9,887
edits
Talk:Proton: Difference between revisions
m
→Whether or not Proton and Petrel existed
(→Whether or not Proton and Petrel existed: Canon matters. Who knows or cares what could GF be thinking eleven years ago?) |
|||
| Line 34: | Line 34: | ||
:I think it's obvious that the Executives originally weren't called Proton and Petrel or designed originally to be like them, but it's probably simpler to leave things as they are, and list the Executives on Proton and Petrel's pages, and just assume that Game Freak meant for Pro. and Petrel to directly take those original Executive's places. [[User:Takoto|<span style="color:#2E0854"> - <b>Takoto</b></span>]] 23:02, 4 April 2010 (UTC) | :I think it's obvious that the Executives originally weren't called Proton and Petrel or designed originally to be like them, but it's probably simpler to leave things as they are, and list the Executives on Proton and Petrel's pages, and just assume that Game Freak meant for Pro. and Petrel to directly take those original Executive's places. [[User:Takoto|<span style="color:#2E0854"> - <b>Takoto</b></span>]] 23:02, 4 April 2010 (UTC) | ||
::Exactly. Game Freak meant for Proton and Petrel to be those two Executives. BUT, the article words it as though they have ''always'' been Proton and Petrel, and I see that as more of a misconception, since they obviously weren't. [[User:Teamrocketspy621|Teamrocketspy621]] 18:02, 5 April 2010 (UTC) | ::Exactly. Game Freak meant for Proton and Petrel to be those two Executives. BUT, the article words it as though they have ''always'' been Proton and Petrel, and I see that as more of a misconception, since they obviously weren't. [[User:Teamrocketspy621|Teamrocketspy621]] 18:02, 5 April 2010 (UTC) | ||
:::Names | :::Names aren't everything. They're meant to be the same Executives. Why wouldn't they? Their existence doesn't retcon anything or even contradict with GSC, so why wouldn't we call them same characters? Sure, when they were creating GSC they had no idea that they'd give those generic Executives new designs and names. But why should we delete that just because they didn't intend it from the start? There were many things that weren't intended from the start. TMs weren't always intended to be CDs. GSC male wasn't always intended to be Ethan. But now they are. The only thing we should care is canon. Canonically, they're the same characters. Dismissing the canon facts because of some assumption "what Game Freak could be thinking eleven years ago" is idiotic. All that matters is what there IS, not what COULD BE. --[[User:Maxim|Maxim]] 18:30, 5 April 2010 (UTC) | ||