Talk:C joint

2011-07-13T22:15:46Z

70.62.26.165: /* DotM Voyager Megatron */ new section

I really think the list of toys should be alphabetical by actual name, and not the prefix. If you're looking for Rumble, you're gonna look under "R," not "D." --[[User:ItsWalky|ItsWalky]] 20:48, 22 January 2011 (EST)

== car robots wildride / rid x-brawn ==

the chrome grip bars on x-brawn's rail/missiles and blade/shield are fully compatible with the c-joint system, and unlike on perceptor, if they weren't chromed the bars would probably be too thin. additionally his giant thumbs-up hand can grab onto any bars with enough clearance, such as the truck-bed rails on nest brawn / fallback. the hulk rage implications alone make this entirely awesome. - seandehey@gmail {{unsigned|98.246.75.229|03:58, January 27, 2011 (EST)}}

== Sidearm Sideswipe ==

Since Detour asked, Sideswipe has spring/shock absorber looking bars on his legs that are the right size for C-joint connections. I'm not sure if they were designed with that in mind or not. Just throwing it out there for consideration. --[[User:Khajidha|Khajidha]] 11:01, 1 February 2011 (EST)
:This now raises the question: should apparently unintentional C joint bars (Brakedown's hands, Sideswipe's legs, Scattorshot's guns, much older toys...) be counted? --[[User:Detour|Detour]] 13:05, 4 February 2011 (EST)
::We've mentioned the unintentional Mini-Con ports on RID Ultra Magnus and Optimus Prime, albeit on their own pages. Maybe mention the unintentional C joint bars on the trivia section of older pages, and leave it at that. [[Special:Contributions/72.35.60.2|72.35.60.2]] 13:14, 4 February 2011 (EST)
:::That would pretty much be my choice as well, with the proviso that a short note be left on this page stating something to the effect of "some older toys have structures that can be used to connect C-joint weapons, have fun looking for them!" --[[User:Khajidha|Khajidha]] 13:17, 4 February 2011 (EST)

== Brakedown ==

I'll bite: Where's the bars on ROTF Brakedown, I can't find them.
:Bottom of his hands. Not sure if that should be explained on the page or how to do it. --[[User:Khajidha|Khajidha]] 14:58, 26 February 2011 (EST)
::Yeah, I think it may be, I was wondering where the hell they were, I came to the discussion to ask, but then read this. I think it should be noted on the page as it's pretty obscure/hard to find. --[[User:Karhukjnsi|Karhukjnsi]] 04:44, 5 March 2011 (EST)

Other older toys have workable bars including Universe Legends G2 Megatron & Warpath and Armada Hoist.

The GI Joe Rise of Cobra Steel Crusher APV has a couple of compatable bars conveniently placed on the top of the fold down windscreen shield. {{unsigned|Payres}}

The original Wheeljack also has a 3mm clip bar. [[Special:Contributions/96.247.85.33|96.247.85.33]] 07:36, 11 March 2011 (EST)

== Backwind ==

The Backwind mini-con has hook-hands that accomodate c-points just fine.[[User:Hida Atarasi|Hida Atarasi]] 14:30, 15 February 2011 (EST)

==Smokescreen==
Not sure where to list the Tokyo Toy Show [[Smokescreen (G2)|Smokescreen]], just what toyline is that part of anyway? --[[User:Khajidha|Khajidha]] 15:10, 26 February 2011 (EST)

== DotM Voyager Megatron ==

DotM Voyager Megatron has what appear to be intentional C joint mounts on the thin panels which end up on the sides of his cab in vehicle mode, and on his hips in robot mode. His smokestacks are compatible as well, which may or may not be intentional, but the thin side panels appear to be intentionally molded for it.

Talk:Popular Earth vehicle alternate modes

2011-05-18T15:12:23Z

70.62.26.165: /* Aircraft */

... You know, if it's going to be "popular" alternate modes, it should be a form that at least, you know, more than two people share. I say three seperate characters (if not three different MOLDS) is the bare minimum. [[User:Hooper X|-hx]] 03:13, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

: Me, I'd say five to six characters, with preferably a minimum of three or four different "molds" (since some of these bodies/characters may end up as fiction-only). Rampant redecoing is kinda cheating. --[[User:M Sipher|M Sipher]] 03:38, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

:: I think we also have to be kind of tough on what counts. For cars, it should be same make and model. For critters, though, I'm gonna have to go with same general species. "Scorpions" seems acceptable to me, but "birds" doesn't. You'd have to do something more like "falcons" or "eagles" for it to seem alright. I dunno why. Also, what do we do with Fuzors? I'm kind of loath to include the Sharkticons and Seacons and shit, but, say, Overbite's bio identifies him as a "shark," while Snapdragon's just calls him a "reptile." [[User:Hooper X|-hx]] 22:11, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

::: For invertebrates, I don't know HasTak have ever made multiple distinct species, so the way we count scorpions and crabs is fine. Spiders might be the exception there. The vertebrate section, however, is a MESS. We have a "wolves" section that excludes the domestic subspecies of Canis lupus, and then an entire order of mammals lumped together as "bats". Vertebrates should probably be broken down by species, although that makes a mess of bears. Breaking it down by genus, though, would lump together the lions, tigers, and jaguars... which is just wrong. -[[User:Rotty|Rotty]] 23:06, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

::::This just seems to be the way humans think about other animals--there's a strong pro-mammal bias. Every child can identify mammal species on sight ("wolf," "lion," "tiger," "gorilla"), but more distantly related animals are usually known only at the order or even subclass level ("parrot", "shark"). Their kind all look alike. --[[User:Thylacine 2000|Thylacine 2000]] 00:49, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

:::::Aaron Archer doesn't care about black-winged Macaws (or whatever). [[User:Hooper X|-hx]] 01:16, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

:::::Indeed Thy, I was thinking just that as I wrote it. It's what we're stuck with though, since HasTak really DID make the crabs and scorpions to all look alike. The ones we need to clean up are "bats" and "sharks"... -[[User:Rotty|Rotty]] 01:20, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

::::Also, aside from K-9, have there BEEN any other TF non-wolf-canines? That hyena guy, I guess. I think the other issue is that "lions" is gonna have twelve guys, tops. "Big cats" is more like 40 guys. If we're going to do this at ALL, we should err on the side of making it manageable, and if that means dividing mammals more than dividing invertebrates, then I'm all for it. (also, seriously, we need a "two headed monster" category.) [[User:Hooper X|-hx]] 01:30, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

:::::Hoop, hyenas are Feliforms. ''Canis'' is just wolves (including the domestic dog and dingo), the coyote, and jackals. :) -[[User:Rotty|Rotty]] 01:37, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

:I think this page is a useful reference whenever three or more characters from multiple molds share a vehicle mode. In the case of rampant redecoing, that mold's section on each character's toy page covers the body-sharing, so we should delete things like the Volkswagen Beetle. -[[User:Rotty|Rotty]] 03:40, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

::We are getting a section on Tigers, right? -[[User:Derik|Derik]] 03:44, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't mind seeing this article changed from "popular" to "shared," and have no numerical restrictions, just list all specific alt modes that more than one character uses. --[[User:KilMichaelMcC|KilMichaelMcC]] 03:58, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

: Then we're basically making the page utterly redundant and useless, since we're talking what, half the TF cast? 
: This is looking at the phenomenon of certain alternate mode models popping up more often than others, and across multiple unique toy molds. There are a LOT of unique Dassault Rafale jets in TFdom. A LOT of that Fizzle-style Baja Buggy. A LOT of those huge earth-mover dump-trucks. Two characters having the same altmode over almost 25 years doesn't quite impress, especially considering the sheer amount of redecoing of molds going on. --[[User:M Sipher|M Sipher]] 04:24, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

On an unrelated note, with the section on beast modes containing only lions, tigers, and bears, it's practically crying out for an "Oh My" header. Any Transformers that turn into beasts that are so utterly bizarre no one has any idea what they hell they are? - [[User:Dark T Zeratul|Dark T Zeratul]] 08:05, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

:Enough of them that are similar enough to each other to make up a listing on this page? Without checking, I'd say "probably not". --[[User:Sntint|Sntint]] 13:57, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

::The only "monster" types I could even remotely entertain doing an entry here for would be "two headed dragon" (Hun-Grarararrrrugh, Doublecross, etc.) and "bug monster" (Repugnus, Repugnus) [[User:Hooper X|-hx]] 21:31, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

==Requirements and cleanup==
I think it's time we took a serious look at this page. It's currently a damn sprawling mess. 
# First of all... let's decide on a "minimum requirements". I think the primary one should be "at least three unique 'molds' across as many different characters", (which would include instances like the IDW characters who have different model altmodes from their originals). 
# Next... what counts as "close enough"? Neither make of Ferrari goes over two molds, but the two makes are pretty damn close visually. 
# Let me propose this as an alternate method of listing to cut waaaaaay back on vertical space... it would need to be noted up top that these are grouped by mold, but still.

:* [[Side Burn (RID)|''RID'' Side Burn]] / [[Roulette (Universe)|''Universe'' Roulette]] / [[Shadow Striker (Universe)|''Universe'' Shadow Striker]]

:* ''RID'' Side Burn ([[Spy Changer]]) / [[Jazz (G1)#Universe|G1 Jazz (''Universe'')]]

:* [[Sideswipe (G1)#Alternators|G1 Sideswipe (''Alternators'')]] / [[Dead End (G1)#Alternators|Dead End (''Alternators'')]] / [[Sunstreaker (G1)#Alternators/Binaltech Asterisk|Sunstreaker (''Alternators'')]]

:* [[Hot Rod (G1)|Hot Rod]] (IDW comic, non-toy appearance)

Just kicking around stuff. --[[User:M Sipher|M Sipher]] 01:12, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

"Three molds" is definitely the right threshold. For the vehicles, your format looks good. None of the vehicular mold mates on this list are retooled to represent different models, so it works. Animal mold mates DO get turned into different species, though. -[[User:Rotty|Rotty]] 01:25, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

: I can get behind "three molds," most def. I would argue that with autos, it should be make and model, but not necessarily year. The Mustang gets in, because there are three Mustang TFs, even though one is a first-gen and the other two are fifth-gen. The Ferraris don't, I don't think, 'cause they're different models. [[User:Hooper X|-hx]] 01:32, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

:: I've only left the Ferraris in because you'd think that, like the Porsches and Lamborghinis, at least ''one'' of their supercars would have a mold threepeat in the 23-year history of the brand and it just wasn't coming to mind. -[[User:Rotty|Rotty]] 01:39, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Would Dromaeosauridae (raptors and Deinonychus) count? It's got a mold (''Beast Wars'' Dinobot) shared by three characters, another mold (Transmetal 2 Dinobot) shared by two characters, and a retool (Thrustor) for one character. [[User:Interrobang|Interrobang]] 03:21, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

:'''No'''. We should only include individual species of vertebrates. "Dromaeosauridae" is waaay out of line, and there are only two unique molds anyway. The list you're making in the Sandbox is really flawed, with a "Walrus" list consisting entirely of a Pretender shell being indicative of how problematic it is. -[[User:Rotty|Rotty]] 03:29, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
::That list only exists so I can keep track of how many Transformers fall under whatever classification. I'm not going to place it in here. Jesus, no. Regardless, the reason I put in "Dromaeosauridae" is because people can't seem to make up their mind on what exact species the two molds are. [[User:Interrobang|Interrobang]] 03:31, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

==On Beasts...==
Or, more accurately, Beast Wars. I gotta be honest. I'm... not really thinking that including BW is a good idea, and I'm even questioning "beast modes" altogether. I mean... "Bears" is not the same level of specific classification as "Dassault Rafales". Which was kind of the point of the article... "ain't there a lot of Dassault Rafales" is considerably more curious than "ain't there a lot of sorta t-rexes", given the wide variety of fighter jet makes. 
And even with the fudging made to avoid licensing on many a vehicle mode... it's nowhere as much fudging as the likes of the Cheetor mold, which has been used to be a cheetah, a tiger and a panther, three pretty damn different types of big cat. BM probably not either. Most of the organic beast modes are... really, really vague and bad representations of actual animals, as much so as the wholly-mechanical ones where Ravage being a jaguar is mostly a matter of "okay, if you say so". Damn guy could be a puma, cheetah, cougar... --[[User:M Sipher|M Sipher]] 03:42, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
:Yeeah. While I like the concept, it all needs too much hand-waving for my liking. We have to pack all spiders together to make a decent list, even though the species are as different as lions are to tigers. Arbitrary criteria isn't something we can do away with in animals. [[User:Interrobang|Interrobang]] 04:03, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
::I freely admit I added the beast section in the first place because I wanted to mock this article. That said, I think it's a legitimate section (albeit of an article I find silly.)
::...you should dump the fuzors though. -[[User:Derik|Derik]] 06:38, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

==Beast split==

I'm going to remove the beasts from this page and create one called "Popular beast modes" if there is no objection. The feeling seems to be that having lists for Gorilla, Canis, Tyrannosaurus, etc. is useful but can't be measured by the same standard as "Man, there sure are a lot of Lamborghini Diablos". -[[User:Rotty|Rotty]] 05:11, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

==Brawl is not an Abrams==

Well, no more than the Rattler is an A-10. He was a repurposed "stealth tank" from ''XXX: State of the Union''. -[[User:Rotty|Rotty]] 05:33, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

== Siren/RX-7 ==

Since two people seem to be against me on this I figured I'd post some photographic proof:
[http://i163.photobucket.com/albums/t285/Detour84/TF/go-rx7.jpg]

Note the lack of secondary headlights on the Supra that are clearly present on the RX-7, among other glaringly obvious differences. I hope that clears everything up. [[User:Detour|Detour]] 08:47, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I have to agree with Detour, being a mechanic. Siren/Go Shooter is much more like a FC3S 2nd Generation RX-7 then the Supra. I can see why people might think it's a Mark II or Mark III of Toyota's turn from Celica Supra to just plain Supra, but the FC3S has more of the little details that show that it's more like it. Also the rear lights on the Siren/Go Shooter toy have more of the curvature of a RX-7 FC3S Savanna.

:[http://tfu.info/1988/Cybertron/GoShooter/goshooter.htm Siren]
:[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Mk3_supra.jpg Supra]
:[http://auto.indiamart.com/cars/photo-gallery/gifs/car91b.jpg RX-7]

:Note Siren's (okay, Go Shuta's - Siren's hood emblem is more distracting) centerline hood bump, absent on any of the appropriate model-year RX-7s, as well as the prominent front fender. Also notice the lack of an air intake on the toy as seen on the FC3S. If you ask me, the problem here is that the animators have decided to draw some other car for the cartoon - much like they did with all the Combaticons.

:I find it highly unlikely that two white cars were both intended by Hasbro and Takara to be RX-7s in the same year. Getaway is inarguably an RX-7 Turbo II.

:I don't care enough about this page to try to decide how this affects Siren's listing on it. -[[User:LV|LV]] 14:55, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

:This isn't my area of expertise at all, but, if there is a seemingly legitimate uncertainty due to hybridized features or something, it is far better to explicitly note this in the article (regardless of where he's placed) than to just pick one or the other with no explanation. --[[User:Steve-o|Steve-o]] 17:34, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

The example you used in your photos is the FB3S, the first generation of the RX-7 line, not a good example. Also the FC3S came without the hood air intake also, just it's difficult to find a photo of one on short notice, the one pictured was the Savanna model, the more sporty version.

:It's like Proto said, not all models of the RX-7 came with a hood air intake. Here's one without: [http://www.pro-imports.ie/images/rx7001.jpg]. Steve-O, I don't think there's uncertainty since I pretty much recognized Siren as being an RX-7 right away. I'm a Supra worshipper... if Siren was a Supra, I'd have recognized it and I'd be the first one flipping out with joy over it and pointing it out on the respective articles.
:Also, what's wrong with having two distinct toys sharing an alt mode in the same year? 1984 gave us two different Lamborghini toys, didn't it? And in 1985 we got both Camshaft and the RX-7 Minispy.
::You have yet to address the blatant difference in the front fascia between the matching Siren and Supra and the RX-7, as well as centerline hood bulge, which still do not match using your new picture. Removal of the hood air intake does not make the lines of the front end or hood match. -[[User:LV|LV]] 01:18, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

== Big Trucks ==

Did someone forgot to put the Peterbilt 379 in this section? Optimus turns into a civilian vehicle.
:The word you're missing is "Popular." In other words, something more than one Transformer turns into. Please read! It's essential. --[[User:ItsWalky|ItsWalky]] 02:15, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

You and I know how many semi trucks are there in the G1 Series.([[User:76.195.186.73|76.195.186.73]] 00:26, 4 December 2007 (UTC))

==Space Shuttles==
There is already three space shuttles can you please put it down on the article? Astrotrain, Jetfire and Sky Lynx are the same American Space Shuttles.([[User:76.213.157.97|76.213.157.97]] 00:01, 12 December 2007 (UTC))
:Jetfire has never been an American space shuttle. His Armada form is ''similar'' but still quite Cybertronian. [[Blast Off (G1)|Blast Off]] however qualifies easily.--[[User:Rosicrucian|Rosicrucian]][[User Talk:Rosicrucian|Talk]] 00:05, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
::There's also Mach, the Micromaster Combiners shuttle, the Sixwing component, and Galaxy Shuttle. --[[User:FortMax|FortMax]] 02:00, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

== Military tanks ==

Since this only includes one particular tank, I don't think it needs its own sub-heading. I propose it and "Military aircraft" be combined into "Military vehicles", or "Military hardware". Any objections? --[[User:Sntint|Sntint]] 23:02, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
:Works for me. Military ground vehicles outside of the "traditional" tanks don't seem to be too common in TFdom, do they. --[[User:M Sipher|M Sipher]] 23:34, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

== Aircraft ==

Are you sure that many transformers turn into F-15s and F-22s?([[User:MARV 2000|MARV 2000]] 23:57, 10 March 2008 (UTC))

This page is missing the SR-71 Blackbird. Micromaster Vanquish and Fireshot, possibly Micromaster Whisper, Minicon Terradive, and ROTF Jetfire. (Gobots Snoop, too, but that's off-topic)

==Nissan Z==
With Classics Prowl well on his way, would the Z series be considered a popular altmode, given the 280Z (Prowl, Bluestreak, Smokescreen), the 300ZX (Streetwise) and the 350Z (Classics Prowl)? --[[User:74.57.3.251|74.57.3.251]] 21:57, 11 March 2008 (UTC) ([[User:Detour|Detour at work]])

== Aircraft Carriers ==
What about them? We have [[Flattop (Decepticon)|Flattop]], [[Broadside (G1)]] and [[Tidal Wave (Armada)]] and maybe some more which I'm not aware of. That's enough, or not? I'm not sure where to put them, "military vehicles" or "miscallenous". --[[User:2A6|2A6]] 22:41, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
:To be fair, Flattop's alt mode is a jet, he just comes with another jet that turns into an aircraft carrier. - [[User:Semysane|Semysane]] 01:01, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
::[[Majin Zarak]] qualifies, though.--[[User:Rosicrucian|Rosicrucian]][[User Talk:Rosicrucian|Talk]] 01:13, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
: I'm kind of loath to do "aircraft carrier" because that's kind of vague - if Recharge were here, he could probably clarify, but I'm pretty sure that "aircraft carrier" is like "racing motorcycle" - there are a lot of different designs out there, and some of them are probably fudged for TFs sake. If someone who knew what they were talking about (like 'Charge) could actually sit down and go "Tidal Wave, Broadside, and Flattop's carrier are all ''Nimitz''-class carriers or close enough," then go for it. Otherwise it's like saying that Groove, Glide, and RiD Axer all belong together because they're touring bikes. (note that I don't think this is gonna happen, because Tidal Wave's carrier is basically a marginally better depiction of an aircraft carrier than Grandus.) [[User:Hooper X|-hx]] 11:57, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
::I'm with Hoop on this. I mean, we do have one kinda-vague set, the Baja buggy... but at least that one has a fairly hefty group of dudes in that form (plus I don't know if there even IS a "brand" for them). If you're kinda struggling for three... --[[User:M Sipher|M Sipher]] 13:28, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
: I also had that thought about the necessity of specific types/classes of carriers when I wrote the initial post, but then again I thought that Aircraft carriers should be treated as a single group, mainly because the TF Aircraft carrier-designs are pretty generic and stylized and those differences and details which an expert would look for at real carriers are simply not present at those lil' toys. I mean, to make a car into an 4" toy, it only has to be downsized to a scale of 1:50 or so, to make a 4 inch toy out of an aircraft carrier means a scale of 1:"severalhundred". Thus a lot more details are ironed out. But it's your decision, not mine. --[[User:2A6|2A6]] 23:06, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
:: If I felt that the TF aircraft carriers were designed with even a REMOTE eye for accuracy, I'd be more willing to consider it, but as it stands, the TF carriers are all *very* crude approximations, even taking toy scale into issue - they're better at being aircraft carriers than say, Grandus or Majin Zarak, but they're all still basically "big flat thing with a little towery bit=aircraft carrier." [[User:Hooper X|-hx]] 01:11, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

== Dassault Rafaele ==

G2 Eagle Eye is listed here as a Rafaele, but his page calls him a EF2000 Eurofighter. Which is it? --[[User:Xaaron|Xaaron]] 17:24, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

== Construction Vehicles ==
For a project I'm working on, I'd like to be able to source the various construction vehicles. I think quite a few fulfil the rules above. One problem is the two sides of the Atlantic use different terms. On the east we use terms like cement mixers, diggers and er, other terms I haven't used since I was 6! [[User:Drmick|Drmick]] 10:55, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

== Motorcycles ==
Likewise for the same reasons above. Specific model types of motor-cycles (as is applied to cars) might be being a bit too strict. [[User:Drmick|Drmick]] 10:55, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

==VW Beetle==
Um... IDW Goldbug doesn't actually turn into a VW, does he? I thought he was a Cybertronian whatever. So we're still at only two for this one. --[[User:M Sipher|M Sipher]] 14:49, 9 August 2009 (EDT)
:IDW Goldbug doesn't turn into a VW, but surely the Goldbug toy that he's based on is still associated with the character. Besides ... Donald Duck, completely separate character, so whether or not you count Goldbug, we're at three. --[[User:Jimsorenson|Jimsorenson]] 15:38, 9 August 2009 (EDT)
::I don't know that I would consider the original Goldbug toy an IDW Goldbug. Especially since it was designed to be a renamed/rebuilt Bumblebee and ''was'' a renamed/rebuilt Bumblebee for over 20 years. Donald Duck is the only VW Beetle toy that was not first made and marketed as the Bumblebee character. Until we get a VW Beetle toy that is ''explicitly'' supposed to be IDW Goldbug, we shouldn't include him. --[[User:M Sipher|M Sipher]] 15:55, 9 August 2009 (EDT)
:::The requirement isn't that the toy is first made and marketed as a new character though, just that it exists. Characters like Volks and Bugbite and Glyph certainly count as a different mold/character use, even if they were Bumblebee first. As for repurposed toys, I think they're totally valid. You MIGHT hang an argument on the idea that the Goldbug toy doesn't match up with the IDW body depiction of the character, but that's a slippery slope. Animated Blackouts only ever appears as a Cybertronian jet, but you'd still associate his character with the Earth mode helicopter toy, no? Long story short, Beetles have many, many molds and many, many characters. This includes at least 3, possibly 4, unique character/mold designations. At this point, to not include him would be silly. --[[User:Jimsorenson|Jimsorenson]] 16:34, 9 August 2009 (EDT)
::::Well, the requirement is at least that an existing toy repurposed is officially stated to be that certain other character, I would think? The Animated Blackout toy is officially Blackout even if we never see him in fiction as the Earth helicopter. And folks like the Shattered Glass characters are officially shown/said to be certain toys. But we got zip that officially says or shows that IDW Goldbug = toy Goldbug. --[[User:Jeysie|Jeysie]] 16:46, 9 August 2009 (EDT)
:::::Really? Would you seriously put forth the proposition that the IDW Throttlebots are not based on the Throttlebot toys? The funny thing is, it doesn't even matter for this argument. With or without Goldbug, Beetles qualify. I therefor propose that we move this discussion over to the [[Goldbug (IDW)]] page where it belongs.--[[User:Jimsorenson|Jimsorenson]] 16:54, 9 August 2009 (EDT)
::::::I'd put forth that they're based on the Throttlebot ''characters'', obviously. Whether they're based on the toys is another matter entirely, considering that they don't even have Earth modes yet to judge from. --[[User:Jeysie|Jeysie]] 17:08, 9 August 2009 (EDT)
::::::No, Beetles would ''not'' qualify. Every VW Beetle mold that is not Donald Duck was first designed for and sold as the character of Bumblebee, even if one was Bumblebee with a different name. Redecos are not qualifications, new characters or not, otherwise this list would be way, way longer. And it is kind of pointless to go "look, a toy of the exact same character as another toy shares an altmode!", so "World's Smallest" toys are out too. --[[User:M Sipher|M Sipher]] 17:56, 9 August 2009 (EDT)
:::::::Siph, I love you but you're just flat out wrong on this. The qualifications listed on the page are: "There must be at least three unique toy molds (or in-fiction appearances, in the case of non-toy bodies/characters) that share the model. There must also be at least one unique character per mold." We never say anything about 'the first use of the mold has to be a different character than the first use of the other molds.' If you think that the requirement for inclusion should change, well, that's a completely separate argument. We've got three characters across three molds - let's say World's Smallest/Bumblebee, 1984 VW mold/Bug Bite, and the Disney Label / Donald Duck here. It doesn't matter that Bug Bite shares a mold with Bumblebee. If it did, then every time a later redeco comes out that homages an earlier character, we'd have to go and start removing popular alt modes, and that's lunacy.--[[User:Jimsorenson|Jimsorenson]] 18:13, 9 August 2009 (EDT)
::::::::Then the top is worded wrong. Look at the other lists as they are now. Not a one counts same-character-same-altmode-different-toys to get up to three, because "three different molds made for three different characters" is what we've been using as the yardstick. And I have no clue what you're on about for removing entries based on later homages. The point is ''the original toys' design intent''. That so many different toy molds were developed to be different characters yet kept going back to specific vehicle makes is the point of the article. It is ''not'' interesting when a single character has a bunch of different molds all based on a single alternate mode. That's ''expected''. Nor is it interesting when a mold is redecoed to be another character; that too is very very commonplace. We list each mold's redecos out of completeness/linking-to-more-obscure-stuff's sake, not as a yardstick (and we shouldn't list same-character redecos like "Red Bumblebee" because ''holy fuck'' would that make some listings, such as the G2 Go-Bots molds, stupidly long for no good reason). It is the creation of an entirely new mold based on a recurring vehicle that is a character who hasn't been one of those yet (be it because they didn't exist previously or had another alternate mode) that's the oddity. --[[User:M Sipher|M Sipher]] 18:30, 9 August 2009 (EDT)
:::::::::OK, the discussion becomes, what SHOULD the criteria for inclusion be, since apparently you're not happy with the way it's been listed out for the past, I dunno, year or so? I'm not sure I see how it's relevant what the designers intention is. I mean, technically, the 1984 Bumblebee toy wasn't intended to be Bumblebee, or even a real car, at all, right? It was intended to be a penny racer in the Microman line. So, then, you have one toy that was intended to be something not Bumblebee and repurposed and redecoed into a bunch of guys (including Bumblebee), then a few toys intended to be Bumblebee, then a toy intended to be Donald Duck. So we're STILL ok, even by the 'designer intention' criteria you proposed above. --[[User:Jimsorenson|Jimsorenson]] 18:54, 9 August 2009 (EDT)

== Buses? ==

What's the feeling on buses? The article for Ironhide (Animated) says he's a minibus (although Cybertronian, so that may not count). Additionally, the school bus at Murray Wright High School has a notation that says it's actually the FOURTH bus Transformer. Granted, I think all these buses have been different models (double-decker, metro, school, etc.) so they still might not be appropriate... [[User:Skyshock Thunderblast|Skyshock Thunderblast]] 12:22, 20 August 2009 (EDT)
:For this article, we'd pretty much need to know the specific models of the buses - we can't just put "Bus" on the list. -[[User:Mazenoise|Mazenoise]] 12:30, 20 August 2009 (EDT)
::Yeah, thought so. Most of the buses are all really small or really hidden, and even if I knew the models, they'd all be different. I should've thought of that. [[User:Skyshock Thunderblast|Skyshock Thunderblast]] 19:42, 20 August 2009 (EDT)

== F-35 Lightning II ==

There is already 4 transformers that turn into an F-35 Lightninh II and that's breakaway, sunstorm, armada thrust and rotf thrust([[User:Dr L|Dr L]] 13:22, 14 September 2009 (EDT))
:That's only two molds. --[[User:Detour|Detour]] 13:25, 14 September 2009 (EDT)

== Eurocopter Dauphin ==

[[Blazemaster|''Revenge of The Fallen'' Blaze Master]] is listed here as a Dauphin, but his own page says he is a [[wikipedia:Bell 412|Bell 412]]. He certainly looks more like the Bell to me. If we remove him from the Dauphin listing, the whole section must go away. Just looking for agreement before proceeding. [[User:Khajidha|Khajidha]] 13:21, 16 November 2009 (EST)
:Removed section due to lack of response to above notice. [[User:Khajidha|Khajidha]] 17:52, 21 November 2009 (EST)

== H-Tank ==

I know this page isn't the right place as they're not Earth vehicles and would need to be a specific model anyway, but given the TF-unique nature of the H-tank, should we have something listing all of them? Apologies if there already is such a list (or a discussion of this elsewhere), but I couldn't find one. [[User:J'mie|J'mie]] 16:50, 23 February 2010 (EST)

Anyone want to weigh in on this H-tank thing?[[User:Skyshock Thunderblast|Skyshock Thunderblast]] 20:21, 2 February 2011 (EST)

:Given the original comment was made a year ago, I guess the answer is "No". It wouldn't belong in this article at any rate, as it's not an Earth mode. --[[User:Abates|abates]] 20:56, 2 February 2011 (EST)

== Wikipedia links ==

Would anyone object to adding links to the Wikipedia articles for the real-world vehicles? --[[User:Khajidha|Khajidha]] 12:26, 31 December 2010 (EST)

MediaWiki - User contributions [en]

Talk:C joint

Talk:Popular Earth vehicle alternate modes