Talk:Character

Your mileage may vary...

...is repeated entirely too often in this article.--Rosicrucian^Talk 17:27, 15 July 2009 (EDT)

I sort of agree... it gets repetitive, but I'm not sure if different wording in the corresponding sections drives the point home as much.--Nevermore 18:03, 15 July 2009 (EDT)

Hasbro's official position

A corresponding TakaraTomy section may be in order as well, in light of the Japanese megacontinuity as expressed in Kiss Players.--Rosicrucian^Talk 18:05, 15 July 2009 (EDT)

I don't know about Kiss-Players, but I was able to track down a direct quote about Takara considering Primes from different continuity families separate characters. (God bless Jordan Derber-- The thought of that poor Takara brand manager being ambushed by a crazy Gajin with continuity questions fills my heart with joy.)

Is there anything to say about Takara's take on this in KP? Isn't it basically the same as Hasbro's? -Derik 19:35, 15 July 2009 (EDT)

Recall, Kiss Players is the fiction that introduced that delightful continuity snarl that bridged G1 and Car Robots/RiD via Fortress Maximus?--Rosicrucian^Talk 19:56, 15 July 2009 (EDT)

I feel like the whole thing gets arcane and murky in that section. The idea of what constitutes "different characters" between continuities is so vague and undefined that I barely understand what we're even trying to pin Hasbro down on. We deal with the question on the wiki all the time because of our artificial "continuity family" construct that informs how many incarnations of a character we can put on a single page... but outside of that application, what does the question even mean? The only impact that Hasbro's view could have would be if they declared, say, RID Hot Shot to be a dimension-hopper who went on to become Armada Hot Shot. Otherwise, as long as the two characters stay in their separate continuities, the question of whether Hasbro thinks they occupy the same "archetypal" mold is so academic as to be pointless. - Jackpot 21:44, 15 July 2009 (EDT)

Except that Cartoon G1 Prime and Marvel Comics G1 Prime are considered the same character, despite being in different continuities.

(The whole section should probably start with that.) -Derik 21:55, 15 July 2009 (EDT)

Considered by whom? What do you mean when you say that, and why does it matter? You're begging my question of whether this whole exercise has a relevant point at all. - Jackpot 22:13, 15 July 2009 (EDT)

Arguably, you could move this whole thing in-universe. Cartoon Prime and Comics Prime are the same guy-- from the perspective of the TF Multiverse, but Armada Prime in his various incarnations is a separate guy. -Derik 22:21, 15 July 2009 (EDT)

The toys. Cartoon G1 Prime and Marvel Comics G1 Prime derive from the same toy. - Starfield 22:45, 15 July 2009 (EDT)

So do Storm Surge and Shattered Glass Seaspray. Do you see my point? All of these distinctions are so shades-of-grey, case-by-case, matter-of-degree that I really don't get how they apply outside of our particular wiki-tastic rabbit hole. - Jackpot 22:49, 15 July 2009 (EDT)

That's called repurposing, which you may argue is another artificial construct of the wiki, but there is more to a toy than just the toy. Does SG Seaspray have anything to do with Storm Surge's bio, tech spec, and packaging and whatnot? - Starfield 22:55, 15 July 2009 (EDT)

I have no stake in this, nor do I wish to, but I do feel like I should mention that "continuity family" is no longer an entirely artificial construct. Primax, Malgus, Aurex, and all the other universal stream terminology basically make our previously artificial construct into canon. --ItsWalky 22:29, 15 July 2009 (EDT)

Fair enough, and as Derik is suggesting, there's really no problem with talking about how "characters" are dealt with in-universe. Between the TransTech stories and now the Alternity concept, the idea that different continuties contain "alternate versions" of the "same character" is becoming part of the in-fiction canon... but I still don't get this whole "Hasbro's official position" angle. I honestly just do not understand what we're hoping Hasbro would say about it, since from their perspective I don't think the question even makes sense. - Jackpot 22:39, 15 July 2009 (EDT)