Talk:Shadow Striker (G1)

Now that Legacy Shadow Striker is revealed officially, I am going to suggest a merge between this and the other Primax Shadow Striker, since the idea that the two Shadow Strikers are incompatible is clearly false. --ItsWalky (talk) 18:54, 20 June 2023 (EDT)

I don't like it, since Cyberverse Shadow Striker was never intended to be based on BotCon Shadow Striker, but, well, that ship's sailed. Reluctantly in favour. --Riptide (talk) 19:02, 20 June 2023 (EDT)

Food for thought: while a Gens toy is obviously more prominent than a Fun Pub prose story illustration, we had a similar thing of Prime-import G1 Knock Out being drawn one time with a body based on Micromaster G1 Knockout, but we've thus far kept them separate. Jalaguy (talk) 19:09, 20 June 2023 (EDT)

There's also nothing to suggest they're the same person either. Literally the only thing that would come close to suggesting they could be is the fact that Roulette shows up in the comic... with absolutely no indication of her relationship with Shadow Striker. For all we know, there could be two or more Shadow Strikers running around at any given time. Otherwise, she's pretty obviously a straightforward Cyberverse transplant, and there's even less evidence there to support this merge. cat (talk) 19:18, 20 June 2023 (EDT)

I think this is a pretty shut and dry case where we should merge. "Intent" doesn't hold much weight as an argument point, and as for OMAM Knock Out, I think the fact that this is more prominent (and let's be real, the fact that G1 versions of Prime Knock Out has done way more than G1 versions of Cyberverse Shadow Striker) does hold more weight for pushing this together. As for the Roulette thing, there was that cancelled Heavy Metal game which had a version of Roulette that shared that games Cyberverse-inspired Shadow Striker's body-type. Escargon (talk) 19:24, 20 June 2023 (EDT)

Counterpoint: "intent" is also kind of the main thrust of the merge proposal, since it's rooted in "Hasbro thinks of the Shadow Strikers as being the same". --Riptide (talk) 19:33, 20 June 2023 (EDT)

Well that's the main problem I have right there; more and more lately there's been pushes to make Hasbro's newer decisions supplant "original intent" (see: the site using Diaclone art for Burn Out and Lift Ticket because it was argued that those are the versions that Hasbro are gonna base future toys on despite them literally never being depicted with those bodies anywhere in Transformers fiction). If we're gonna do that, it should be done consistently, we can't waffle from case to case. Escargon (talk) 19:40, 20 June 2023 (EDT)

I mean, I'm not against the merge in any way, it makes decent organizational sense for us. But I am gonna say I do not like the notion that we should be doing organizational things because of "what Hasbro thinks now". It only takes like one small personnel change to change "Hasbro's" current thinking on any given subject. That's always gonna be in flux (see: "transwarp" is back), and we can only care so much about what "Hasbro" "thinks" at any given moment. --M Sipher (talk) 19:50, 20 June 2023 (EDT)

For the record I 100% agree. Escargon (talk) 19:58, 20 June 2023 (EDT)