Talk: Nemesis Prime (G1)

Nova Prime

Does Nova Prime count as an incarnation of Generation 1 Nemesis Prime? —Interrobang 04:48, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm guessing our answer is "Not at this time." (As always, subject to change.) Aren't all the others clones of Optimus Prime of one stripe or another? -Derik 05:00, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Well there is the Optimus Prime clone, but that predates the whole "Nemesis Prime" concept. There is also one other Nemesis Prime, but he's from another franchise. -- SFH 05:03, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Right- but all G1 Nemesis Prime's covered by this page are clones of Optimus Prime- a pretty basic common denominator. Prime Nova is a different dude who took the name. Again- this standard may be subject to change if we get more info or more G1 Nemesis Prime's. But as thigns are arranged now- we can make a general statement about Nemesis Prime for his bio on top. "Evil clone, all of his strengths, none on this etc etc etc..." Trying to fold Nova Prime into there would be like- "Evil senator unrelated to Optimus Prime who later changed his name..." Nova Prime defies being folded into this article-- he anihilates any sense that this is one character in different circumstances-- because he is a different character. And besides, we have a different we can legitimately document the character under that doesn't render this page a meaningless sea of disconnected data like a wikipedia page documenting all character to hold a name as if they were the same guy. -Derik 05:14, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. I do think the litmus test is pretty much, how would you write the intro? If there's literally nothing in common anymore, then I say they're separate characters.

On another note, I didn't even know the Optimus Prime clone article existed, and I'm perversely inclined to try to merge this one with it. But the fact that the nameless clone is a remote-controlled mouthpiece is, I think, a strong enough difference to set him apart.

- Jackpot 16:06, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree; the clone isn't a character, but a piece of technology. However, I'm tempted to add the fake head from Marvel #12 to that page. Chip 18:11, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

If the litmus test is the intro, then how do you judge Straxus, Jhiaxus, and Galvatron (G1)? —Interrobang 18:39, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Straxus shares both a body and a name, Jhiaxus shares a name, a color scheme, and a modus operandi (Cybertronian supremacy), Galvatron shares a name, an altmode, a color scheme, and a modus operandi (Implacable herald of a vast evil consciousness). Nova Prime is not so easily condensed. Mind you, I wouldn't object to Dead Universe Galvatron getting a separate page.--Rosicrucian^Talk 18:51, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm generally in favor of separation over condensation if no intro both informative and inclusive could be written. I've argued for that before. Now that you bring it up, I wouldn't be against separating the Dead Universe guys because they really are so very different. If they were to get backstories that reflected their previous incarnations, then merging would be appropriate. But until that happens, I suppose they logically fall under the category of "mergers I disapprove of because an intro shouldn't contradict the article content." - Jackpot 20:13, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Chip, I think maybe you should give that idea a shot. I'm not sure how I would write it, myself, but I'm curious to see somebody try. - Jackpot 21:48, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Now I'm questioning whether we should have a page devoted specifically to fake puppet Optimus Primes, or whether the whole shebang should be merged with Facsimile Construct. Chip 03:29, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Binaltech

Where does the second part of the Binaltech entry come from? I couldn't find any translations past Nemesis Prime's bio, which ends with him being given a spark. - Jackpot 16:22, 1 August 2008 (UTC)