Talk:Galvatron

Mergeto Megatron

Shouldn't Galvatron and Megatron be merged into one article since it refers to the same character albeit that there was an evolution of the character that occurred, wouldn't it be better to have one article explaining the origins of the character and it's evolution into it's current character form. In my personal opinion this would also save space on Wikipedia if this article were merged into one. Misterrick 00:55, 17 October 2004 (UTC)

I kind of think they each deserve their own page. As depicted in the cartoon, they behave in very different ways. Megatron is cunning and constantly scheming to steal Earth’s resources, while Galvatron is nuts and constantly abusing his own troops. Also, in the G1 Marvel comics, Galvatron is plucked from an alternate future by Unicron, and there is a short under developed plot arc where Megatron and Galvatron interact with each other. That is just my opinion though, if done properly the two articles could be merged. --Plicease 09:18, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

In some stories like the movie Galvatron is Megatron, but in others (IDW, some novels, Dreamwave) Galvatron is a seperate character, so he gets his own page. Mathewignash (talk) 11:53, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Unicron

Unicron could not inflict pain on Megatron. He attempted to absorb Megatron unless he agreed to do what Unicron asked. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.120.115.61 (talk) 02:25, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

As a result of the reconstruction process, Unicron gained the ability to assert control over Galvatron at considerable range through the apparent infliction of physical and psychological pain, inasmuch as a synthetic life form can feel pain.

I don't agree with this sentence because

1. Unicron demonstrates the ability to inflict pain on Megatron before recreating him as Galvatron.
2. the statement "inasmuch as a synthetic life form can feel pain" is unnecessary as one of the primary assertions in the Transformers Universe is that Transformers can feel pain.

Unless anyone objects I would like to remove the statement, or rewrite it stating that Unicron was able to inflict pain on Megs/Galvatron --Plicease 09:27, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Triple Change

Hi there. I was reading the Space Pirates tpb last night and noticed for the first time a completely different alternate mode of Galvatron. Before his meeting with Cyclonus and Scourge Galvatron hides from them by transforming into a small gun and having a human carry it, just like Megatron used to. As Galvatron's alternate mode is traditionally a cannon platform in the comics, does this qualify Galvatron 1 as a triple-changer? SMegatron 12:44, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

I guess it does, sort of. The toy had three modes, robot, gun platform and hand gun, but the hand gun mode was very rarely used in the comic. This is a great example of Simon Furman being creative with familiar characters, which was always one of his strengths (The same story puts Springer's leaping ability to rare use as well). But I wouldn't call him a triple-changer, as he wasn't released as part of that range. There are other TF's with three modes not counted as triple changers as well (Metroplex and Trypticon spring to mind). I think the category should only refer to the characters actually branded as triple changers on their toy release.Coyote-37 13:14, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Galvatron is one of the 3 form characters who isn't an official "triple-changer" toy line member. I think he is actually refered to as a triple-changer in his Dreamwave comics biography, so are several others - like the Headmaster Horricons (robot, animal, jet triple-changers). talk:mathewignash

Previous Identity

It is Astrotrain not Motormaster who said that Megatron and Galvatron were the same guy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FranciscoG0473 (talk • contribs) 02:55, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Although it was said the only autobot to have knowledge of Megatron = Galvatron, wouldn't Rodimus Have this knowledge as well.

Galvatron: "First Prime, then Ultra Magnus, and now YOU, if you autobots didn't die so easily I might finally have a sense of satisfaction now."

A lot of autobots died here, and the two listed before Hot Rod have the common trait of being finished by the same person although different versions. Thanks for clearing that up guys.SMegatron 09:45, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Section on knowledge of previous identity deleted on grounds of OR and notability. This article is way too long as is and this seemed as good a place as any to start trimming the dross. 81.154.116.164 (talk) 23:44, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually Galvatron said "First Prime, then Ultra Magnus, and now you. It's a pity you autobots die so easily or I might have a sense of satisfaction now." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.195.247.21 (talk) 03:45, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Size

I notice the article is getting quite long - 36 kilobytes. Should the article be split into several smaller articles on each universe's Galvatron? I'm not sure the other versions are different enough to warrant an article each, but the article looks to be getting a bit unweildy. SMegatron 19:59, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

I'd agree, as the current Megatron article is the same. We could have 4 articles where one is now. G1/G2 Galvatron, Beast Wars Neo Galvatron, RiD Galvatron and the "Unicron Trilogy" Galvatron. In fact the RiD Galvatron could be merged with RiD Megatron, and same with the Unicron trilogy one. Same guys after all. User talk:mathewignash

No, I don't really think so. As you say, the other versions of Galvatron really aren't large enough or important enough to warrant their own articles. Although it may be on the cusp of unwieldly, the article is, after all, not actually going to get any larger right now, since another Galvatron does not seem to be likely in the immediately future, and there's really nothing of any sufficient size to be added to it as it is now. I just think splitting it up spoils it's... comprehensiveness. - Chris McFeely, May 28th 2006

Sounds good to me. SMegatron 13:13, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

I think RiD Megatron and Galvatron could warrent one article for himself, not two seperate ones. He's one guy. Unicron trilogy Megatron/Galvatron should get one article for himself too, not two like he has now, since he's just supposed to be one guy who changed him name 5 times. G1 Megatron/Galvatron gets one article, Beast Wars Megatron gets one article for himself, and one article for Beast Wars Galvatron. That's a total of four articles for four unique characters. user:Mathewignash

While I can see the rationale behind RiD and UT Megs and Galvy having merged articles, the two G1 characters should most definitely remain separated. But, see, I'm of the belief that RiD and UT Megatron don't even NEED to have separate articles outside of the main Megatron article. BW/BM Megs is a hugely important and memorable character who did so much that he's easily justifiale in getting his own article, but the other two just... aren't, so much. Generally speaking, I'm not keen on putting so many separate articles like that on the regular Wikipedia. And yeah, I know other series and characters have it, but it all strays terribly into that subjective region of fancruft. There IS a Transformers Wiki out there where single-character-specific articles would be *much* more at home - on Wikipedia itself, I'm behind the notion comprehensiveness in a singular article. Hence - four Galvatrons, one article. - Chris McFeely, 28th May

I agree we should keep the number of articles dwn, but in a different way. RiD Megatron and Galvatron is ONE character, so one article, not two. UT Megatron and Galvatron is ONE guy so, he should have one article. We should have one article per guy instead of devoting parts of an article to the guy depending on their name change. The UT one is especially stupid, because he changed his name back and forth 3 times - TO read about one guy you have to switch between articles back and forth with each name change user:Mathewignash

Looking at the RiD and UT Megs articles, they actually already HAVE the details of their careers as Galvatron included in them. And that's right, they should - they are the same characters, just repainted a bit (where the G1 blokes were two independant individuals). No changes actually need to be made to their articles as they stand now to incorporate the information in this article - you don't need to flip back and forth between the articles. The only alteration that would be made is to this page, and that's just taking something away from it. I don't think there's anything wrong with this page singling out their time as Galvatron, it being the Galvatron article - the subsections have links to their main articles, so readers can get all the details if they want them with a single click. The way I see it, if they want to learn specifically about the characters' time as Galvatrons, then they come to the "Galvatron" article - that way, they don't have to search through a larger article. But if they want to learn about their full stories, as Megatron, then they go to that larger article, to the "Megatron" articles. I just really want to see this page remain the one, singular comprehensive Galvatron article - as it is unlikely to undergo any real change for the time being, I see no harm in leaving it as is. - Chris McFeely

Well, when you put it like that... SMegatron 09:44, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Grand Galvatron

Heh, just saw the edit where someone thought this image was an animation error - sadly, no, it's not, it's what Galvatron actually intends to turn himself into by merging his body with Earth. - Chris McFeely 5th June, 2006

IDW

I added in the details of The Spotlights issue on Nightbeat, which according to the interview listed featured Galvatron recently. But on closer inspection, as he is never named or even seen in full, should it really say its him for sure? I was thinking of rving the section to an earlier version, but I'd appreciate the feedback.SMegatron 11:46, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

editsemiprotected request

Please dab thus: change Nexus Prime to [[Original thirteen Transformers#Nexus Prime|Nexus Prime]]. Thanks. 86.147.202.170 (talk) 17:01, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Done --Jnorton7558 (talk) 17:30, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

{{editsemiprotected}} There is a problem with the above edit - the new link has an extra preceding [ which needs to be removed. Thanks. 86.147.202.170 (talk) 17:36, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

My bad I know I shouldn't copy paste without checking sometimes. --Jnorton7558 (talk) 17:45, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. 86.147.202.170 (talk) 18:04, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: procedurally closed as being in the wrong forum. A merge request has been opened below. (non-admin closure) Jenks24 (talk) 01:24, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

---

Galvatron → Megatron – user:71.162.105.77 01:54, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

• Speedy close this is a merge request, not a move request, as can be evidenced by the edit log, where 71.162.105.77 (talk · contribs) clearly says "mergeto Megatron". So this should be closed an optionally relisted at WP:PM as the wrong forum. Futher the destination contains an article, so you can't move this page anyways, without deleting the other article. 65.94.77.11 (talk) 08:14, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Edit request

{{editsemiprotected}}

Don't the RID, UT, and SG Megatron/Galvatrons belong at Megatron because that's who they are?

 Not done Provide a specific request CTJF83 21:40, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from , 2 November 2011

wanna add other pics of megatron

206.53.70.98 (talk) 18:15, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Not done: Please be more specific about the changes you would like to be made, but also see our [on when non-free images] shouldn't be used. If you still feel the images should be included, feel free to make another request. Thanks, Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....} 05:19, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Edit request

If you could make an edit for me, could you please bring back the toy section for the Unicron Trilogy Megatron/Galvatron? It seems someone has removed it as Vandalism. Thanks.

Not done: I do not see what section in the history you are talking about. --Jnorton7558 (talk) 18:19, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Edit request

This request continues the previous one answered by Jnorton7558.

See: this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.162.105.125 (talk) 18:27, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

In addition, could you also bring back the lead section? It's also missing.71.162.105.125 (talk) 18:33, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

 Not done The whole section is unreferenced. Keep in mind that every fact has to be verifiable by the reader through references. For the lead-section: there is one in this article. So please be more precise in what should be done (like: change X to Y; history link and additional refs at: link). mabdul 13:11, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Merging Most of This Article Into Megatron

In most continuities, Galvatron is a reborn Megatron, so why not merge the two pages.

173.57.37.132 (talk) 21:49, 26 April 2012 (UTC)Anonymous173.57.37.132 (talk) 21:49, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

I honestly don't know why this article hasn't been merged already. Most versions of Galvatron are clearly reborn versions of that universe's Megatron. That sentence may be disputed, but another thing other than merging we need to work on is cleaning up this article and summarizing up toy sections. There is a lot of crap in this article that does not need to be there. Before we think about merging anything, someone needs to seriously clean up this article.71.162.100.101 (talk) 19:43, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

We should start by removing the seriously unneeded "Controversey over identity".71.162.100.101 (talk) 19:47, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Edit Request

I don't know about G1 Galvatron, but the RID, UT, and SG Galvatrons are Megatron. Can you please move them back to that article where they belong?

Remember to sign your comment (~~ ~~(without the space)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Mdann52 (talk) 17:15, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Unicorn/Unicron

New here on Wiki. Signed up just for this; but, the article is locked.

There are at least two references to "Unicorn" that ought to be corrected to "Unicron"

Unicorn/Unicron

New here on Wiki. Signed up just for this; but, the article is locked.

There are at least two references to "Unicorn" that ought to be corrected to "Unicron" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tko78 (talk • contribs) 04:33, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 June 2014

Either rewrite or remove AOE Galvatron's entry about Autobot Stronghold, as it is stolen directly from TFWiki, and as a result, it retains the same informal tone as used on that site, i.e. pointing out how horrifying it is that the Autobots "use the souls of the dead". Also, in the sentence mentioning his inclusion in Rise of the Dark Spark it should be "Galvatron is confirmed to appear[...]", not "Galvatron has confurmed to appear[...]" Finally, under G1 Galvatron's bio, Unicron has been misspelled twice as "Unicorn"; this will need to be fixed. 136.181.195.25 (talk) 12:54, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. TFWiki uses Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported and therefor content cannot be "stolen". Please propose your request for change in a please change "X" to "Y" format and someone would be happy to help you. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 14:14, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

I was very clear in what I was asking in all three cases, including using the "change X to Y" format. I specifically said "This typo in this section needs to be fixed, and these two misspellings in this section need to be corrected." And the issue with using TFWiki's text isn't that it's stealing; as I pointed out in my original request, it's that it doesn't fit the more professional tone of Wikipedia. Just look at the passage below:

"The Decepticons keep coming and coming in wave after wave. They're relentless! Fortunately, by taking the sparks of their fallen foes, the macabre Autobots can purchase LG technology to upgrade their offensive capabilities. They can also use the souls of the dead to buy duplicate versions of themselves to keep the Decepticon hordes occupied. It's kind of horrifying when you think too hard about it."

That is not the tone of writing Wikipedia promotes, at least according to WP:TONE. In my original request, I did suggest removing it, which again fits the "X to Y" format. In the future, please read these edit requests more carefully. -- 136.181.195.25 (talk) 15:26, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks to Coradon for fixing most of the problems. The only thing remaining is fixing the "Unicorn" misspellings. -- 136.181.195.25 (talk) 19:04, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Galvatron. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131202232701/http://www.monstersandcritics.com/books/comics/news/article_1343405.php/Creators_of_Transformers_Beast_Wars_The_Gathering_are_back to http://www.monstersandcritics.com/books/comics/news/article_1343405.php/Creators_of_Transformers_Beast_Wars_The_Gathering_are_back
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131105130657/http://www.tfw2005.com/transformers-news/transformers-movie-toys-products-30/hasbro-website-updates-part-2-the-age-of-extinction-is-nigh-listings-updated-178696/ to http://www.tfw2005.com/transformers-news/transformers-movie-toys-products-30/hasbro-website-updates-part-2-the-age-of-extinction-is-nigh-listings-updated-178696/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:42, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Actual article

Could someone make a genuine article about Galvatron himself? They are technically separate characters 78.16.100.115 (talk) 21:17, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

First we need to show he meets WP:GNG. Otherwise it would be WP:FANCRUFT. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:23, 30 August 2022 (UTC)