Talk:Shockwave (SG)

Possible Pic

On a TFCC Wallpaper, I've seen a character which is basically a yellow Shockblast. I'm assuming this is meant to be SG Shockwave, but since there's no information beyond the picture, all it is is assumption. Can we possibly use it as his pic or not? Riddlerj 21:09, 2 March 2011 (EST)

Good question... Shockwave hasn't really shown up in fiction beyond a mention by Megatron... Perhaps this should be a question to ask Trent Troop, who made the image? --Detour 21:30, 2 March 2011 (EST)

It is SG Shockwave. [1] --67.252.49.31 21:38, 2 March 2011 (EST)

I'll upload it for now, unless anyone decides against it. Riddlerj 22:00, 2 March 2011 (EST)

Isn't he seeking Beta Maxx to learn the secrets of Primus according to BM's Bio? 71.238.50.144 08:52, 13 January 2012 (EST)

No, that bio was written long before SG Shockwave was created. It's likely referring to TransTech Shockwave, who was the Shockwave being written at the time the bio was published. It's not impossible for FP to retcon this, and it might even make more sense, but our job here is not to change things because we think they make more sense. Deciding on our own that Beta Maxx's bio referred to a Shockwave who didn't exist yet at the time is totally making things up. --ItsWalky 10:24, 13 January 2012 (EST)

"Harmonizing"

For one: where exactly was it discussed that we should "harmonize" the two interpretations of SG characters? And for two: why? I don't think "harmonizing" works for characters that have two wildly different personalities (read: one is an original personality and one is largely based on what IDW had done before with the original versions of the characters in MTMTE et al) and that we should come up with a different solution to that. Escargon (talk) 12:27, 31 October 2022 (EDT)

Writing bios that combine elements of multiple characterizations is literally a thing we do all the time. There's no problem here. -- Cyberlink420 (talk) 12:31, 31 October 2022 (EDT)

Blaster, Shockwave, Scorponok, and Fortress Maximus are all evidence to the contrary. And again, where was this "discussion?" Because as far as I can tell, there was none. Escargon (talk) 12:34, 31 October 2022 (EDT)