The G1 Classicsverse Checklist thread!

[GoktimusPrime]

It's still a biased list, man. It can't help but be.

Well I did say that I've tried to eliminate (perhaps "minimise" is a gooderer word) bias, but of course it cannot be completely removed.

Saying it's not just isn't correct, not when you list your own reasons for eliminating toys that seem dubious compared to other inclusions at best. (RTS counts, yet Grapple, Sea Spray, Bludgeon, etc don't? Despite clear evidence of what Bludgeon was conceived at, and that generally, Generations didn't have Voyagers, hence they were put where they could).

Grappel counts.

Sea Spray is dubious because his packaging is devoid of any series indicator, and also (from TFwiki):

At Toy Fair 2010 and in the March 2010 answers to tfwiki.net's questions in Hasbro Q&A, Hasbro representatives were adamant that Sea Spray is the same character as Generation 1 Seaspray, being a Classics-style upgrade of the Mini Vehicle placed in the adjectiveless 2010 Transformers toyline because they felt he should be a Voyager and Generations was only Deluxes. His packaging bio, however, places him versus live-action-styled guys who seemingly operate in the live-action-style universe and Sea Spray is included in the Unite for the Universe comic. But, in December 2010's Q&A, Hasbro stated that "Seaspray" and some other 2010 yellow-carded toys "do not exist in the movie world". Should these comments by Hasbro be filed under authorial intent?

Technically Sea Spray IS a movieverse toy, and not Classicsverse; I personally display him on my movieverse Autobots shelves, not on my Classicsverse Autobots shelves -- but I can see how other people might argue that he could be a Classicsverse toy. Basically the [?] category is a "technical no" but there could be a valid reason to argue to the contrary under authorial intent.

Bludgeon is also classed as [?] debatable -- but he's probably even more dubious because unlike Sea Spray whose mould was originally intended to be Classicsverse, Bludgeon was originally intended for the Unicron Trilogy line, but then later reconsidered for Classicsverse, but then reconsidered for Revenge of the Fallen which is where he finally fell. So technically that toy is movieverse and not Classicsverse, but again one could pitch the authorial intent argument...
From TFwiki...

The origin of Voyager class Bludgeon is older than one may expect. Artist Don Figueroa submitted a concept for a Unicron Trilogy Bludgeon toy that looked very similar to the final product way back during the development of the Energon or Cybertron toylines. Obviously, the concept wasn't put into production as a toy at the time, so Figueroa used it as inspiration for his IDW Publishing Stormbringer rendition of Generation 1 Bludgeon. However, Hasbro evidently resurrected the concept for the Universe (as mentioned by Hasbro at BotCon 2009) and then the Revenge of the Fallen lines. Figueroa notes that his contribution on this toy is very small, as his work on it ended when he submitted the concept to Hasbro way back when.

Bias is bias. It's impossible to not have bias in this list, but just admit it, don't deny it then contradict your own statement in the next paragraph, there's nothing wrong with admitting the list has the natural bias of the author, that's just natural.

I'm not including or excluding these toys based on my personal bias.

My personal bias is actually based on what the toys officially are classed as. If I completely allowed my personal bias to dictate this list, I would classify most of the toys in the debatable category as a clear [-] no. To me, Sea Spray and ROTF Bludgeon are definitively Movieverse... I display both toys on my movieverse shelves and I play with them in movieverse -- I've never mixed them up with my Classicsverse toys. As Verno might tell you, I'm pretty dogmatic when it comes to only following official canon. I personally don't give a flying rat's tail about authorial intent... if official canon says that these toys exist in the movie universe, then that IS where they exist to me. Authorial intent can go jump off a space bridge for all I care... the ONLY way I would personally accept these toys existing in Classicsverse is if there were an official retcon. That's why I personally don't enjoy reading fan fics, because most of them contradict official canon which I personally dislike (not saying it's a bad thing, but it's not my cup of Energon).

So the fact that I have allowed the "[?] debatable" category to even exist and classified toys like Sea Spray and Bludgeon into this category is actually me letting go of my normally super-anal dogmatic slavish retention to official canon! It actually goes against every fibre of my being... when I classified those toys as "debatable" my inner nerd raged and I had to spray him down with a garden hose.

Didn't this whole exercise start from a post trying to narrow down the options for an upcoming Botcon mold?

That's why I made a separate thread so that we wouldn't derail the original thread.

Maybe we should be using the criteria from the hints - did the reps say it was specifically Classicsverse? I would have assumed Seaspray and Grapple/Grappel would have come under 'updates' for guessing game purposes.

Grapple/Grappel is Classicsverse. The list classifies him as "[+] Yes", so I'm not sure why he's being disputed. Although I might re-classify him as "[+] Yes" because he is a repaint/retool of Inferno (a fairly extensive retool though)... anyway, he counts!

With Sea Spray (not to be confused with Seaspray!) and Bludgeon, the reps have said different things at different times -- but the latest word is that they are movieverse - hence they are officially/technically classified as so. However some people prefer to go back to earlier citations from Hasbro which contradict their latest ruling... but really, the latest ruling should be the most authoritative (rendering previous rulings obsolete). I'm trying not to let my bias interfere with the list, hence why the [?] debatable category exists. And it is a debatable category - hence why it's marked with a question mark. If you don't want to count them (like me), then just don't count them! But I'd like to leave the option open for other people who may prefer to side with authorial intent and count them.

What I would prefer is if you guys would let me know if I'm being inconsistent in any of my classifications. Bias or no, I'd like to at least keep all rulings and classifications of these toys consistent. Thank you.