Is this actually a franchise? A franchise has a continuity/ies associated with it in every other use we have. This has like 4, most of which predate Universe 2008. This feels more like an umbrella title for a product 'line' containing offerings from multiple franchises than than a franchise itself. -Derik 01:15, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Judging by the list of "franchises" on the Franchise page (Commemorative Series? Machine Wars?), yeah, this fits. Maybe we need to revise our definition. JW 01:41, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
As the guy who's put most of that list together, I will say that it includes every toy line, regardless of the amount of fiction associated with it or the universe that the fiction falls under. Some franchises are little more than toylines, but every toyline has some kind of fiction associated with it, even if it's just a lame quote for the character. Maybe that list is more toy lines than true franchises, but I don't know how or where you'd draw the line. But, re: Derik's concern, if "continuity" was the sole requirement for being a franchise, then BW and BM would get sucked up by G1. All the new Universe stuff is being marketed under a common packaging style and title -- that to me is the very definition of a franchise. -- Repowers 02:01, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
So, what do we call this on the front page? Universe 2008? --FFN 04:18, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

"Armada" Section Incorrectly Titled

That 12-pack of Mini-Cons is under the subtitle "Armada", but the Armada line has nothing to do with the set other than introduce Mini-Cons, in that all those 'cons in the set are Classics era molds. All Armada minicon team molds wore out after the Cybertron two packs, although Armada "bulk" molds still usable are gang-molded with the acompanying mini-con(s), which is why movie Inferno (Armada Red-Alert repaint) has the unamed (Longarm) mini-con. Also, isn't the 12-set a K-Mart Exclusive, and thus be written as such?

The set is a K-Mart Exclusive, yes.. but it is also clearly identified as 'Armada Series' for Universe. 22:26, 10 June 2008 (UTC)


Sweet! (fangirl squeal!)

Think there's any chance in high heaven they *might* consider cgi-ing the rest of the '86 movie? I would sssssoooo love to see Soundwave like that!

Hey, a girl can dream, can't she?--Nightshade83 13:36, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Is this thing on Youtube? I would literally stab a baby to see it.Thew 13:47, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

As of Botcon...

This is shaping up to be a helluva toyline. I thought Classics spoiled us, but I daresay this is better.--RosicrucianTalk 02:46, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Wow... Hot Shot is getting a classics toy...

Please let it be a new mold... And have a reference to JaAm!11--Dynamus Prime 12:46, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

It is a new mold. They showed us an early prototype, and it comes with a new Jolt. --ItsWalky 12:50, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
But no axelzooka gimick, even though the new Jolt can attach onto the new Hot Shot --AutobotFreak643 22:31, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
To be fair, Hot Shot did change his body structure many times, so he lost it ages ago to combine with other Autobots, and yet again to accomodate a Cyber Key, and again for that Cybertron Defence team gig. It could be fair to assume that the Jolt can attach to Hot Shot, but not to activate a gimmick. Metal Gear NOIZE 13:53, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Aerial Rivals ?

Where'd we officially learn the identities of the Aerial Rivials (and did we learn about the K-Mart minicons?). Kyde said they'd be up of but they weren't yet last time I checked. -- 13:56, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Anyone know? I only ask because I'm a big Skydive fan and am curious to confirm we'll have him and Air Raid to go with Silverbolt and Fireflight. Does Hasbro still have "Slighshot"? --ZacWilliam 20:34, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Robot Heroes

Just curious, where was the news about BM versions of Cheetor and Tankor being in Robot Heroes announced? It really seems to come out of left-field. I would think some citing or notation would be in order, at least in this dicussion page... Vanguard 21:14, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I think it's time to change this just a bit

OK we have a bit of inaccuracy in this article, as I just noticed. Hasbro has just published the official bios for some of the toys on the Hasbro toys shop page, and it shows us that Blaster and Heavy load are not part of the classics series! See for youself: Heavy load Blaster and as a comparison, ONSLAUGHT. Now we have to create a separate page for Blaster, also a separate section for the non classics Universe figures.Dead Metal 17:50, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Um, no. They're all part of 'Universe 2.0', which is what this page is about. Vanguard 12:56, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
...Monzo? -Derik 13:17, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
At the very least, we should probably wait until final packaging comes out. Relying on the 'headers' of the Hasbro shop to see what goes where seems pretty bone-headed to me, considering its history and all. Vanguard 16:08, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
The back of the boxes plainly say "Classics Series". —Interrobang 23:52, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

What's wrong with linking straight to the toy section of a character page?

What's wrong with linking straight to the toy section of a character page? (#toys) I like that - Starfield 18:47, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah i linked all of them to the toys and now they just link to the characters. these toys have no back-stories other than whats in their tech-specs, so why can't they just link right to the toy? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Finflan (talkcontribs).

I would assume we want people to look at the character the toy is made for, not just the toy. Easy enough to scroll down to the toy section. --FFN 07:34, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
This page is a list of new toys. The most likly reason for clicking on a link is because someone wants to see the new toy. It's not a huge deal, but I still think it is more helpful to link to the toy. - Starfield 13:26, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
We're not really in the "new stuff" business. This is a reference document, not a news site. And what happens when the toys are no longer new? -- Repowers 13:38, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
Plus, linking simply to "Toys" is not really all THAT helpful, since several of these characters have multiple toys. There's still searching and scrolling on your own involved... only this time without the benefit of a handy TOC link. --M Sipher 17:12, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
Sipher, you know you can link more specifically than to "Toys." --ItsWalky 20:11, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
There is precedent for linking to the toy. That's the way it's done in the Classics page. Starfield 21:07, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
If there is a link to Universe toys, maybe we should use #Universe instead of #toys as in: Onslaught. Starfield 21:07, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

There is a freakin' table of contents on every article. If someone clicks on, say, Sunstreaker's name hoping to find out more about the character than the toy, he's stuck in the toy's section. Like this, he's right at the top of the page, with a nice table of contents for him to click on to find whatever it is he's looking for. --Detour 20:19, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

The section-linking debate stems, I think, from this conversation on the Community Portal. I've brought up a new point about toy-linking there. - Jackpot 20:30, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I've changed my mind about this. I've always argued that we don't do enough to make this Wiki user friendly for the people who aren't as used to Wikis as we are. I am for linking directly to the toys that ppages such as Classics and Universe refer to, because obviously, when people click on those links, they want to see the toy in question, not read the whole article or try to find the toy in the toy section. Yes, there is a table of contents there, but it would not hurt to make it easier for people. --FFN 20:43, 16 July 2008 (UTC)


Okay, ACToys put out this news, of a in-package Unicron. As far as I know, this is a reputable delear showing a picture of a soon-to-be-released item. It's not an eBay auction or any of the 'usual' types of INSIDER INFO... so why are we supposed to assume this is stolen and illegal and we're about to be anal-raped by Hasbro's law-ninjas? - Vanguard 18:20, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Because that is the default assumption unless someone can cough up an official Hasbro press release?--RosicrucianTalk 18:22, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
There's been other material from toy shows, release-lists, and the like, from other sources (such as BigBadToyStore). Also, MUCH of our Japanese and Chinese oriented news never does have an official Hasbro statement (like Swerve). So, forgive me, I'm just not up for openly accusing AcToys as being a bunch of prototype-thieves (which is the reason given for blocking their news) when there's absolutely no basis for it. - Vanguard 18:27, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
That does not change the fact that, by our standards, the material is as of yet inappropriate for inclusion.--RosicrucianTalk 18:29, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
Without any sort of official word from reputable publications/websites, retailers, convention/trade shows or Hasbro/TakaraTomy themselves, we have to assume that something is leaked. This is *not* a news website. We put up information when the official authorities feel it is the right time to do so (which is when they give stock photos or toy listings to retailers or publications, ect). --FFN 18:32, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

And for that matter, we have a lengthy diatribe explaining the wiki's reasoning on these policies here.--RosicrucianTalk 18:35, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

AcToys a "reputable dealer"? AcToys is just a Chinese message board. And that grainy photo sure doesn't look official in any way whatsoever.--Nevermore 23:09, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
I had thought AcToys had a store connected to that message board. Granted, I don't read chinese, so I may have misinterpreted the links there. Still, I think that the standard seems oddly enforced in light of other events quickly 'reported' here in recent years. Not my call, sure enough, but I'm just stating my objection. - Vanguard 04:18, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
Certain events are quickly reported here because they were discovered, or informed to us with the various conditions I outlined above. --FFN 11:50, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
Well, I'll let someone ELSE edit the article itself. But the Allspark apparently confirms that this is a Toys R US exclusive after all. According to them, the Unicron shown was a product mock-up. - Vanguard 16:38, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
(Moving down since sticking it in the middle there is making the conversation confusing) So does TFW2005 and (I assume) all the other websites. See, thing is, none of them got word from official sources as far as I can tell. Some dude in the forums told them. --FFN 18:18, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
Really? Jeeze, I give. The Allspark used to make such a huge deal about having 'verifiable news only' on their front page, I figured they got one of their many TRU employees to confirm something. But, not even that much? Oy. Times have changed. - Vanguard 19:14, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
Literally 'some dude' in the forums said so. I have no idea who he is, but he's certainly not an official source. --FFN 19:27, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
It was actually ChErikS of TFW2005, not the Allspark, who claimed this (unless he also posts at the Allspark). Previous TRU inside news by ChErikS include:
I'd say this dude seems pretty reliable based on his past track record.--Nevermore 17:28, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

2008 Universe Microcontinuity

Reading some of the Universe bios in TRU today, and it does look like they're attempting at least the pretense of some shared continuity beyond just giving character bios. There's hints at "hunting Decepticons in deep space" and "confused Autobots scattered throughout the universe." Thoughts?--RosicrucianTalk 23:26, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, despite Hasbro saying there was "no continuity" attached to the new Universe toys by giving them fiction of any sort (ie the package bios) they are, in effect creating one. I mean unless said fiction is specifically and explicitly connected to a previous existent continuity we must assume, I think, that it is its own. --ZacWilliam 23:36, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
And while the bios do appear to assume that these are their G1 counterparts thus far, they also seem to allude to an event of some sort that scattered said characters all over the cosmos. Which is as well similar to the original loose storyline of the first Universe toyline prior to it being codified more solidly by 3H. It is, apparently, a contrivance to get a bunch of characters from diverse continuities in one spot (relatively speaking).--RosicrucianTalk 23:39, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
What are the diverse continuities? I thought so far the only Universe toys with bios were the G1 guys. As for them, Prowl's bio seems the most loaded, with the bits you mentioned above, plus the juicy "It’s only a matter of time until the DECEPTICONS get themselves a real leader, and the AUTOBOTS need to be ready." This is strangely dissonant with the Classics fiction and toys, where Megatron was playing a central role. It really does sound like Hasbro's trying to go somewhere with the bios, but it's hard to say where yet. - Jackpot 01:47, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
Then there's Blaster's bio, where the "story" is just a rehash of stuff from the Marvel Comics. I am a bit skeptical that these bios are actually intended to tie together into anything. --KilMichaelMcC 02:01, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
I don't know, other than the mention of him working with Preceptor it's not THAT much like the Marvel comics. I mean they were one small resistance cell there, not a group working to unite many scattered cells against increasingly organized Decepticons. And Blaster in the Marvel books never functioned as he's described here cataloging personnel and mission reports and issuing out orders. That fits at least as well in with the comments from Prowl's about the Cons being trouble if the get a leader to organize them as it does with the Marvel stuff... Who knows at this point. Hopefully future bios will add more and make things clearer. -- 02:16, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Diverse continuities in the sense that this is a line which will eventually include Beast Era and Unicron Trilogy characters. I may be over-extrapolating on where they're going with this, though.--RosicrucianTalk 03:01, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Wasn't Cheetor meant to be "Beast Series", and Hot Shot & the giant Mini-Con pack "Armada Series", while the G1 homages are the only ones under "Classic Series"? - SanityOrMadness talk page 15:34, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
Seems to me that the bios are actually talking about specific points in different 'universes'. Prowl is based on the latter part of the US comic, as is Galvatron. Blaster sounds like his 'Return to Cybertron' arc. Acid Storm is a direct reference to the G1 Cartoon, and so on. I don't think they're really setting up a continuity here, instead just having Bios that talk about OTHER continuities already established. Granted, none of the actual BODIES match... - Vanguard 04:23, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Neale. --ItsWalky 05:50, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
And the angel fired the first arrow, breaking the seal... - Vanguard 16:26, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
Agr-- really? Vangard is Neale Davidson? *notes this*
I've been using the same screen-name for HOW long now? Fifteen years or so? - Vanguard 16:26, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
Anyway- yeah, agree. It'd probably still be worth a "Continuity" section noting that this is the way things "currently" seems to lie, and that this understanding is subject to change. That makes us sound liek we're on-the-ball and have thought things through. -Derik 05:53, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
Thought: Even if the bios are attempting to reference existing stories, by attaching those stories to *these* different bodies is it creating a microcontinuity where some version of those events happened to TFs who looked like this? --ZacWilliam 11:25, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
Strictly speaking, I suppose you're right, but even then it's hard to pin down. The 'micro-continuity' would link with classics, which introduces some conflict. There's also no way of knowing what other Bios would reference. We know that Cheetor and Hot Shot are coming, so how would THEY work? Nevermind that we're also getting Animated figures (the Legends) into Universe as well now. Until something more definitive comes in, we may just want to say 'the toys and their bios are homages to their most famous appearances' or some such. - Vanguard 16:26, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
I can buy it for some, but not all. The comic two-packs are pretty blatantly old-continuity homages, and Blaster's bio is... close enough, I suppose. (Though his alt-mode is very different from what we saw in Return to Cybertron, a boom-boxy thing that actually had to be carried by Powerglide.) Prowl and Galvatron, on the other hand, don't fit ANYWHERE. When was Prowl Optimus Prime's right-hand-man while the Autobots were confused and spread across the universe? Galvatron's bio can't be talking about his Marvel trips to the "present," since those always cast him as a rogue, never a leader. It could be talking about the future (especially FFoD), but neither the 'toon nor the comic ever suggested that his origins were a mystery to his contemporaries. Honestly, if there's anywhere I'd be tempted to put them, it'd be AFTER the G1 comic... so the Classicverse. But that's pure speculation.
Now, if Prowl and Galvatron are in some new continuity, then Blaster's bio fits notably well with them. But it's hard to draw a conclusion there... As for what we as the TF Wiki should do to document this stuff, I'd say only bother with the characters whose bios present actual story info (just Blaster, Prowl, and Galvatron, right?), and put the info in a section called "Universe (2008) toy bios" or something. Given the discrepancies, I think it's safest to segregate it until something new sheds more definitive light.
- Jackpot 01:34, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
Galvatron could be pre-Alignment. (Alignment opens with his death.) Uh- Alignment was set in a sorta pseudo-alter-Return Of Convoy timeframe... so the scattered and leaderless 'con forces would be... circa Zone or Operation combination, which fits. Ichikawa-kun's Laser Magnus bio references an Alignment-like scenario-- except it occurred explicitly in JP cartoon continuity, which would mean Galvatron rose to power again in the deep future of Gen 1, POST Return of Convoy. So all of these thins could be set, um... in the early buildup to the events described by the Laser Magnus bio. There IS this nebulously defined period between JP G1 and JP G2 when they had their own equivalent of the 'Action Master' era and a lot of the classic characters re-emerged. (Twincast was rebuilt into Broadblast, for example.) -Derik 02:12, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
I assume Prowl's bio takes place at or around Classics. Megatron was gone, Bludgeon was off hiding somewhere, and the Autobots were hunting them down across the entire galaxy, in small numbers. It seems obvious to me, anyway. --ItsWalky 02:14, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, like I said above, that's the place I'd be most tempted to put both him and Galvatron, especially given the natural leap from Classics to Classic Series. But it still strikes me as speculative, since I don't think the Classics comics support the idea of the Autobots being confused and vulnerable while the Decepticons have the upper hand. That could easily be the case POST-comics... but without confirmation, I still say we should separate it in the articles. (And I'm glad Derik's having fun with whatever it is he's talking about, but I REALLY don't think Hasbro's copywriters are thinking so obscurely.) - Jackpot 02:43, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
Yes well... I didn't think it was likely that the toys were set in Japanese animated continuity, I was just throwing it out in response to someone else saying "But Galvatron showing up as a leader doesn't happen ever!"
Isn't Megatron confined to Earth during Classics? If Galvatron did show up (God only knows what version...) then he could be taking over the galactic Decepticons while Megatron's is pinned down on Earth, no? -Derik 02:50, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
That was me, and I still maintain that he was never a present-day leader in the canon (which Alignment is not). The point of this discussion, near as I can figure, is to work out how to present the bios' story-info in the continuity-structure of our articles. No matter how well they might happen to fit into some eHobby-bio-by-way-of-Furman-fanfic-cum-Japanese-story-pages pseudo-continuity, I don't think there's any way you could justify applying that to an article. So... thanks and all, but no. As for your other point, this is the third time I'm going to say that I agree Galvatron could be in the Classicsverse. But without more explicit confirmation, that remains speculative. - Jackpot 03:14, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

New information to consider: The only Universe toys we know to be "historical" are NOT Classic Series. They're G1 Series and War Within Series. This implies a lot, I think. It shows how far Hasbro is willing to go in telling us that a toy represents a specific time in a specific continuity. So since Blaster's box doesn't say "G1 Series," I would assume it's not meant to represent the "Return to Cybertron" timeframe. And we can take it another step: If "G1 Series" means pre-subline G1, and "War Within Series" means War Within, then we can infer that "Classic Series" means the Classicverse. Therefore, all the Classic Series bios CAN live together, and we can consider them roughly in-continuity with the Fun Pub Classics comics (as much as any packaging-text is in-continuity with other media). Does anyone disagree with this approach? - Jackpot 19:43, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to tentatively disagree because we know that there are toys coming out (some very soon) which would make that approach effectively impossible. How are you going to work Dinobot and Cheetor into the 'Classicverse', for instance? And, if SOME of the Universe line is one continuity, but others aren't, how would we begin to clarify that? Also, and this seems most important, having some of the figures in question, the bios DO reference "famous" points in Transformers fiction history, across various continuities - even if the bodies don't match up. Lastly, the 'Classicsverse' from FunPro has already been abandoned in favor of their new continuity line 'Transtect', so we can't look to that, really, for new figures. Given all of that, I would very strongly suggest avoiding declaration of a single, coherent, and comprehensive 'Universe 2008 Continuity'. - Vanguard 15:23, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
I... can't really tell what you're disagreeing with. I'm not advocating a single Universe (2008) continuity. I'm saying that it appears as though the "______ Series" designations are telling us point-blank which continuities the toys correspond to. Given the current trend, I fully expect Cheetor and Dinobot to be "Beast Wars Series." The only real question at this point, as far as I can tell, is whether "Classic Series" definitively means "the Classicverse." I say we assume it does until contradicting evidence appears, given how specific the other Series are. Edit: Also, saying that the Classics comic being finished disqualifies the toys from that continuity makes as much sense as saying that the War Within Series toys have nothing to do with the War Within comic. - Jackpot 20:57, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
Doesn't Acid Storm make that difficult, considering that he's supposed to be the same guy from the cartoon? I mean, you could easily shoehorn him into the Classicsverse, but... —Interrobang 21:07, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
Good point. On the other hand, Elita One and the nature of Mirage's invisibility-power have already set a precedent for 'toon elements in the Classicverse. Hell, just sticking with the toys, Classics Jetfire looks so Skyfirey, it hurts. - Jackpot 21:15, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
And that is the point really. The bios reference important 'stories' for the characters that they're representing (when available) regardless of what the toy looks like. And the stories could be from any continuity. Ratbat is homaged from a different line than Blaster than from Devastator than from Galvatron than from Acid Storm. Yet they're all G1 in some capacity. I'm not saying we can't reference what the bios specifically refer to, but I think trying to say, at this point, that there is a story this take on Universe is pretty much an exercise in failure. - Vanguard 21:20, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
Okay, please stop arguing against a single Universe (2008) continuity. No one disagrees with you. The discussion has moved on to how much information we can glean from the "________ Series" labels all the Universe toys have. - Jackpot 21:44, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
First, I want "No one disagrees with you." framed. Second, I think it's pretty obvious that Classics, in the sense that Universe 2008 uses it, means no more than some iteration of G1 fiction. I think we should just leave it at that and not read much more into it. That's all I'm saying. - Vanguard 21:50, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
I would be inclined to agree if there weren't both a "Classic Series" and a "G1 Series" within Universe. Given the specificity of the other Series (Armada and War Within), it seems to me that any toy meant to just be in "some iteration of G1" would be in G1 Series. Otherwise there's no point in calling it out as "Classic." - Jackpot 22:05, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
So Classicverse, G1 and War Within are all parts of Generation 1... makes sense to me. --MistaTee 22:14, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
And the 'G1' moniker itself, for within Universe, seems to mean This is what it looked like originally (more or less) and updated characters are Classics - Vanguard 02:40, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Which Galvatron is it?

If the stated Classicsverse takes place after Marvel G1, doesn't this mean Classics Galvatron is "really" Galvatron II? -- 04:25, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

If you're going to go buy the precedent for the Classicsverse as started by the Fan Club, then Galvatron would logically be the one smashed into the lake by Fortress Maximus. I can't remember WHICH Galvatron that is anymore, and it gets muddled with the differences between the US and UK run anyway. (Remember, the Fan Club doesn't cite the UK stories) - Vanguard 14:56, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
And FanPro Classics continuity ignores UK continuity. So FanPro introduced... Springer. Natch.--RosicrucianTalk 15:04, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
And it ignores the cartoon, which is why we got Elita One, after all. - Vanguard 01:58, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, that was what I thought. Unless I'm very mistaken, the only "Galvatron" to appear in Marvel US continuity was the Rhythms-of-Darkness, drowned-under-icefloe guy, who was canonically established through many media over many years to have actually been Galvatron II. "Real" Galvatron only ever existed in the TFTM adaptation, and the UK, which means that as far as American print media is concerned he never actually played a role in the main story. I foresee many confusing / explicatory notes to come on various Wiki pages..... --Thylacine 2000 15:31, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
Hmmm. Interesting point: Which Galvatron article SHOULD we put the new toy (and the info from its bio) under? He could be either, depending on how much of a link we want to infer between Classics and Classic Series. Seems speculatory to side with one or the other. Should we do both? - Jackpot 17:39, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
Save for the fact that, as his present caption points out, him being purple makes him a total continuity cipher.--RosicrucianTalk 17:41, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
Actually, thanks for pointing that out. The caption is misinformative; we don't know which continuity he's in. [Sound of caption being changed] And on that point, I can't tell if you're answering my question or not. - Jackpot 17:51, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Well in this case I'm less answering your question and more saying I haven't the foggiest at present He doesn't seem to fit anywhere, as his bio clashes with his cartoon appearances, while his color clashes (har-har) with the comics.--RosicrucianTalk 18:06, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Okay, yeah, I'm there with you. The more I think about it... Is there any reason not to duplicate the information in both Galvatron (G1) and Galvatron II? There's so little of it, there's hardly any danger of data-drift. And if we do get more definitive info later, we can always delete one or the other. - Jackpot 18:13, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
Seems there'd be no harm in it. I'll try my hand....--Thylacine 2000 18:32, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
I don't thinkj that the colors matter too much to establishing identity, largely because (as said before) NONE of the bodies really match up exactly. Some, like Sideswipe and Prowl, obviously come a lot closer than others... Acid Storm is very different from the green rainmaker... and we already HAVE Devastator in a whole new form, and Blaster's pretty radically different, despite the bio being out of 'Return to Cybertron'... so... yeah, probably makes the most sense to notarize BOTH the Galvatrons with this one, though the bio leans to Galvatron II - Vanguard 01:58, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
After all this, watch it turn out to be Galvatron from the IDW comics. -- Semysane 02:14, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

New Target exclusives

I saw 2 new 2-packs for Target. They are: Movie Voyager Optimus and Bonecrusher, Movie Final Battle Jazz and Flame deco Voyager Megatron

Marvel Comics\Classics continuity

Is Universe really a continuation of Classics, as in continuity? If it is, sure, it is a Marvel continuation, but Beast Wars, Armada, ect., they are never in Marvel Comics. So, I personally do not think this is in the Classics continuity family. Is it? Look, I'm confused. I think this is like the first Universe line, from many continuities. But I do not think Galvatron is Galvatron II. Period. He is G1 Galvatron. He looks like him, at least. But at least we know Robot Heroes Galvatron is G1 Galvy.

All of Universe is certainly not a continuation of Classics, but the "Classics Series" area of Universe may be. Not all of Universe is marked "Classics Series." Some is labeled "Armada Series," some will be labeled "Beast Wars" series or "G1 Series"... --ItsWalky 17:39, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.