Talk:Power Core Combiners
Franchise or not?
Unless its a "franchise" sort of page specifically about realworld stuff, isn't our general mandate to write In-universe about the fiction first and make the out-of-universe stuff kind of secondary info under toys/trivia. Power Core Combiners are very much an In Fiction concept. I think this page, as it is right now is much too Out-of-Universe focused. Especially the intro wich should probably mostly go under "Toys". It talks about toyline issues first and blows off fiction almost entirely to be adressed in other articles, when I think it belongs here more. Fixing things seems a big enough revision that I wanted to check if others felt the same before revising it all. --ZacWilliam 07:34, 7 June 2010 (EDT)
- I think this was intended as a "franchise" page (or even a toyline page) when it was first made. The fictional concept does deserve a good work up, but it may belong on another page. However, since according to the intro this toyline is part of the larger TF2010 toyline shouldn't it be merged there? --Khajidha 07:39, 7 June 2010 (EDT)
- Yeah this is written like a franchise page. But Power Core Combiners are an In-Fiction thing. Which means either we need 2 pages, something like: Power Core Combiner (franchise) and Power Core Combiner (technology) or this one needs to be revised to be about in-universe stuff first and toyline concerns second. --ZacWilliam 07:50, 7 June 2010 (EDT)
- There is a Power Core Combination page that covers the fiction. --Khajidha 08:24, 7 June 2010 (EDT)
- But that's wrong. We don't cover Powermaster fiction only under Powermaster Binary-bonding Combination or something like that. We cover it under the regular old Powermasters page because that's where it belong and thats what folks are going to look up. Likewise Power Core Combiner fiction needs to be covered under Power Core Combiners not some wierd secondary page. No other TF combination type is covered that way as far as I know. --ZacWilliam 08:47, 7 June 2010 (EDT)
- As long as we're saying things like "Bombshock is a Decepticon Commander from Power Core Combiners," we need to have an out-of-universe "Power Core Combiners" franchise/toyline/whatever page to link to. In fact, even look at the "Bombshock" and "Commander" links - they have "(PCC)" disambigs. We could change all of that to Transformers (2010 toyline)... but do we actually want to? At the moment, the PCC brand seems to be a more self-contained, independent entity than Powermasters ever were. - Jackpot 16:14, 7 June 2010 (EDT)
- I just don't see it standing on its own as a franchise. A subline imprint, yes; a franchise, no. It seems much more like Powerlinx Battles to me. --Khajidha 16:20, 7 June 2010 (EDT)
- In visual presentation, that's true. Unlike most (all?) other franchises, "Power Core Combiners" isn't written as a subtitle to "Transformers" - it's down at the bottom or in a corner of the package, like Powerlinx Battles or The Unicron Battles. I think that if the 2010 Transformers were a more cohesive franchise, we might have an easier time folding PCC into it. But because 2010-TF is so nebulous, its sublines have more weight unto themselves. PCC has its own little storyline, and I don't think Hasbro has made any effort to explicitly relate it to anything else going on in 2010-TF, so I can see why we've treated it separately so far. (Like I said elsewhere, I'm not personally married to doing it this way, but I see no particular need to change things up either.) - Jackpot 16:39, 7 June 2010 (EDT)
- I just don't see it standing on its own as a franchise. A subline imprint, yes; a franchise, no. It seems much more like Powerlinx Battles to me. --Khajidha 16:20, 7 June 2010 (EDT)
- As long as we're saying things like "Bombshock is a Decepticon Commander from Power Core Combiners," we need to have an out-of-universe "Power Core Combiners" franchise/toyline/whatever page to link to. In fact, even look at the "Bombshock" and "Commander" links - they have "(PCC)" disambigs. We could change all of that to Transformers (2010 toyline)... but do we actually want to? At the moment, the PCC brand seems to be a more self-contained, independent entity than Powermasters ever were. - Jackpot 16:14, 7 June 2010 (EDT)
- But that's wrong. We don't cover Powermaster fiction only under Powermaster Binary-bonding Combination or something like that. We cover it under the regular old Powermasters page because that's where it belong and thats what folks are going to look up. Likewise Power Core Combiner fiction needs to be covered under Power Core Combiners not some wierd secondary page. No other TF combination type is covered that way as far as I know. --ZacWilliam 08:47, 7 June 2010 (EDT)
- There is a Power Core Combination page that covers the fiction. --Khajidha 08:24, 7 June 2010 (EDT)
- Yeah this is written like a franchise page. But Power Core Combiners are an In-Fiction thing. Which means either we need 2 pages, something like: Power Core Combiner (franchise) and Power Core Combiner (technology) or this one needs to be revised to be about in-universe stuff first and toyline concerns second. --ZacWilliam 07:50, 7 June 2010 (EDT)
New figures
Some new pcc figures have ben found in Walmarts system.[1] sHOULD THEY BE ADDED?
- Names presented in datagases like that are sometimes not final or are spelled wrong, so I'd hold off until we have better confirmation. --ItsWalky 21:22, 14 June 2010 (EDT)
Different type of Powerlinx port?
I don't have any of the toys myself to examine, but I've seen vague statements online about the PCC Mini-Cons being incompatible with traditional Powerlinx ports. What's the skinny on this? - Jackpot 15:11, 16 June 2010 (EDT)
"Thirty two prototyped toys"
Since I'm sure someone will add that note again, I'd like to point out that between the various known unique molds in the PCC line, there's 10 Commanders, 6 Minicons, and 16 drones. That's 32 toys total. They're compatible with each other in a large number of combinations, just not I'll simultaneously. I'm not sure where the original quote came from, but it's possible it had some basis in fact and was severely misinterpreted. - Cattleprod 23:19, 9 July 2010 (EDT)
- No. It was from a poster who's known for years for totally making rediculous scrap up, to the point where it's an ongoing joke for some folks, and taken in context of the rest of his original post, which described toys that are NOTHING like PCCs actually are, it's clear made-up garbage and doesn't belong here. --ZacWilliam 07:32, 10 July 2010 (EDT)
- I knew the note itself was still complete nonsense, hence the part about it being 'severely misinterpreted' at best. It still managed to guess the exact number of confirmed unique molds, which raised some questions for me. - Cattleprod 16:37, 10 July 2010 (EDT)
- I apologize for including a rumor. :( I shall be more attentive.--82.168.81.43 09:27, 11 July 2010 (EDT)
- I knew the note itself was still complete nonsense, hence the part about it being 'severely misinterpreted' at best. It still managed to guess the exact number of confirmed unique molds, which raised some questions for me. - Cattleprod 16:37, 10 July 2010 (EDT)
