Talk:Galvatron (G1)

What you have cavalierly retiled 'Galvatron IV' (Rhythms of Darkness) was explicitly called Galvatron 2 in Alignment, like as an actual title or somejunk. (It's confusing.) So a specific number has meaning in reference to this character, and his numbering should not be reassigned for aesthetic reasons- doing so removes meaning.

Also, we have at least 1 explicit letters page reference (Backed up, IIRC by the Titan Compilation recap pages) saying he's the same incarnation of the character as the one from Perchance to Dream.

The 2nd Future-Galvie is difficult. I don't object toc alling him III, but since the numbers kinda have meaning for the other two (and reflect a need to label two distinct individuals who visited the past, as opposed to a 3rd individual who didn't, and instead exists in a timeline where no such disambuigation was needed) I think it'd be better to say "Also, a new Galvatron showed up int he future after Straxus died." -Derik 12:22, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Yeah. Who numbered all these Galvatrons?  The Rhythms of Darkness one is specifically Galvatron II.  None of the others officially got any numbers.  (Galvatron II gets his own page, as well.)  --ItsWalky 15:09, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, that's why I requested an expert come in and rework what I wrote. I was mostly going by what Cliffy wrote at the Archive ( http://www.tfarchive.com/comics/faq/#2q ). The extent of *my* actual knowledge of Marvel Comics UK Galvatron goes no further than Target: 2006 and Perchance to Dream.--DrSpengler 21:38, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

IDW Galvatron
So, not spoiling too much be IDW Galvatron has been confirmed to not only not be Megatron, but to not even have had anything to do with Megatron, ever. I knida lean toward giving him his own page. Thoughts?--71.235.136.203 10:59, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm going to say no. Galvatron II gets his own page because he's explicitly a separate entity from a world which has already had a Galvatron.  I see him in the same light as I see TM2 Dinobot.  IDW Galvatron may be a different concept, but he's still just a new continuity's take on the character, and that's nothing new. Chip 15:57, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Marvel Comics x2?
Why is there a second Marvel Comics section after Japanese continuity? That says absolutely nothing about what happened in the comics, but is instead dilled with badly-written speculation about the events of the 'toon version of the movie? Doesn't that sort of thing belong on Wikipedia, not here? -Derik 01:49, 9 July 2007 (UTC)