I've got no problem with the formatting tweeks, I know I'm pretty relaxed about that when I first write up an entry, but I don't understand removing some of the info that was removed.

Why take out the BM Dinobots backstory from the cardbacks? It's as much a canon story for them (and it's not like they have many) and part of the history of the character as the 3H comics and it's not up on TFU. Seems it should definately be there to me. And why cut out the tech spec specifically saying he's likely a G1 Dinobot (Snarl)? It's a fairly important part of the character I'd say.

My instinct is to add that stuff back in, since it IS important. ZacWilliam 12:27, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

I think saying that Striker is "likely" Snarl is an overstatement, but I have no problem with a note indicating that he has a couple of similarities powers-wise. After all my pet "T-Wrecks was supposed to be Grimlock" theory is mentioned on T-Wrecks' page (or was last time I saw it), and that's not substantially more strongly-supported than this.

Also, all of the BM Dinobots were Maximals. -LV 14:50, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

  • points to Magmatron* X-BoB58 16:43, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
[1] -LV 17:43, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

What I meant is that his bio says he's rumored to be one of the original Dinobots, and out of them Snarl seems the most likely suspect. Does the current mention of the rumor and seperate continuity note on the Snarl posibility seem to work? ZacWilliam 14:56, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Oh. I'd forgotten that. Yeah, that almost has to be a reference to Snarl's mysterious absence from the movie, doesn't it? Then the current note is probably fine. What does his MTMTE-style profile from...whichever comic it's in say about him? -LV 15:04, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.