Talk:Wolfang (Predacon)

Why was this all changed to "Boldfang?" Can we assume this is an attempt at Romanization? --EricMarrs 23:25, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

It's just the first thing it was called, and thus that romanization of the name was reported everywhere. Yet from what I hear, the actual Japanese name doesn't even have a D sound in it. --ItsWalky 23:52, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't. It starts with the b/v, there is no d. "Wolfang-pronounced-Volfang". --M Sipher 02:24, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

"Wolfang-which-should-be-pronounced-as-Volfang-but-pronounced-as-Borufangu-because-the-Japanese-have-a-terrible-language". Interrobang 05:57, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Do you think he may have been named after Volfogg? Evan1975 19:17, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Since GaoGaiGar was 1997, and Beast Wars was 1996, I'm gonna go out on a limb here and saw Takara named it's Howlinger redeco after Howlinger's Americann name and mold-mate. -Derik 18:12, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

No tech-spec?

Seriously, did this guy get no tech-spec or bio information in Japan? (And if he didn't, can we note that in his toy section and de-stub this article?) -Derik 03:33, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

No, there's certainly some Japanese text on his card. I just can't read it. Chip 05:13, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

You've got it? Scan it! We'll make somebody translate the sucker! -Derik 05:18, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Question

"...as the germanic Volfang". Is the author referring to "Wolfgang" as in Mozarts first name? Volfang is not a word, nor a name in German. It is pronounced "Folfang" just like in VolksWagen (The Wagon of the Folk). Wolfang=Folfgang or what? I do not get the logic.

The Japanese original name starts with a b/v sound, indicating that it should be pronounced "Volfang" in English. The English spelling is "Wolfang" with the w pronounced in the German manner. --Khajidha 19:18, 27 May 2010 (EDT) Please note that I moved your comment to a new section for clarity, not out of any malice.

Disambiguation

The disambiguation tag Wolfang (Predacon) doesn't make much sense if he's also a Maximal. Wolfang (Diorama)? Wolfang (BWTS)? --Giggidy (talk) 19:13, 7 September 2016 (EDT)

He's a Predacon who, in one universe, disguises himself as a Maximal. Please do not make this more complicated than it needs to be. --Riptide (talk) 19:35, 7 September 2016 (EDT)

He's a Predacon who is also a Maximal and renounces his Predacon heritage. Opposing the merge because they're theoretically not always the same guy is one thing, but it's really stupid to have a guy disambiguated by a faction when he's both. --Giggidy (talk) 19:39, 7 September 2016 (EDT)

I'm with Riptide. Especially since, if we took your point further, the Maximal one couldn't be disambiguated (Maximal) either. Having to come up with two new disambigs for such an odd situation seems more trouble than it's worth. --Khajidha (talk) 20:00, 7 September 2016 (EDT)

We didn't change the disambiguation tags for Eagle Eye (G1) and Eagle Eye (G2) when JG1 made them one and the same. The Wolfangs can stay where they currently are. S.H.I.E.L.D. Agent 47 (talk) 21:38, 7 September 2016 (EDT)

That's not really an analogous situation. The standard disambiguation tag would just be disambiguation by franchise of origin, which is what Eagle Eye has. It doesn't matter if they later show up in other continuities, which is why Jhiaxius stays at (G2). At some point it was decided that didn't work for these two guys, presumably because they'd both be Wolfang (BW). In cases where franchise of origin, some other aspect is chosen. In this case, it's faction. That becomes clumsy when Wolfang becomes a dual-faction individual.--Giggidy (talk) 00:26, 8 September 2016 (EDT)

Oh my god. Saix (talk) 00:06, 8 September 2016 (EDT)

Yes, Creedence, we apparently disagree again. I suppose it's absurd for me to think that Wolfang (Predacon) is an inapt disambiguation for a guy who's also a Maximal. --Giggidy (talk) 00:26, 8 September 2016 (EDT)

It's not about disagreement. It's about the fact that you manage to occasionally one-up your pedantry and are contributing yet again to the "disambiguation tags should be informative" dead horse. (And I'm not Creedence, but alright.) Saix (talk) 05:23, 8 September 2016 (EDT)

We should probably not have Rattrap at (BW), I mean, sometimes he's not part of Beast Wars! Sometimes he's part of Beast Machines, sometimes Universe, sometimes he's in a pretty straight-up G1 series. I mean, IF we're going to insist that a parenthetical be 100% accurate at every point in the character's existence. That's gonna lead to some REAL fun disambiguation parentheticals to try and hammer things out... or we can not be idiots and go with something really simple and intuitive as needed even if it doesn't technically cover every picosecond of the character's lifespan. --M Sipher (talk) 18:39, 8 September 2016 (EDT)

It's really simple and intuitive to you that a guy who shows up in two American stories, and in the first one is presented as a straight-up Maximal, and in the second one is a faction changer like Punch/Counterpunch or Double Dealer, would be disambiguated under Wolfang (Predacon)? You must be incredibly intuitive. I suppose that's why you always write with such empathy and tact.

But, as mentioned above, the disambiguation by franchise of origin works reasonably well, even if characters later show up in other franchises. So that's not an apt analogy. Perhaps a better one would be Thunderblast (Mini-Con) and Thunderblast (Decepticon). If a future story featured the Mini-Con version of Thunderblast as a non-Mini-Con Decepticon, you'd think those tags would work just fine?

I'm still not sure why the two Wolfangs weren't disambiguated by franchise already. What would be wrong with Wolfang (BW) and Wolfang (BWTS)? Isn't that our normal naming pattern? If we're going to deviate, we should do it in a way that at least makes sense.--Giggidy (talk) 18:51, 8 September 2016 (EDT)