purposes do very much seem to be like a natural Cybertronian dinosaur species while the FOC Dinobots were an artificially-created subgroup that very much does make them totally different from a natural Cybertronian dinosaur species. --Sabrblade (talk) 20:52, 12 August 2016 (EDT)

First of all, Sabrblade. A) considering the fact that shockwave artificial clone these predacon and had a connection to the dinobots. Wouldn't it stand to reason that when bulkhead said completely different in reference to the fact that one was recreated by shockwave and the other wasn't. b) there was no further expansion in the cartoon, just saying there a difference, so keeping it in the FOC section alone could be bad as what you pointed above. All i'm suggested we keep the reference in both the cartoon and the FOC section. Abit precautious i know but until we get all our facts straight, it best that we have it in both till we get a clarification. That way, we can just delete one, without having to just move it to a different page much later.--Projectus (talk) 22:08, 12 August 2016 (EDT)