Talk:Wolfang (Maximal)

Merge

Trigger Warnings establishes that there is a version of the 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.--Giggidy (talk) 17:17, 3 September 2016 (EDT)

They are not in Japanese continuity, where one is Howlinger and the other is "Volfang". Saix (talk) 17:22, 3 September 2016 (EDT)

But Howlinger never showed up in the Japanese continuity, right? There are no story links for him anywhere. --Giggidy (talk) 17:25, 3 September 2016 (EDT)

His Japanese bio is Japanese continuity and his toy in itself establishes the character's existence. Furthermore, "Predacon in disguise as a Maximal" doesn't make him the same character as one that's always been a Maximal. Saix (talk) 17:30, 3 September 2016 (EDT)

It's very clear from reading the story that, at least as far as Beast Wars: Uprising is concerned, Maximal and Predacon Wolfang are very much the same guy. He even renounces his Predacon heritage by the end. I don't think a Japanese toy with absolutely no fictional appearances is much or a counterargument against that. --Giggidy (talk) 17:54, 3 September 2016 (EDT)

Really, Giggidy? You couldn't have waited a few more days before putting up a massive spoiler in the "Recent Changes" page? S.H.I.E.L.D. Agent 47 (talk) 17:36, 3 September 2016 (EDT)

That's why I used the spoiler template. Isn't that what it's there for? --Giggidy (talk) 17:38, 3 September 2016 (EDT)

I don't really care about "spoilers", but the software automatically generates an edit summary for a new page based on the page's contents if you didn't enter anything into the box. So, yes, you spoiled people browsing through the recent changes page. Saix (talk) 17:45, 3 September 2016 (EDT)

Er, not sure how much this matters, but - if you're following the BWU stories, which is the main thing that would make you care about spoilers - you'd have to be pretty unobservant to not guess that "both Wolfangs are the same guy" from Burning Bridges. (Also, no to the merge. Christ no.) --Riptide (talk) 17:49, 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?--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? --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.--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. --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*. --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". --Khajidha (talk) 20:42, 3 September 2016 (EDT)

No. --M Sipher (talk) 22:23, 3 September 2016 (EDT)

I guess that's that. --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 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.--MCRG (talk) 01:48, 6 August 2022 (EDT)