MediaWiki - User contributions [en]

Talk:Generation 2 Defensor and Menasor

2012-01-12T17:44:12Z

CrowBuster:

This seems kind of redundant since you can link to [[Defensor (G1)#Toys]] pretty easily. --[[User:ItsWalky|ItsWalky]] 03:07, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
:Awwww man, that's about the real toys that actually exist, not the fictional ones! (But yeah, I kinda figured that'd be pointed out. I suppose this article isn't strictly necessary.) --[[User:KilMichaelMcC|KilMichaelMcC]] 03:16, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
::In the interest of preserving the silliness, I suggest that the Toy section on Menasor and Defensor's pages have a Fiction section. --[[User:ItsWalky|ItsWalky]] 03:18, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
:::Seconded --[[User:FortMax|FortMax]] 15:48, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm way too tired to make all the neccessary changes/additions now... but shouldn't we now have Defensor and Menasor disambig pages, since there's at least three of each now? --[[User:M Sipher|M Sipher]] 07:22, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
I envy anyone with one of those Stunticon or Protectobot limbs.[[User:CrowBuster|CrowBuster]] 12:44, 12 January 2012 (EST)[[User:CrowBuster|CrowBuster]]

Talk:Thirteen

2012-01-11T22:21:11Z

CrowBuster:

{{Note|At the Botcon 2009 Question panel, [[Forest Lee]] (Hasbro's internal TF continuity guy) when asked what The Fallen would be like in "Shattered Glass" finally stated explicitly that The Fallen '''was''' a multiversal singularity-- there is no "SG" Fallen.. there is only The Fallen, one guy. -[[User:Derik|Derik]] 17:14, 3 June 2009 (EDT) reported by Walky}}

==Multiversal singularities==
Are the first 13 all "continuity singularities" as Primus and Unicron are? One version existing across all realities? Vector Prime definately seems to be, and Maccadam as well if you include "Prime Spark" as cannon. Thoughts? [[User:ZacWilliam|ZacWilliam]] 11:51, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

How can Unicron jump continuities wih all his different HISTORIES? he spent MILLIONS OF YEARS as Cybertrons' MOON fergods sake!

The whole singularities thing is a godawful mess. You have to start acceptign that Unicron, who DEMONSTRABLY spends tens or tens of MILLIONs of years in individual continuities is time-travelign as WELL as jumping continuities. Which is fine, but for some reason in the Armada comic he doesn't, and no one's ever even HEARD of Unicron before, he's a completely external threat with no history in this universe.

But then, I think brad Mick intended Thundercracker to be one of the 13, so what do I know? It's not like I have a decent track record at pattern recognition or anything... ''*cough*predaconpolitics*cough*''

Also, IS Primus a singularity across all continuities? I could have sworn we saw him DIE. ''I hate the sucky TFU-type Multiverse! it sucks, it sucks '''so hard''' Gregory!'' -[[User:Derik|Derik]]

...why is it impossible that no one's ever heard of Unicron in the Armada universe until he shows up? It makes perfect sense to me. Hell, the only person who's ever even investigated or shown more than a little interest Cybertron's past in the Armadaverse is Overrun, and he was from another universe anyway. If there's only one Unicron and infinite universes, of COURSE he's going to be new to some of them! Derik, start making sense. --[[User:ItsWalky|ItsWalky]] 13:27, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

but if he's new to SOMe of them, how is he ancient in MANY of them? :~( does he exist simultaneously in the past of many universes? The marvel US Comic and Aramda toon BOTh, for instance, have Unicron at different locations in space in the year 2020. Is he time-traveling?

I guess mostly i just bitch because I think it sucks. -[[User:Derik|Derik]]

I took it as a given that he time-travels when he moves between dimensions. This isn't really that hard to figure out, man. --[[User:ItsWalky|ItsWalky]] 13:48, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Say, do we know enough about how the TF multiverse works to say for sure that when it's 1977 in one universe it's 1977 in them all?
--[[User:KilMichaelMcC|KilMichaelMcC]]

The Ultimate Guide refers to the non-Fallen original Cybertronic Transformers as "Prima and the Twelve", which, while not clear, implies to me that Prima is in addition to the twelve. Also, I see no reason to casually discount Primon's existence or Matrix-holding simply because we know Prima was the first Transformer on Cybertron - we know there were Transformers before Cybertron because the Covenant of Primus predate its creation. Primon could have held the Matrix before Prima ever existed.

Maccaddam being anything other than a bar-owner was a goddamn joke, and Legends explicitly de-continuities itself so its stories can't be used to support arguments. Prime Spark was a WARendfeld story anyway.

''(next part of argument contains minor spoilers for the club comic''

And I don't understand the concern about Unicron at all. He's not one guy who travels between all continuities, he's a single entity that exists in all continuities (or none, presently) simultaneously. That's why the Unicron the TFU away team flew to was in the depths of our space in Year-The-End-Of-BM-Plus-One but vanished when the Unicron in Energon was destroyed. Simply because he was a dormant moon in the Armadaverse in 1991 has no bearing on his activities in 1991 in the G1 comic (eating Cybertron) or the G1 cartoon (cruising around the universe to a groovy synth soundtrack). The same is clearly true of Primus - otherwise, you have to assume he's been physically dimension-hopping-and-time-travelling around the multiverse as well, which is not the case because otherwise there would only be a Cybertron in one universe at any given time. The club comic's discussion of Cybertron-as-hinge-point supports my view, I think.

Vector Prime is unlike Unicron and Primus in that he is a single entity existing in a single continuity at any given time, no different from Axer. It's possible that one of the Twelve in every continuity is a Vector Prime analogue, but in my opinion we don't have nearly enough evidence to say one way or another. -[[User:LV|LV]] 15:26, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

I disagree strongly, LV. Though Unicron has the ability to move between dimensions at will, he is confined to one universe at a time. According to the Club comic itself, Primus is "a single, infinite curvea cross all realities; the only truly unique thing in all of creation." Unicron is "bound always by his imprisonment in a physical body, he's been incapable of destroying mroe than one reality at a time." Thing is, being dead in the black hole *changed* this dynamic. The Unicron singularity is what has, for the first time, consolidated the Unicron of allwhens into one black hole which is beginning to perpetuate itself across every timeline. This is why Cybertron's Unicron is beginning to affect Universe's Unicron. This occurrence is a new situation, unique to this storyline. It can't be used as evidence to support Unicron's properties in normal circumstances. --[[User:ItsWalky|ItsWalky]] 16:21, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Then I agree with Derik. If Unicron only exists one place at one time, it is essentially irreconcilable with what has been shown in the fiction. If Unicron can happily time-travel when he changes dimensions, then there is nothing preventing him from existing in all dimensions simultaneously. He simply travels to the beginning of each when he leaves the previous one, thus existing linearly from his own perspective but simultaneously across all universes from every single other being's. You cannot have a time-and-space-travelling Unicron and a Unicron that can only be in one dimension at a time from any perspective but his own. In other words, as was said already, we can definitely place Unicron in at least two continuities in 1991, since he was actively eating Cybertron and orbiting Cybertron. If canon says otherwise, then it's canon, but it is fundamentally illogical and unworkable. And yes yes, transforming aliens from a planet the size of Saturn made of metal blah blah blah, but there is "unrealistic premise" and there is "an explanation which in no ways accounts for any of the material it purports to explain". But oh well. -[[User:LV|LV]] 16:32, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

But they were two different 1991s, man, in different timelines. He's not in 1991 twice at the same time, he's in two distinct 1991s at different times. Hell, as Kil said above, we don't even know that when it's 1977 in one universe, it's 1977 in them all. Hell, when it's 2030AD in the Unicron Trilogy, it's been demonstrated that it's apparently ~2350AD in Generation 1! I do not see it as irreconcileable. --[[User:ItsWalky|ItsWalky]] 16:47, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

This is the sort of thing which is better illustrated with a picture, but Unicron CANNOT time-travel when changing dimensions without allowing the possibility of existing in multiple continuities simultaneously. That is just the way it is with multiple simultaneously-existing timelines. If you do not want them to be the same year, that is fine. Unicron can nonetheless exist in 2030AD in UT and 2350AD in G1 simultaneously if he can time-travel.

It is not an issue for debate; the canon says what it says. However, the canonical explanation is irrational. -[[User:LV|LV]] 16:50, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Wow. Here I was thinking no one would respond to this while I was at work and I come back to "this." Let's put this in talking points:

1) Primus is one single pan-dimensional being existing simultaniously in all continuities. We're all agreed on that right? We can like it or dislike it, but at the moment that's what cannon says.

2)Unicron has only ever existed in one continuity at a time (until Cybertron). Fine. Let's look at that. It *IS* odd that the brothers would be different this way without explination and that if he could jump through time and dimensions completely at will he wouldn't always jump to the begining of each one, and so, yes, to all perspectives but his own exist everywhen at once. There are two possible solutions to that part of the issue: either A) He can't travel through time in an unlimited fasion but only make small jumps time-wise or with great difficulty, or B) He cannot travel in time at all, not even when he jumps universes, but as Walky suggested, time is not in the same reletive place across universe. ie - When it's 1985 in the cartoon maybe it's only 1945 in the IDW books. If he jumped between them he would seem to travel intime but would not actually do so. Do those work, at least as a plausible enough to forget the iffyness solutions?

3)Why dismiss Maccadam as a joke? The entry in the DK guide seemed perfectly serious to me. Did it leave question as to whether it was true or a rummor? Sure. But I don't see anything that leans the suggestion one way or another. I rather like the idea myself. Legends, does put itself purposefully out of continuity, true, BUT when you're dealing with a multiverse can you totally do that? I mean if there are infinite universes the ones from Legends must be included in their somewhere right?

4)Getting back to my original question: Is the concensus that there are multiple Vector Prime's across continuities? It just seems that if his job is to safeguard space time that'd make things awefully complicated with ALL of him jumping around and constantly running into each other. Would one single Primus make an infinitude of reality jumping Vector Primes? And if he did, why doesn't an infinite army of VPs show up at each trouble spot to deal with the problem and wipe out and Unicron/Decepticon problems while they're at it? So far we've only seen ONE Vector Prime at work across the whole spectrum of past TF universe. We're sure he's not a singularity?

[[User:ZacWilliam|ZacWilliam]] 22:15, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

I can no longer make conclusions about Vector Prime based on the ludicrous canonical explanation for Unicron, so I abstain from commenting on him. However, I maintain that the reference in the UG to Maccaddam is clearly a joke - they're talking about a bar, and they immediately say that this absurd claim that the barkeeper is a legendary ancient Transformer with the observation that they serve extremely strong drinks. It's a joke about being drunk. Entirely in-character for Furman. -[[User:LV|LV]] 00:29, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

See I just don't read the Maccadam entry that way at all. It reads serious to me. The final line is meant to put a bit of humorus doubt on the rest, but only a bit of doubt/mystery IMO. Maccadam's has always been a bit of a special place and a pet local of Furman's and I can totally see him quite seriously setting it up to be used this way. I guess we'll just have to agree to differ in our takes on it. The important thing for the Wikki is that Maccadam remains a rumored, but not confirmed, member of the 13. [[User:ZacWilliam|ZacWilliam]] 01:33, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

I had another thought, the better to muddy the waters. With Unicron and Primus having god or near-god status, could their being the same, er, being doesn't necessarily mean they're actually bouncing back and forth between dimensions and times all the time? Could they be 'aspects' or 'splinters' of the same being?
(Way to be obscure: There's a ''Doctor Who'' story called ''The City of Death'' which has a neat example, but moving on...)
This could be what makes them so hard to finally kill, if they've got the entirety of their 'selves' spread out across multiple realities at a time. This also means it's not hard for Unicron to attack in the Marvel reality in 1991, the Dreamwave UT reality in 2003, the Movie reality in 2005, and so on. He doesn't (always) travel between dimensions, he just already exists that way.
Hmmm...OK, maybe that made sense.
[[User:Ratbat|Ratbat]] 05:41, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

:If Macadam as a member of the 13 was a joke, why did the pictue of Macadam's bad show characters from multiple continuities?

:Everyone sseems really comfortable saying "There's only one Primus, just liek Unicron." I admit I've msised some material lately- vould someone please tell me '''where''' this was established? Because-- we've kinda seen Primus die.

::and Unicron. But it's a fair point. For all their apparent similarities, Primus and Unicron represent fundamentally different things, so it's not unreasonable to assume that some aspects of them differ wildly. If Unicron represents chaos, then his random appearances and contradictory histories suddenly make quite a bit more sense to me. He's not MEANT to obey the normal rules. It's against his very nature.

:Unicron time-traveling I dont' really gundamentally have a hard time accepting. We saw in Worlds Collide (?) that the untuned Transwarp Space Bridge portals were flittign across space AND time, showing pictures of the distant past (BW) and buture (BW Neo/BM) as well as plainly laternate worlds (RiD.) So it's '''possible''' that Whisper's world Unicron was coming from int he very deep and distant future, and he decided that the Armada-toonverse was weak and ignorant enough he could just show up in the present and demolish it, and didn't need to lay deep plans to do so.

:But- where the hell did dreamwave!Armada's Mini-cons come from then if not Unicron?

:Has Unicron even marauded across 'infinite' realities? In Worlds Collide they call it his ''Ninth Emergence.'' That's not infinite realities. That's '''nine''' realities. And so what was up with Primus saying Unicron ate the previous Universe in us!Marvel#74? Was he just '''lying''' for no reason?

:My main complaint witht he Multiversal Unicron we were presented with si that it '''doesn't make sense''', not that they didnt' explain it all, it's that '''no''' possible explanation seems to explain it all. And not tiny inconstencies- massive, glaring fundamentally unworkable inconsistencies. Inconsistencies even in the material generated that's suppsoed to explain how this all works!

:Kang's explanation form Marvel comics, with time-travel and th war to pin down his various aspects works. Except- we'rs '''explicitly told''' that no, that's '''not''' the case. So... bah. -[[User:Derik|Derik]] 09:19, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Primus and Unicron exist across multiple continuities, because they are Gods, and represent chaos and order. However, they CAN be removed from a given continuty, and still continue to exist in others.

Vector Prime exists across all continuities and times, because it's in his job description. (Even though he technically died, his "younger self" is still in the timestream, capable of visiting anywhere and anywhen.)

We know Unicron can manipulate time (Like when he yanked Galvatron II from a future timeline to use as his minion in the present) so it makes sense that he can travel through time. The only incongruity with this is if he is indeed a single entity hopping through timelines, then why would the Unicron singularity mess with him while he was in the Universe.. err.. Universe. It either wouldn't have happened to him yet, or would have been in his past; either way he wouldn't have gotten sucked into it from a different universe unless he either was a multiple Universe entity like Primus, or the singularity is something that winds up being both in his past and his future an infinite ammount of times.--[[User:UndeadScottsman|UndeadScottsman]] 07:16, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

------------------------------------
Wasn't The Last Autobot called such, because he was the last Autobot made by Primus? Shouldn't he have been one of the 13?

Or am I totally off base here? Again.--[[User:OctopusPrime|Octopus Prime- King of the Road!]] 22:41, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Without more information, it's impossible to say. As far as I can tell, he's unique to the G1 comic continuity. Though he otherwise bears a number of striking resemblences to Vector Prime. In any case, this debate is probably better suited for [[Talk:Last_Autobot]].

T^he last Autobot was a name given to him by those who came later, not Primus. He's also known as The Ultimate Warrior and The Soulof Cybertron. He is convieniently refered to as TLA by fans because 1) his true name was never revealed 2) That was the tittle of one of the issues of the Marvel comic, giving the most 'weight' to that name of his 3. -[[User:Derik|Derik]] 15:29, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
:(Part of comment deleted. I misread your statement. Sorry.) TLA is actually referred to as such by Optimus Prime on several occasions. It was in fact the title of issue #79 (something to keep in mind for disambiguation!), and Spike Witwicky also refers to himself as "TLA" in that issue. But at the same time, I'd say it's reasonably obvious that "TLA" is not the name Primus gave him.--[[User:G.B. Blackrock|G.B. Blackrock]] 16:24, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
------------------------------------
As well as being mentioned in a Japanese timeline, Alpha Trion actually specically states that he is "a first generation product of Vector Sigma" in the TV show. Can't be sure of the episode offhand, but is very probably The Key To Vector Sigma.

I think that this may rule him out of being one of the Thirteen. -[[User:TheTurnipKing|TTK]]

:Really? I would have thought it made Alpha Trion an especially good candidate. I guess it comes down to what one considers Vector Sigma to be.... (By the way, please use signatures!)--[[User:G.B. Blackrock|G.B. Blackrock]] 16:20, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

:::Every flashback to the birth of the 13 shows them arising full-born from the ground. No Vector Sigma involved. Trion may be among the first of the first 'production generation' that came after that. (This, of course, holds up only until they retcon it, but ancient as Trion always seemed ot me- it was never 'ancient enough to be one of the 13.') -[[User:Derik|Derik]] 18:29, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

::::Certainly a plausible interpretation. But I wouldn't consider the matter closed one way or the other.--[[User:G.B. Blackrock|G.B. Blackrock]] 18:32, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

:::::I can't remember where I read it, but I'm sure the thirteen were supposed to have been created BEFORE Primus became Cybetron. Vector Sigma apparently also pre-dated Cybertron, but I figure Vector Sigma wasn't pressed into service creating Transformers immediately. Infact, probably not 'till the Quintessons came along and installed the shell program that became the Oracle. But as you say, this period of Transformers pre-history is notoriously sketchy. I'll certainly be interested to see if they ever fill in the gaps. -[[User:TheTurnipKing|TTK]]

::::::The only pre-Cybertron Transformers I know of are from the text story [[Reaching the Omega Point]]. Before Primus trapped himself and Unicron in the planetoids, he had to be sure that the trick wour work, and that he would be able to shape his prison. So he shunted a bit of his essence into some lifeless rock and created the [[Covenant]], 12 Transformers based on our Earth zodiac. --[[User:Crockalley|Crockalley]] 12:32, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

:::::::Implicitly, [[Primon]] must also have been created before Cybertron, since we know he predates Prima as Matrix-holder and we know Prima was the first Transformer created on Cybertron. (Which may actually also imply that the Liege Maximo predates Cybertron... -[[User:LV|LV]] 16:02, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

:::::::: Doesn't the Leige Maximo say though that when the first named Prime "rose from Cybertron" or something like that that he did too. That definately implies They were created there. Primon I think is simply an annomoly, a glitch in Furman's telling of the story that will likely never be followed up on.
::::::::: [[:Image:Liegemaximo.jpg|Here's the text]]. Considering we don't know when the "first named Prime" was created, that's a meaningless statement, so it's not helpful to us. --[[User:ItsWalky|ItsWalky]] 03:49, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Shouldn't this page be at "Thirteen original Transformers"? It would certainly make the bold part at the beginning look better. -[[User:LV|LV]] 06:44, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
: Done. --[[User:ItsWalky|ItsWalky]] 06:47, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

=="Original"?==
Are these guys REALLY the first TFs? My reading of the stories puts the Covenant before them, since the whole idea of the Covenant being a test-run makes any functional predecessors nonsensical. I suppose the argument could be made that The 13 are fundamentally different beings from the rest of Transformerdom - maybe even easier for Primus to create - and a test was still necessary to determine if he could make creatures that were fully mired in space-time. (Though the Covenant was still AWARE of multi-dimensional events, and in fact seemed to serve much the same purpose as The 13...)

But even that aside, there's still the practical notion that The 13 were created ''for'' Cybertron, and Cybertron didn't exist yet when the Covenant was created. So, that having been said, what's the evidence that The 13 are actually "original"?

- [[User:Jackpot|Jackpot]] 15:44, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
:Basically: they aren't. If you include the Covenant, the Thirteen aren't the "original" Transformers at all, since they are necessarily predated by the Covenant for all the reasons you cite, as well as, inferentially, Primon and the Liege Maximo. Functionally, they are referred to as the "original thirteen" or "first thirteen" regardless of this, probably because not even Furman thinks about the Covenant when writing TF backstory. I think for logistical purposes it remains a useful name for them on this wiki - without it, they basically don't have any meaningful group name, and that's inconvenient - but I do think there should be some kind of indication in this article that some Transformers are more original than these fellows. -[[User:LV|LV]] 19:18, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

== The Ancients ==

I'm not sure where to place it, so I put it here as, um, sorta reference. :) --[[User:TX55|TX55]] 08:24, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
:In the original Japanese dub of "Galaxy Force", [[Vector Prime]] is depicted as one of "The Ancients".

:According to the background settings of ''Galaxy Force'' anime, "The Ancients" is the earliest Transformers in the world/continuity of "Galaxy Force" (not "Cyertron").

:Though "The Thirteen" is mentioned by [http://www.takaratomy.co.jp/products/TF/bible/index.html The World of Transformers], the site doesn't confirm that "The Thirteen = The Ancients" by far. What the site only mentioned is that there are two theories of the origin of Transformer race.

:So, by far, The Ancients is not the same group as The Thirteens, unless someday comes up an official information stating they are the same.
::Agreed. So shouldn't someone take the Logos Prime person off? --[[User:Boba Fett|Boba Fett]] 17:26, 17 May 2009 (EDT)

== Logos Prime ==

He's in both the confirmed and possible lists. Which is it? --[[User:Abates|abates]] 21:08, 27 May 2009 (EDT)
:Magnus Maximus moved it to possible, Walky added to confirmed but didn't remove the possible, MM removed the duplicate in "confirmed", Walky blocked MM over it and readded it to "confirmed" while still leaving it in "possible". - [[User:SanityOrMadness|SanityOrMadness]] 21:12, 27 May 2009 (EDT)
:: Argh, there's MORE stuff to change back? Is this the same dude we were reverting before? Some dude out there has a really serious hate-on for this Logos Prime thing. --[[User:ItsWalky|ItsWalky]] 21:13, 27 May 2009 (EDT)
:::Uhm... I don't think content was deleted here, just the "confirmed" status of Logos Prime questioned.--[[User:Rosicrucian|Rosicrucian]][[User Talk:Rosicrucian|Talk]] 21:14, 27 May 2009 (EDT)
::::What's left to confirm? The evidence is stacked up. Logos Prime would have to be the red herring of red herrings to not be what this wiki says, and that's kind of ridiculous. --[[User:ItsWalky|ItsWalky]] 21:17, 27 May 2009 (EDT)
:::::Derik, what the hell. --[[User:ItsWalky|ItsWalky]] 22:43, 27 May 2009 (EDT)
::::::Y'know, ''by definition'' if this 13 crap covers THEWHOLEENTIRETFMULTIVERSEBYE, then Macaddam should be in "confirmed"... :p - [[User:SanityOrMadness|SanityOrMadness]] 23:08, 27 May 2009 (EDT)
:::::::Not in a story that is specifically stated to be non-canon, "just for fun." --[[User:ItsWalky|ItsWalky]] 23:15, 27 May 2009 (EDT)
::::::::On a multiverse level, it's impossible NOT to be canon. Which is one of my major problems with this whole pile, actually. - [[User:SanityOrMadness|SanityOrMadness]] 23:31, 27 May 2009 (EDT)
:::::::::[[Author intent]] should be something this wiki describes and leaves up to individual fan judgment--not something we firmly take sides on in establishing internal-to-story facts. The entire reason we have articles for the "real" Transformer characters [[Geosensus]] and [[Paddles]] is that Cian's proviso is contradicted by the pre-existing context of a TF Multiverse, which I suspect he never knew existed. Having said that, Legends never actually specifically says Maccadam is one of the 13; it says he's multiversal, which fulfills ''half'' of the joke from the Ultimate Guide.<--Thy, can't login on IE.

So... MM moved the info (not '''deleted''' it, '''moved'''), Walky put the info back in the old place thus meaning the info was now put twice on the page, then banned MM because he removed one of the duplicate instances? Just making sure I got this straight. 
And no, MM is not the same guy we were reverting before. MM is the guy who's been adding a lot of valuable info like missing covers and stuff on the commercial bumper and scene transition pages. --[[User:Jeysie|Jeysie]] 23:16, 27 May 2009 (EDT)
:Yeah, you got it straight. He originally blocked him for a month as "YOU ARE DELETING CONTENT RIGHT NOW", then cut it to a week as "It's not smart to get in a revert war with an admin." - [[User:SanityOrMadness|SanityOrMadness]] 23:31, 27 May 2009 (EDT)
::Well, then, remind me never to correct any mistakes, because I apparently might get reverted and banned for it. --[[User:Jeysie|Jeysie]] 23:50, 27 May 2009 (EDT)
:::That occurred to me too... - [[User:SanityOrMadness|SanityOrMadness]] 09:28, 28 May 2009 (EDT)

:So the original change was related to the previous discussion on this talk page about the Ancients not being the same thing as the first Thirteen? --[[User:Abates|abates]] 00:28, 28 May 2009 (EDT)
::Correct. [http://tfwiki.net/w2/index.php?title=Thirteen_original_Transformers&diff=301252&oldid=301026 MM edit 1 diff], [http://tfwiki.net/w2/index.php?title=Thirteen_original_Transformers&diff=next&oldid=301252 Willis adds a duplicate], [http://tfwiki.net/w2/index.php?title=Thirteen_original_Transformers&diff=next&oldid=301254 MM removes duplicate], [http://tfwiki.net/w2/index.php?title=Thirteen_original_Transformers&diff=next&oldid=301257 Willis reverts previous edit]. - [[User:SanityOrMadness|SanityOrMadness]] 09:28, 28 May 2009 (EDT)

:::Based on this, I'm going out on a limb here and unbanning the guy. Seems like a pretty draconian punishment over what appears to be mostly a misunderstanding. -- [[User:Repowers|Repowers]] 10:58, 28 May 2009 (EDT)

Well, that was fun. Thanks for getting this situation sorted, guys. - [[User:Magnus Maximus|Magnus Maximus]] 09:31, 29 May 2009 (EDT)

== Nexus Maximus ==

The five silhouettes next to Vector Prime seem to strongly resemble the individual components of Nexus Maximus, and since the five are both Transformers and part of a being considered "one of the thirteen", is it possible that they are numbered members as well? I mean, technically they are five transformers that were created in the first batch, so maybe?[[User:KrytenKoro|KrytenKoro]] 06:09, 1 June 2009 (EDT)

I would say no. Nexus Maximus is a member of the 13, but his 5 component pieces aren't. [[Special:Contributions/76.240.201.195|76.240.201.195]] 18:39, 3 June 2009 (EDT)

==Defiance==
To be clear - is that image depicting the trans-dimensional whatsits, or the first batch of "Transformers" made to serve them?[[User:KrytenKoro|KrytenKoro]] 06:09, 1 June 2009 (EDT)
:The first batch of "Transformers." There are actually two more in a different panel but this was the best group shot. [[:Image:Defianceissue4-creation.jpg|This is]] the creation of the trans-dimensional whatsits. - [[User:Starfield|Starfield]] 07:50, 1 June 2009 (EDT)
::Okay, then the text needs to make that clearer, because right now it reads as if it's equating these Seekers/Constructicons with the Fallen and such.[[User:KrytenKoro|KrytenKoro]] 17:42, 1 June 2009 (EDT)

== Trans-dimensional AllSpark creations ==

Zuh? Why not The Thirteen?--[[User:Rosicrucian|Rosicrucian]][[User Talk:Rosicrucian|Talk]] 22:14, 27 April 2009 (EDT)
:Well, they aren't Transformers for one thing. They are a separate race. - [[User:Starfield|Starfield]] 22:15, 27 April 2009 (EDT)
::...but we have no reason to believe they're not The Thirteen.--[[User:Rosicrucian|Rosicrucian]][[User Talk:Rosicrucian|Talk]] 22:16, 27 April 2009 (EDT)
:::Oh. Hmmm. The 13 aren't Transformers? That article should be renamed then. - [[User:Starfield|Starfield]] 22:20, 27 April 2009 (EDT)
::::The article is just... I don't know. I don't think it conveys information. I think if anything it ''obfuscates'' information to obey some sort of semantic point.--[[User:Rosicrucian|Rosicrucian]][[User Talk:Rosicrucian|Talk]] 22:24, 27 April 2009 (EDT)
:::::They do play the same general role. It didn't occur to me that they might be the 13 since they aren't Transformers. The articles would have to be merged carefully. In the live-action continuity there is the Fallen's race ''and'' 13 original Transformers (which would be the first 13 beings of the new Transformer's race). - [[User:Starfield|Starfield]] 22:41, 27 April 2009 (EDT)
::::::You invented what amounts to a fan term to explain what you believe to be a contradiction. We are needlessly multiplying entities here.--[[User:Rosicrucian|Rosicrucian]][[User Talk:Rosicrucian|Talk]] 21:31, 27 May 2009 (EDT)
:::::::The Fallen: "It gave us workers, but they were ''not like us''. They were special and were to be the first of ''your race''. Creatures born with the ability to change their forms." It seems pretty clear the Fallen's kind aren't Transformers. The Fallen could be distorting the facts, I suppose (he is The Fallen), or has a fuzzy memory. I'm not against merging this with the 13 Transformers, but I would be interested in how it was explained. - [[User:Starfield|Starfield]] 21:48, 27 May 2009 (EDT)
::::::::I dunno, saying that the Fallen and his brothers "aren't Transformers" seems to me to be a bit like saying we shouldn't have [[Beta (G1)|Beta]] in the Female Transformers category. --[[User:KilMichaelMcC|KilMichaelMcC]] 22:07, 27 May 2009 (EDT)
:::::::::Hell, half the Matrix Guides, including Alpha Trion, shouldn't be considered Transformers! --[[User:ItsWalky|ItsWalky]] 23:09, 27 May 2009 (EDT)
::That doesn't seem to be a contradiction at all, Starfield. Even in the original continuity that had the thirteen, wasn't transformation an invention from later on? And Vector Prime still was eventually able to do it, so it's not unreasonable to assume that while the Trans-dimensionals weren't ''born'' with the ability to change their form, they modified themselves to do it. Which is why the Fallen can turn into a space fighter now.[[User:KrytenKoro|KrytenKoro]] 07:47, 28 May 2009 (EDT)
:::I still propose nuking it, but until we get consensus on that, I'm putting the shenanigans tag on it.--[[User:Rosicrucian|Rosicrucian]][[User Talk:Rosicrucian|Talk]] 14:54, 3 June 2009 (EDT)
::::Call me crazy, but I have this feeling there may be an actual name for these dudes soon. - [[User:Starfield|Starfield]] 15:08, 3 June 2009 (EDT)
:::::And on what are you basing this? I keep asking this, but you keep making up unofficial terms for things.--[[User:Rosicrucian|Rosicrucian]][[User Talk:Rosicrucian|Talk]] 15:15, 3 June 2009 (EDT)
::::::The ROTF adaptation comic. I understand we aren't supposed to use that yet for spoiler reasons. - [[User:Starfield|Starfield]] 15:22, 3 June 2009 (EDT)
:::::::Okay, let me spell this out. There is at present no definition of this term you've invented that does not completely overlap with the Thirteen. Every member of the Thirteen is one of these, and every one of these is one of the Thirteen. Even if we accept that this is somehow a meaningful term, there is no way to separate it from the Thirteen. To pretend otherwise is to be painfully obtuse.--[[User:Rosicrucian|Rosicrucian]][[User Talk:Rosicrucian|Talk]] 16:14, 3 June 2009 (EDT)
Nuke it from orbit. --[[User:ItsWalky|ItsWalky]] 18:18, 3 June 2009 (EDT)
:Y'all kinda seem to be jumping down Starfield's throat... IITC the Transdimensional beings page was created as a sorta precautionary things back then Alliance was still coming out when we weren't sure how it'd play out-- or even if the Fallen was a multiversal singularity. (We thought probably yes, but there was room foe debate, and the movie stuff IS '''awfully''' messy.)
:...of course it's just as likely that I'm missing something, in which case, please proceed tearing him a new transdimensional arsehole. -[[User:Derik|Derik]] 18:29, 3 June 2009 (EDT)
::I'd like a transdimensional arsehole. I bet it would mean you wouldn't even have to get up to go to the bathroom. - [[User:Chris McFeely|Chris McFeely]] 18:30, 3 June 2009 (EDT)
::I'm not taking it personally. It always was kind of a sloppy placeholder. I honestly thought they were going a different direction when I read Defiance 4, but now it looks like it is shaping up pretty good continuity wise. - [[User:Starfield|Starfield]] 18:41, 3 June 2009 (EDT)
:::That's all well and good, but the article, as well as his defense of the term, continued long after its (however dubious) usefulness expired. So, I've nuked the article and archived the discussion here for posterity.--[[User:Rosicrucian|Rosicrucian]][[User Talk:Rosicrucian|Talk]] 18:36, 3 June 2009 (EDT)
::::Oh, is ''that'' what's going on? ''<tt>slowpoke.jpg</tt>''
::::Well, I've certainly been there myself! -[[User:Derik|Derik]] 18:38, 3 June 2009 (EDT)

== Prima ==

Why is Prima on this list? I would have thought Primon would be the more likely choice m'self. -[[User:Derik|Derik]] 20:01, 4 June 2009 (EDT)
:He is confirmed in at least one continuity as the first Cybertronian. Thus, he's the first of the Thirteen. Funny, innit?--[[User:Rosicrucian|Rosicrucian]][[User Talk:Rosicrucian|Talk]] 20:03, 4 June 2009 (EDT)
::Which continuity, and sauce? -[[User:Derik|Derik]] 20:45, 4 June 2009 (EDT)
:::Marvel G1. Not explicitly stated, but able to be deduced.--[[User:Rosicrucian|Rosicrucian]][[User Talk:Rosicrucian|Talk]] 20:50, 4 June 2009 (EDT)
::::But I don't think Prima should be on there. Primon seem to predate him/her.
::::If a guidebook SAID Prima was one of the 13 or something, that'd be different. -[[User:Derik|Derik]] 21:22, 4 June 2009 (EDT)

Well here's how it goes, we have a Marvel G1 issue and a Marvel G2 issue which depict the first Cybertronian. One of those issues depicts said first Cybertronian as the first Matrix-Bearer. Marvel G1 also has a litany of the Matrix-Bearers which the Creation Matrix itself recites at several times during Matrix Quest, thus establishing this figure, though visually quite different the two times we see him, as Prima. So, insofar as anything can be consistent within Marvel G1 given the vast artistic differences which sprang up, the first Cybertronian and first Matrix-Bearer is Prima.

Pri''mon'' however has a far more fuzzy pedigree, a smaller corpus of source material establishing him, and his membership in the Thirteen is also predicated upon the Liege Maximo being a member, which is ''probable'', but as we've discussed before never really confirmed in official source material.--[[User:Rosicrucian|Rosicrucian]][[User Talk:Rosicrucian|Talk]] 21:29, 4 June 2009 (EDT)

:Your answer is full of fail and conjecture.
:Nevertheless, it got ''me'' to check the source material. The Ultimate Guide explicitly says Prima is one of the 13 on page 15. Further, Prima is their '''leader'''. -[[User:Derik|Derik]] 21:40, 4 June 2009 (EDT)
::Were I not at work, I could have done the same. But alas, I am limited until I hop in my car and drive home. I still say my answer is close enough for government work, though.--[[User:Rosicrucian|Rosicrucian]][[User Talk:Rosicrucian|Talk]] 21:43, 4 June 2009 (EDT)
{{quote|In a democracy, the people get the government they deserve.|Tocqueville}} -[[User:Derik|Derik]] 21:50, 4 June 2009 (EDT)
=="New Divide" video==
Hey, uh, there seems to be a very short clip of what appear to be silhouettes of some of the Thirteen... --[[User:ItsWalky|ItsWalky]] 10:36, 12 June 2009 (EDT)
:Which one. -[[User:Derik|Derik]] 11:51, 12 June 2009 (EDT)
::I wonder which one Vector Prime is! --[[User:ItsWalky|ItsWalky]] 19:08, 12 June 2009 (EDT)
:::So can any of our U.K. friends confirm or deny if these are indeed the Thirteen? -- [[User:SFH|SFH]] 18:13, 20 June 2009 (EDT)
::::Weeellll... okay, spoilers to be safe... they ARE the Primes, the original Transformers, as it were. But... if I heard the dialogue right, and I'm not SWEARING that I did, but I have seen other people say they heard the same thing... IN the film itself... there are stated to only SEVEN of them. And the events of Defiance are really... at odds with the movie , too. In the gentlest terms. Honestly, I was watching the movie, and every so often something happened to make me go "Aw, fuck, the wiki's going to have its work cut out for it here." - [[User:Chris McFeely|Chris McFeely]] 18:28, 20 June 2009 (EDT)

Yep, there's a mistake in there. Seven is definitely the number. The Fallen being so named because he chose to eradicate life in his quest for Energon (think Captain Ranson in Star Trek Voyager "Equinox"). Optimus Prime is apparently their last descendant (how they know this is not explained, nor is the concept of Primes, and why only a Prime can defeat the Fallen, when it looks like anybody can do what Prime finally did). Oh, and none of them look like any of our Primes. In fact they all look like the Fallen (customisers should be buying multiple Fallen toys to make them!) [[User:Drmick|Drmick]] 20:05, 20 June 2009 (EDT)

:What a pain. Yet I think that will probably make patching things around the 13 easier.... -[[User:Derik|Derik]] 20:11, 20 June 2009 (EDT)
::The only thing that would make this work with past information is if the Thirteen aren't multiversal singularities, and since the Powers That Be reconfirmed that at Botcon, I can only assume (or hope) that they have something planned for the Thirteen that will straighten this out. -- [[User:SFH|SFH]] 00:21, 21 June 2009 (EDT)
:::You have to remember, there's already the "oddity" that the birth of these guys 13 doesn't really match other depictions-- and the AllSpark being some sort of sun-destroying monstrosity is... not very Primus-y. I think there's definitely wiggle room here. -[[User:Derik|Derik]] 00:25, 21 June 2009 (EDT)
::::Oddly, the adaptations say 13. How do we know what we know about the AllSpark and harvesters and the original Transformers? There is only one of them left. He wouldn't lie for his own purposes would he? They could, if they wanted, make much of the ROTF backstory be a load of bullcrap made up by The Fallen. - [[User:Starfield|Starfield]] 00:46, 21 June 2009 (EDT)
:::::Maybe we can wilfully ignore {{redact|the seven thing as a mistake like Brawl/Devastator? In the Feb 2009 issue of Toyfare, producer [[Lorenzo di Bonaventura]] stated that The Fallen was a member of The Thirteen, and that we should think of the Thirteen as "apostles". So clearly, the movie production did number the Primes as thirteen quite late into post production.}} --[[User:FFN|FFN]] 04:06, 21 June 2009 (EDT)
::::::"Mistakes" do happen in fiction, and we acknowledge them as such. (The art errors in the marvel comic, for example.)
::::::So even if the {{redact|the ancient Primes being the 13}} is a mistake, that still leaves us with The Fallen being The Fallen.
::::::The real question is how ''subsequent'' fiction addresses this. If it keeps re-iterating {{redact|the ancient Primes are the 13}} then that's a problem we have to deal with.
::::::I'm really beginning to suspect that the end scenario is going to be {{redact|there were some ancient beings, 7 in one story, 13 in another}} and just void any connection to the 13 entirely-- then figure out how to deal with The Fallen being The Fallen separately. -[[User:Derik|Derik]] 04:17, 21 June 2009 (EDT)
::::::Also, re:{{redact|Devastator... there was a comment on the Brawl talk page recently claiming that the letters page to Titan #3 said that Devastator and Brawl are separate near-identical Transformers.}} Can McSweeny confirm whether this is true or not? -[[User:Derik|Derik]] 04:26, 21 June 2009 (EDT)

So I'm watching [http://emopanda.com/tmp/eps/Linkin_Park_-_New_Divide.mp4 New Divide] and I'm confused... is the screencap Walky posted above {{redact|from the beginning of the movie, where everyone was working in the valley, or the end, during SAM's NDE}}? Can someone who's seen the movie answer this? -[[User:Derik|Derik]] 05:20, 21 June 2009 (EDT)

:Haha, this is where it gets {{redact|metaphysical. Sam dies, and the Matrix (which at this point in the film has disintegrated into dust and is kept in a rolled up sock) merges with Sam. The next scene then features Sam in Heaven/The Matrix/Nirvana/The Tunnel with the Light at the End where he meets the Seven Prime/Fallen Clones. They tell him that they have been watching him and that the Matrix is not an object but a state of mind/personality quality, and he's got it, so go wake up from this death and kick some ass. He then is resurrected and the Matrix is now completely reformed into its key/boomerang formation, which he then sticks into Prime's chest. But then somebody else steals it again to stick into the Fallen's Galvatron Machine from the UK comics}} [[User:Drmick|Drmick]] 08:04, 21 June 2009 (EDT)
::Yes I know this. I've read the book. I construe from your response that this screencap is from the latter half of the movie? (It's a yes or no question... god forbid you manage to ''explicitly'' answer it.) -[[User:Derik|Derik]] 14:01, 21 June 2009 (EDT)
:::That's a yes. - [[User:Chris McFeely|Chris McFeely]] 14:52, 21 June 2009 (EDT)

It actually works out pretty easily. Those seven don't have to be the ''only'' members of the Thirteen, just the ones that gave their lives to seal The Fallen away and secure the Star Harvester.--[[User:Rosicrucian|Rosicrucian]][[User Talk:Rosicrucian|Talk]] 14:17, 21 June 2009 (EDT)

:Except there are multiple versions of "Movie" continuity (IDW and Titan) and the original 13 are singularities... so how do these 7 manged to die '''twice''' and their corpses show up in different universes? {{redact|for that matter, how does The Fallen manage to die in multiple continuities? He has but one life to give for the Multiverse!}} -[[User:Derik|Derik]] 14:24, 21 June 2009 (EDT)
::Transformers: The Movie Universe implies that The Fallen has to work to maintain corporeality in a universe. It is possible that killing the physical form of one of the Thirteen is nowhere near as final as it may sound.--[[User:Rosicrucian|Rosicrucian]][[User Talk:Rosicrucian|Talk]] 14:26, 21 June 2009 (EDT)

:::Would Vector Prime's fate at the end of Cybertron support that? I have only passing knowledge of that show but didn't they show him fighting on in some other dimension after his "Death"? That could work on the same principle.--[[Special:Contributions/71.235.138.121|71.235.138.121]] 07:10, 23 June 2009 (EDT)
::::Vector Prime was shown to be fighting Galvatron in the end-credits montage, so he's clearly not completely dead. --[[User:FFN|FFN]] 09:36, 23 June 2009 (EDT)
:::::I don't know about Galaxy Force, but in Cybertron, the speech that Vector Prime gave before he died made it sound like if he died in that universe, he would continue to exist in the multiverse but be barred from re-entering that particular universe.

== Logos Prime ==

If the Fallen represents Entropy, and Vector Prime represents time... what would Logos Prime represent? His hub-ship-thing seems to be tied to his "area of responsibility" somehow... -[[User:Derik|Derik]] 00:55, 23 June 2009 (EDT)
:Opposition or competition? Some kind of "Balancing forces" deal, probably, judging by the story.[[User:KrytenKoro|KrytenKoro]] 04:23, 23 June 2009 (EDT)
::So... "Logos" arguably, logic? 10:39, 23 June 2009 (EDT)
:::I don't think their given names actually have anything to do with their charge - Vector isn't in charge of directions, and Nexus is in charge of Energon, not connections. Maybe the name's are personally chosen, or represent their personalities?[[User:KrytenKoro|KrytenKoro]] 12:27, 23 June 2009 (EDT)
:Maybe LP would have been the gaurdian of knowlegde or information? --[[User:Boba Fett|Boba Fett]] 18:03, 23 June 2009 (EDT)

== Twelve Apostles ==

Would it be at all acceptable to mention somewhere on the page the obvious basis of Jesus and the twelve apostles, or even how specific members of the Thirteen seem to be based on specific apostles?

For example:
*Prima is the chosen leader of the thirteen, carries Primus lifeforce in the form of the matrix (and so, is Primus's "child"), and his name even fits the ancient roman naming scheme for your children (well, daughters) - remove "us", fit "a".
*The Fallen is obviously Judas.
*Vector Prime appears to fit the role of Peter - the most loyal, who serves throughout time safeguarding the Transformers. He certainly acts like a space-pope, anyway.

Of course, beyond that, there's unlikely to be any use of the archetype, but would it at least be worth mentioning?[[User:KrytenKoro|KrytenKoro]] 04:49, 23 June 2009 (EDT)
:We have a good source for that comparison with [[Lorenzo di Bonaventura]]'s interview in ''Toyfare'' (February 2009). [[Special:Contributions/79.67.234.198|79.67.234.198]] 05:16, 23 June 2009 (EDT)
:I say we don't have enought info though. Afterall, we don't know about the Logo Prime or Nexus Maximus people. --[[User:Boba Fett|Boba Fett]] 14:10, 23 June 2009 (EDT)
::We know that the group as a whole is supposed to act as apostles to Primus. And yes, we can't really fit Logos or Nexus to a historical apostle, but we're extremely unlikely to, because beyond Jesus, Judas, and Peter, the various apostles are only really remembered for Catholic feast holidays, and aren't that culturally significant.[[User:KrytenKoro|KrytenKoro]] 14:22, 23 June 2009 (EDT)
:::Oh,yeah...except for 'doubting Thomas'. OK --[[User:Boba Fett|Boba Fett]] 18:02, 23 June 2009 (EDT)
: I think pointing out the 12 disciples exclusively is kind of the wrong move to make at the outset. Group-of-13-and-one-betrays-them is a mythological constant. Like, say, Loki! He storms a group of 12 at Valhalla! It's linked into the superstition about the number 13, which is considered unlucky. Stories would use it for group numbers as foreshadowing! --[[User:ItsWalky|ItsWalky]] 18:11, 23 June 2009 (EDT)
::Except "Group of thirteen Apostles and one of them is a chosen son of the singular God" is not so much a mythological constant. Unless Zoroastrianism has it.[[User:KrytenKoro|KrytenKoro]] 03:39, 24 June 2009 (EDT)

==Split 7 Primes from the 13==

There's really nothing to suggest in the film that the 7 are part of the original Transformers. They're just referred to as the leaders of the race. The Fallen's the only one clearly linked to the 13 [[User: Eire|Eire]] 23.58 June 23 09
: Maybe the missing 6 Primes are Vector Prime, Logos Prime, Nexus Prime, the Liege Maximo, Primon, and Some Other Dude, all having adventures elsewhere! --[[User:ItsWalky|ItsWalky]] 03:46, 24 June 2009 (EDT)
::but how? the comic states that The Fallen killed them all so how can they be having adventures in other universes if they're truly omniversial or what ever the f**k they're supposed to be. Anyway I think the idea behind the 13 is crap anyway. [[User:Dead Metal|Dead Metal]] 04:03, 24 June 2009 (EDT)
:::: It's been stated since the Dreamwave era that the original 13, save the Fallen, all died in an early battle with Unicron. And yet Vector Prime! (Who died but didn't.) And Logos Prime! And Nexus Maximus! Tales of these guys' deaths have been greatly exaggerated. --[[User:ItsWalky|ItsWalky]] 09:19, 24 June 2009 (EDT)
:::I found what the film states to be ambigious. It didn't say "there were 7 Primes, and that's all that ever existed." --[[User:FFN|FFN]] 05:14, 24 June 2009 (EDT)
:::: Jetfire said there were 7 Primes leading, and one went bad. I'm not saying that they're the only ones because clearly they weren't (Sentinel and Optimus get a mention after all) but conceptually there seems to be a difference between the 13 originals and just 7 powerful Primes. Apart from the Fallen, it just seems to be a concept loosely connected at best [[User:Eire]] 12.40 June 24th 09

I think we'd be best served, at least, creating a "see main article" for the [[Dynasty of Primes]], and discussing the characters there. Not necessarily splitting it, and certainly merging it back in if any ancillary material clarifies the matter, but we're probably not helping any newbies who have just seen the film and want to read about these characters (if you could go so far as to call these non-entities that), only to wind up deeply confused over why we're insisting there are 13 of them and that they didn't turn in a tomb and such. - [[User:Chris McFeely|Chris McFeely]] 10:19, 24 June 2009 (EDT)

== So They're not all Primes! ==

According to the Hasbro Q&A they are not all Primes, only 7 are. How do we reconsile that with the opening quote. I mean I get it's a retcon but how do we explain it in a sensible ay on this page? Thoughts?--[[Special:Contributions/76.28.72.27|76.28.72.27]] 20:35, 21 October 2009 (EDT)

:Where were all 13 called "Primes"? Also, from the answer, it seems Hasbro is calling them "The 13". - [[User:Starfield|Starfield]] 20:40, 21 October 2009 (EDT)

<blockquote style="background:white; padding:1em; border:1px solid #999;">
{{quote|We are the 13, the first, the forgotten, each of us serving a function vital to the survival of the universe. '''Each of us designated a ''Prime''''' and given a function to serve during the long march of infinity.|Vector Prime|"[[Vector Prime: In the Beginning]]"}}
</blockquote>

::Read the opening quote on this page, Starfield. Actual story material > Q&A answers, in my view. --[[User:KilMichaelMcC|KilMichaelMcC]] 20:48, 21 October 2009 (EDT)

::::I vote for "Actual story material > Q&A answers", too. Sometimes I just think HASBRO Q&A are less professional than the writers. By the way, there are only four confirmed members of the The Thirteen, and I don't consider Seven Prime equal The Thirteen despite what Hasbro say, since their origins are quite and obvious different. --'''[[User:TX55|TX55]]'''''[[User talk:TX55|TALK]]'' 21:10, 21 October 2009 (EDT)
:::::"Sometimes I think HASBRO Q&A are less professional than the writers"? You do realize that [[Forest Lee]] is both the writer of that Vector Prime: In the Beginning quote and the guy who answers the fiction-related answers for the Q&As? --[[User:ItsWalky|ItsWalky]] 22:03, 21 October 2009 (EDT)
::::::Yes, I know. Well, I admit I wrote the above too soon (due to the rush of breakfast) and a bit emotional. Of course I didn't mean all of them(the answers, not the answerer), just some of the answers make me have such feeling like this. --'''[[User:TX55|TX55]]'''''[[User talk:TX55|TALK]]'' 22:29, 21 October 2009 (EDT)

:::I don't know. Our criteria for what is canon is "anything that Hasbro approves" since they are the ultimate authority for cannonicity if they come right out and say (As they now have) only 7 of "The Thirteen" were Primes the other 6 were not than that retcon would be the new cannon I think. Especially since it "kinda" patches an existing continuity glitch. Now I admit that claim will be stronger when Hasbro actually releases some story covering this period as they just said they will be doing shortly somehow. But even without that it is a retcon and official I'd say. --[[Special:Contributions/76.28.72.27|76.28.72.27]] 20:52, 21 October 2009 (EDT)

:::Hey! I completely missed the quote. I was looking for a citation somewhere. I agree that story > answers. - [[User:Starfield|Starfield]] 21:07, 21 October 2009 (EDT)

Offhand, I'd say that the notion of the "Seven Primes" as opposed to the Thirteen showed up waaaaaaaaay late in the final drafts of Revenge of the Fallen, and thus too late for the adaptations to incorporate it. After all, they even were working up CGI models for all of the Thirteen. It is entirely possible that this change blindsided even Hasbro, and thus they're trying to spackle it up.--[[User:Rosicrucian|Rosicrucian]][[User Talk:Rosicrucian|Talk]] 21:17, 21 October 2009 (EDT)

I really kinda disagree with reverting the article to the pre-Hasbro-retcon state, as I think it's puting too little weight on Hasbros statement of what is the "truth". But I'm willing to let it go for now, since Hasbro seems to have plans to bring this all to the fore with some sort of fictional spotlight in the near future, we can deal with making the necessary changes when and if that material materializes. :) --[[Special:Contributions/76.28.72.27|76.28.72.27]] 22:48, 21 October 2009 (EDT)

== Female 13 member ==
OK. As of a day or two ago, Hasbro says that one of the 13 is female. Boards are already complaining that this messes with established continuity (IDW, Marvel comics). I'm not convinced this is a huge problem, but it does occur to me that, at the moment, there is no canon to support this claim. Only Hasbro's Q&A response, which might be argued as [[authorial intent]] or [[pseudocanon]]. As something not yet confirmed in canon (but only signaled as possible for the future), should it be included here at this time?--[[User:G.B. Blackrock|G.B. Blackrock]] 14:52, 23 October 2009 (EDT)

== "Original Epic Warriors"? ==

[http://www.allspark.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=63609] --[[User:Sabrblade|Sabrblade]] 15:46, 26 November 2009 (EST)

==A Math Joke?==
I've been studying for the GRE, so excuse my nerdiness as a result of quantitative overload: if we go with the Hasbro Q&A response, there are 7 Primes out of 13 original transformers... there are six prime numbers in the set of thirteen positive integers: '''2, 3, 5, 7, 11,''' and '''13''' itself. In addition, a prime number can only be divided by itself or '''1''', making a total of seven mathematical prime-related numbers. It might be assuming too much of Hasbro to consider this a deliberate gag for the nerdiest fans, but if it's a just a coincidence, it's a strange one... should this be noted in the article? [[User:Ayellowbirds|Ayellowbirds]] 12:09, 21 February 2010 (EST)
:Exploring that more; [[Prima]] is the '''first''' transformer (and despite bearing the Matrix, is not ''named'' "Prime", but might ''be'' one?), [[Nexus Prime]] is made of '''five''' parts, and we also know of [[Soundblaster (Cybertron)|Logos Prime]] and [[Vector Prime]], and [[the Fallen]] was a Prime before he... fell. Have any number-related concepts been tied to those last three? I want to assume the Fallen was the '''thirteenth''' of the originals, being furthest from his creator's original design as the last of the batch, and due to the negative connotations of the number; and a ''vector'' can be defined as the course or direction of movement between '''two''' points. [[User:Ayellowbirds|Ayellowbirds]] 12:09, 21 February 2010 (EST)

== Exodus Info ==

'''SPOILERS for TF Exodus'''

So Exodus gives us two or three new names for members of the Thirteen.

First there's Megatronus. This is very strongly implied to be the Fallen's original name. But it is still just implied from what I could see. They never come right out and talk about the 13 backstory at length and say the Fallen is Megatronus it just sorta makes the most sense for him to be, given what they do say, if you know the story. So how official do we want to treat that connection?

Second there's Alpha Trion. There's been a lot of chatter that certain stories (especially his evil SG counterpart) breaks the whole "Multiversal Singularity" thing if he's a 13er which he now is. Do we need a note to that effect.?

Lastly is the most questionable case. After talking about Megatronus as a legend at one point a character then mentions Leige Maximo in the next breath as the same type of legendary figure. This could be read as placing him as a 13er as well, but it's never explicately stated clearly. Does it deserve a note, at least in the potential area?

Thoughts?
--[[Special:Contributions/76.28.76.206|76.28.76.206]] 11:51, 23 June 2010 (EDT)
:Megatronus? I can just imagine the millions of potential joke opportunities that this name comes with.
:Sorry. Anyway, we should have a note next to the Fallen's listing in the confirmed 13ers category saying "Look, his name may or may not be Megatronus." or something to that effect.
:A3 is a huge continuity headache, and we should probably be careful. So, yes, we should definitely have a note.
:And finally, the Liege Maximo isn't ''that'' questionable, but we should keep him in the "possible 13ers" category until other fiction appears and confirms or disproves that.

--[[User:-Blackout-|-Blackout-]] 12:23, 23 June 2010 (EDT)

:(Purely personal speculation) I think Megatronus might be Liege Maximo's original name. --'''[[User:TX55|TX55]]'''''[[User talk:TX55|TALK]]'' 13:08, 23 June 2010 (EDT)
::As I'm not very familiar with most of the fictions, is there any reason "the Fallen" and "Liege Maximo" couldn't be the same guy? --[[User:Khajidha|Khajidha]] 13:13, 23 June 2010 (EDT)
:::One of them is not on fire and doesn't exactly seem to serve Unicron? [[User:Geewunling|Geewunling]] 13:16, 23 June 2010 (EDT)
::::Has LM ever been in the same story as Unicron? The fire thing seems very minor. --[[User:Khajidha|Khajidha]] 13:25, 23 June 2010 (EDT)
:::::LM does sort of resemble an overweight ROTF The Fallen. A little bit. If Megatronus were Liege Maximo, "Megatronus" would be his name, not his "original" name, since "Liege Maximo" is a title. To answer your question, Unicron was quite dead when we first meet Liege Maximo, and there isn't really room in the story for them to have met off-panel in the past. The Fallen and Liege Maximo aren't remotely the same character, but I suppose that could always be retconned. - [[User:Starfield|Starfield]] 14:01, 23 June 2010 (EDT)
::::::Fallen - name forgotten, created alongside first Primes, founder of Decepticons, purged of morality
::::::Liege Maximo - name unknown, created alongside first Prime, ancestor of Decepticons, ultimate evil
::::::Sounds more than remotely similar to me. But I'm not saying it's true, just an idea that bounced around in my head. --[[User:Khajidha|Khajidha]] 14:20, 23 June 2010 (EDT)
:::::::Also no room in ~13.7 billion years for them to have met off panel? --[[User:Khajidha|Khajidha]] 15:39, 27 June 2010 (EDT)
::Megatronus Prime is '''NOT''' the Liege Maximo. We know that for sure as they're named one after the other as seperate beings at one point. And we know for SURE that Megatronus is one of the 13. The info the book gives makes suuggestions that make it VERY, VERY likely he is the Fallen, they just don't say it out bluntly. So Megatronus should get a "confirmed" entry even if we're not going to make the (certainly intended) leep and connect the two. --[[Special:Contributions/76.28.76.206|76.28.76.206]] 13:43, 23 June 2010 (EDT)
:::That's the thing with myths and legends, one being can become split into multiple characters or multiple characters get merged into one with retellings. Just because there are separate legends Megatronus and Liege Maximo doesn't mean that further developments won't reveal them to be the same being. --[[User:Khajidha|Khajidha]] 13:49, 23 June 2010 (EDT)
::::That's irrelevant. Unless there's "anything" to suggest it at all in the Canon, it's just "making stuff up" and has no place on this wiki, which is what we're discussing. There's nothing in the book that in any way even hints of hinting that MP might be the LM, where there are lots of clearly very intentional details linking him to The Fallen.--[[Special:Contributions/76.28.76.206|76.28.76.206]] 14:00, 23 June 2010 (EDT)
:::::Oh, I thought you were responding to TX55's clearly labeled "purely personal speculation". I had no intention of anything I said being put in the article. --[[User:Khajidha|Khajidha]] 14:04, 23 June 2010 (EDT)

== Toy Section ==

Should it stay or go? If it stays do we list EVERY toy of EVERY one of the Original 13? --[[User:Khajidha|Khajidha]] 14:10, 27 June 2010 (EDT)
:I'm for just excising it entirely. It's not exactly a toy gimmick like other subgroups are, and anybody who's interested in the toys can just scoot over to the characters' pages. [[User:Interrobang|—Interrobang]] 15:50, 27 June 2010 (EDT)
::That's what I was thinking, I just wanted to bring it up before slashing it. --[[User:Khajidha|Khajidha]] 15:56, 27 June 2010 (EDT)

==Alpha Trion==
I'd also note that we need to add Alpha Trion to the confirmed members. --[[User:Jeysie|Jeysie]] 14:24, 27 June 2010 (EDT)
:Doesn't that mean that we need to combine all the [[Alpha Trion (disambiguation)|Alpha Trion]] articles? --[[User:Khajidha|Khajidha]] 14:30, 27 June 2010 (EDT)
::I don't know. It kind of makes my brain hurt. --[[User:Jeysie|Jeysie]] 14:35, 27 June 2010 (EDT)
:::The thing about Alpha Trion is, he really is the same basic character in every universe. "Wise Ancient Autobot closely connected to Vector Sigma and/or records of Cybertronian history". Except for that one where he's a murdering looney. - [[User:Chris McFeely|Chris McFeely]] 15:41, 27 June 2010 (EDT)
::::The murdering looney is just the inversion of his resurrecting Prime and Elita (and maybe Magnus). Healer and killer are moral opposites. --[[User:Khajidha|Khajidha]] 15:47, 27 June 2010 (EDT)
:::::If the Thirteen travel between the various universes, I ''suppose'' it's possible that the weight of knowing everything that was or will be, in ''each and every universe'' eventually pushes Trion over the edge.--[[User:Rosicrucian|Rosicrucian]][[User Talk:Rosicrucian|Talk]] 15:49, 27 June 2010 (EDT)
::::::Didn't somebody say that the universe they were in could affect a singularity? I just figured this was an example of that. AT in the negative polarity universe exhibits inverted morality. --[[User:Khajidha|Khajidha]] 15:54, 27 June 2010 (EDT)
:::::::SG Alpha Trion was the same in the TransTech universe. [[User:Interrobang|—Interrobang]] 15:56, 27 June 2010 (EDT)
::::::::Yeah, he was batslag and scheming during his time in Axiom Nexus, just better at hiding it.--[[User:Rosicrucian|Rosicrucian]][[User Talk:Rosicrucian|Talk]] 15:56, 27 June 2010 (EDT)
:::::::::I'm sure there's enough wiffle-waffle in Forest Lee's bullshit-fu answer to the multiversal singularity question to cover it. Maybe this is just one iteration of Trion when he is a "quantum event", playing out the potential question of "What if dude was evil?" until it eventually collapses and reverts. Or something. - [[User:Chris McFeely|Chris McFeely]] 15:58, 27 June 2010 (EDT)

::::Actually, to throw another kink into things, Animated Alpha Trion is not a historian, has no connection to any Vector Sigma, and indeed Wyatt, at least, says Animated has no multiversal singularity anything in it. --[[User:Jeysie|Jeysie]] 22:51, 27 June 2010 (EDT)
::::Authorial intent can be overruled by the iron fist of Hasbro. If Hasbro says Alpha Trion is always a historian with a connection to Vector Sigma who exists in all universes, then Wyatt be slagged, that's what he is. {{unsigned|173.71.105.23|22:53, 27 June 2010}}
::::::Sorry, but for me authorial intent can only be overruled by later canon fiction in the exact same continuity, not by a completely different continuity written by someone with no connection to the other one. Especially since changing Alpha Trion's role or adding in Vector Sigma where it doesn't exist would be changing actual ''canon'' as well, not just authorial intent.
::::::(Plus, if Hasbro actually wanted to wield its iron fist, they would have enforced the singularities being written into Animated in the first place.) --[[User:Jeysie|Jeysie]] 23:18, 27 June 2010 (EDT)
:::::::Thing is, Animated continuity by itself (completely ignoring the words of Wyatt and Isenberg) doesn't create any mutual exclusivities because it didn't take a side either way. Hasbro didn't put down it's iron fist because they didn't need to yet.[[Special:Contributions/72.128.51.130|72.128.51.130]] 00:53, 28 June 2010 (EDT)
::::::::Except that if Hasbro wanted the singularities in Animated, then Isenberg and Wyatt would not be saying those things at all to begin with, since they wouldn't be the case. (Or they'd at the very least be saying "We didn't want to, but Hasbro made us" or something.) Plus, the Allspark and no Vector Sigma contradict Primus and the VS Gestalt, at least.
::::::::(I've never ever understood why the wiki is 95% sticklers for canon, except for this one case, where suddenly fanwank speculation and authorial intent (from authors who aren't even involved with the continuities in question, to boot) suddenly reigns supreme, sometimes even over actual canon.) --[[User:Jeysie|Jeysie]] 01:08, 28 June 2010 (EDT)
:::::::::Seriously? You're saying that Hasbro's official call on the matter ''isn't'' canon? You're not making sense here. A3 being one of the 13 is not fanwank speculation, and it looks like to me you're misunderstanding the definition of authorial intent. Wyatt and Isenberg's opinion doesn't matter because it didn't make it into the actual fiction, and it wasn't going to, because it undermines the multiversal (with singularities) framework that Hasbro is finally getting to brass tacks on. And let's face it, backpedaling at the point they are at right now isn't a good idea by any stretch of the standard. Hasbro never commented on Wyatt/Isenberg's idea because it wasn't an issue yet, more of a "well, we'll let them think so for the time being, until the fiction actually gets to that point".[[Special:Contributions/72.128.51.130|72.128.51.130]] 02:02, 28 June 2010 (EDT)
:::::::::::Derrick Wyatt also said, on several occasions, that as far as he is concerned there are no Primus and Unicron in the Animated universe. And I'm afraid his opinion doesn't count there, since the multiversal god conceit predates his work and is much bigger than it. As I end up pointing out here semi-regularly, authors have gotten stuff wrong before and we just mark it down as a trivia note. --[[Special:Contributions/74.73.134.205|74.73.134.205]] 14:39, 28 June 2010 (EDT)
::::::::::::So, a tiny mention of an idea in a completely different and unrelated continuity that's already been explicitly declared as not applying to all continuities, somehow counts more than actual canon fiction AND the word from someone who directly worked on a continuity and knows for a fact what the writers actually intended for it. Especially seeing as how even Furman, who ''invented'' Primus and Unicron, was explicitly going to write them out of IDW as well.
::::::::::::...OK, man, if believing something that illogical makes you happy, more power to you, I guess. Me, I don't presume to think I know better than the creators themselves when it comes to what is and isn't in their work. --[[User:Jeysie|Jeysie]] 15:02, 28 June 2010 (EDT)
:::::::::::::Animated A3 behaves no differently from every other version we've ever seen. They're all eccentric but basically normal-seeming old dudes who have hints of great influence and age. Been that way ever since KtVS. ''Exodus'' comes out and says that this normal-seeming-eccentric-old-dude does indeed have great age and great influence. What is the difference now? They're just firmly putting boundaries on all the hints we've gotten for 25 years. From a story perspective there is nothing wrong with it at all; is the only problem really that the writer of this particular series said otherwise?
:::::::::::::Hasbro is the biggest of the creators, bigger than any individual writer, so if you're going to cite this or that intention / Word Of God, it's just going to be a self-defeating exercise. "A tiny mention" in any story at all is a heck of a lot more than we ever got of "no Unicron in Animated / IDW", since none of that was ever officially published at all. And what was "explicitly declared as not applying to all continuities"? The original 13 must, by definition, apply everywhere. The multiverse conceit has been solidly established since 2003 and all those stories were vetted by Hasbro; some were even written by Hasbro (as has been mentioned here already). Neither Wyatt nor Furman nor anybody else can "intend" their way out of it. Larry DiTillio "intended" for the Vok to have created sparks and for Transformers' after-death dimension to be the Vok's Nexus Zero. This, too, is now flatly impossible noncanon, as too many rigid rules explicitly contradicting it have been published for too many years. This is what happens when your franchise sets down explicit omnipresent rules for a multiversal origin: they are, by definition, bigger than everything else. --[[User:Thylacine 2000|Thylacine 2000]] 17:45, 28 June 2010 (EDT)
::::::::::::::I've already covered this. What one continuity does has nothing to do with what any other continuity does. FunPub is its own continuity. Exodus is apparently the new WFC/Prime continuity. In no other case do we ever declare what happened in one continuity has overwritten another continuity's canon, or let one continuity's author's intent overwrite another continuity's author's intent, so I don't know why this is different. (And, FunPub is no more "Hasbro" writing fiction than IDW is Hasbro writing fiction, the movie team is Hasbro writing fiction, the cartoon teams are Hasbro writing fiction, etc. They're all contracted to write fiction on behalf of Hasbro.)
::::::::::::::Sinclair explicitly stated that the Movieverse is outside of the multiverse established in FunPub fiction. Hasbro's approved a lot more continuities contradicting the idea than they have ones that do. And we've never heard word from Hasbro yet on the matter, so there's no reason yet to discount the authorial intent of the actual creators because there's no official word or canon yet to contradict them.
::::::::::::::So, no, the whole multiversal singularity idea has not been "solidly established" at all. Exactly the contrary, in fact. Maybe at some point we'll actually get official confirmation from someone at Hasbro who works with more than one continuity, or some actual fiction that explicitly takes place in each continuity that writes the matter in, and then I'll say "OK" because then there'll be actual support for the matter. --[[User:Jeysie|Jeysie]] 18:15, 28 June 2010 (EDT)
:::::::::::::::FunPub stories written by Forest Lee are absolutely more "Hasbro writing the fiction" than IDW, the movies, or the cartoons. --[[User:Thylacine 2000|Thylacine 2000]] 21:42, 28 June 2010 (EDT)
::::::::::::::::Well, you know. Except for the whole fact that FunPub stories have been stated to not apply to every universe, and Forest Lee (AFAIK) has zero to do with writing the other continuities, and it's wiki policy to consider as everything equally canon.
::::::::::::::::Especially when we're talking stories that take place in a venue that hardly anybody reads vs. more mainstream venues. I fail to see how you can even think Lee's fiction is supposed to have these big, sweeping changes to the brand when only a tiny handful of people have even heard about/read it, and probably almost none of Hasbro's target demographic. How can something that barely anyone knows about be as important as you claim?
::::::::::::::::Maybe the current fiction ''will'' actually finally firmly establish the singularity as applying to every continuity in venues where everyone can actually see it. But until that time... I love FunPub's continuity, but the fact is that it's just one continuity out of many, and it's one almost nobody reads to boot. Treating it as more important than everything else just because the wiki's (understandably) biased towards it is ridiculous. --[[User:Jeysie|Jeysie]] 22:41, 28 June 2010 (EDT)
::::::::::::::::::Look, you can't say "Hasbro never said this", and then when shown they did, retort with a "well, then it doesn't matter." I have no idea what Pete Sinclair thinks he is saying, as it was pointed out to him in that same Allspark thread that the Movie storyline has a multiversal stream assignment, and he's all like "yeah, but it's not in the multiverse". Once again that is a case of individual authors not being able to "break" foundational facts that have a broader scope than their own stories--and they sure can't ''THINK'' their way into breaking them without ever even bothering to put it to pen and expect it to have any validity outside their own greymatter. Come on, if you're going to dismiss FP's story material because it's so obscure and little-known, that explicitly discredits all author intent ever, which is orders of magnitude more obscure and unknown and was never even official in the first place. A Hasbro comic book with any circulation sure outranks some guy's Twitter following. The very idea of "stating certain stories not to apply" is rampant author-intentism--in this case favoring the intent of Sinclair over Lee ''in the exact same continuity and medium''. I will never view it as a valid argument. You are right to point out that this wiki treats all publications as canon. Animated A3 not-being one of the 13 was never published and is not canon. Ditto for the oxymoronic notion that the movie universe--or ANY universe--would not be part of the multiverse. --[[User:Thylacine 2000|Thylacine 2000]] 10:35, 29 June 2010 (EDT)
:::::::::::::::::::I can say that "Hasbro has never said this" because they haven't. Meanwhile, Sinclair, who's one of FunPub's '''managing editors''' (not "just" a writer) and thus knows what FunPub fiction does and doesn't cover and affect, has said something. Yes, I'm favoring Sinclair over Lee in the same medium, the same way that what Andy Schmidt or Tipton says goes over any individual IDW writer.
:::::::::::::::::::As for authorial intent, we add it on as Trivia notes whenever it doesn't contradict actual canon. The funny thing is, the idea of the Movies and Animated being in the multiverse is equally as much authorial intent. And since it's from an author who doesn't even write or have anything to do with the Movie or Animated fiction, that means it carries even less weight than the usual authorial intent. And seeing as how Movie fiction outright contradicted IN CANON the idea of the 13 being the same as every other universe...
:::::::::::::::::::As for anything in FunPub continuity meaning anything outside of FunPub continuity itself, see Jackpot's 100% correct note below which sums up my thoughts on the matter perfectly. Nobody outside of the hardcore fans even knows about FunPub's continuity, let alone considers it anywhere near enough important to overwrite the main continuities, and that includes FunPub's own editor and the people writing the main continuities. It's only oxymoronic if you give the FunPub continuity an importance it never had in the first place, and if you don't realize that what was retconned once (if you accept the multiversal retcon) can very very easily be retconned again.
:::::::::::::::::::And there is no "Hasbro's comic books". There's IDW's comic books and FunPub's comic books. In fact, to be perfectly technical, FunPub explicitly '''does not''' have a comic book license from Hasbro! They're only allowed to produce a magazine and the BotCon convention comics. So really, claiming they're "Hasbro's comic books" is doubly wrong. IDW is--by '''license'''--Hasbro's comic book company, not FunPub. --[[User:Jeysie|Jeysie]] 11:09, 29 June 2010 (EDT)
::::::::::::::::::::To be fair, I'd like to say something in defense of Thy's side of the debate: We're all trying to free our arguments from the taint of authorial intent, and I think that's part-and-parcel with a Platonic ideal of continuity that underlies our whole endeavor here. This is the notion that, stripped of all real-world references, there's a pure-fiction world where we can treat all of these stories as "real" events in a multiverse as internally consistent as actual reality. We all know this is an impossible vision, but it's there under the surface nonetheless (consider how our default writing style is to present the fiction as primary fact and relegate the real-world facts to "Trivia"). Hand-in-hand with that ideal is the discounting of any given story's real-world influence and fame. Ideally, we don't play favorites; in fact, elevating the obscure is a point of pride. And from this stripped-down, egalitarian view, what do we see? One universe is acknowledging the multiverse and making grand statements about it, while most of the rest stay basically agnostic. From an entirely in-fiction perspective, how do we deal with that, especially when those grand statements sometimes seem at odds with how other universes present themselves? Our current consensus (and I think Thy's answer, even if he hasn't approached it from exactly this direction) is to play along, to accept in-universe multiversal claims as-is, even if that means allowing other universes to get pushed around. I can understand this view; there's an appealing simplicity to it. But I'm more inclined towards Jeysie's view, which is that we should document the FunPub multiversal claims but not let them dictate our entire presentation. The result would be a little paradoxical on the surface, since the same article might have to talk about a character as both a singularity and as having multiple incarnations. But I think it can be done, and it's more true to our everything-is-canon maxim. - [[User:Jackpot|Jackpot]] 13:21, 29 June 2010 (EDT)
:::::::::::::::::::::Again, I think you summed up some of my own thoughts well. I'm not trying to ''discount'' the FunPub fiction; it's ''equally as'' valid a continuity as any other. I just disagree with us treating it as ''more'' canon than every other continuity, to the point where not only is FunPub fiction retconning canon in other continuities accepted, but we don't accept the notion of newer fiction in turn retconning the older FunPub fiction.
:::::::::::::::::::::Basically, there is a multiverse in FunPub's storylines, but there may or may not be a multiverse in any other storylines. So long as you accept the storylines as all being separate from a real-world perspective, this isn't really that hard to wrap one's mind around. What the writer for one universe chooses to include in their work has no bearing on what the writer for a separate universe chooses to include in ''their'' work. --[[User:Jeysie|Jeysie]] 13:50, 29 June 2010 (EDT)
::::::::::::::::::::::Pretty much. I developed my own view of continuity in the old days of ATT, when Raksha and Skyflight were doing their level best to drive wedges between G1 and the hated BW. I think it was in the "Star Drive"/"Nemesis" debate that it occurred to me that the best way to look at continuity between series is as moving ever forward, never backward. From the perspective of the G1 'toon, the Decepticon ship actually has no name, though "Star Drive" is a valid possibility. And now that that series is over, nothing can ever settle the question; the absence of evidence is in fact its canon. Of course, the BW 'toon adapted bits of the G1 'toon into its own backstory and gave the 'Con ship a name, which is perfectly canon for that enlarged perspective. Likewise, BW established a kind of afterlife called "the other side of the Matrix", and then BM clarified it as the "Allspark" with its own properties. From the perspective of BW, the Allspark isn't actually canon, but from the perspective of BM-plus-BW-as-its-backstory, it is. And so on. When we get to FunPub, we find a continuity that actually incorporates ''every other continuity'' into its cosmology and makes declarations about them. Which is all fine and good, and those declarations are canon from the FunPub-plus-everything-else perspective... but look at any of those everything-elses from their own perspectives, and the retcons are no longer canon.
::::::::::::::::::::::I've seen that view expressed in debates here before, but seldom. I think there's a philosophical divide among editors here, and the current dominant side believes that the perspective of the Wiki should be from the top of the retcon chain, which determines our presentation of everything else. I take a more bottom-up approach; in fact, the [[Allspark]] article is an excellent demonstration of how I prefer things. I'd much rather see how an idea has evolved from series to series than see everything made to conform to the latest evolution.
::::::::::::::::::::::- [[User:Jackpot|Jackpot]] 14:28, 29 June 2010 (EDT)
:::::::::::::::::::::::What about the "Star Drive"? Was that a name pulled from the dialog? - [[User:Starfield|Starfield]] 15:04, 29 June 2010 (EDT)
::::::::::::::::::::::::Yeah, in "[[Microbots]]", when Scavenger is scanning the ground for traces of the ship, he says something about locating the "star drive." In all likelihood this meant the ship's engine, but one day the late ATT gadfly Skyflight announced that he had decided it was the true name of the ship, contrary to BW's claims. The usual chaos ensued. - [[User:Jackpot|Jackpot]] 15:12, 29 June 2010 (EDT)

:::::::::::::::::::::::Yeah, I think my approach can be classified as the "bottom-up" approach as well. I prefer to just state canon as much as-is as possible (with the occasional authorial note where it clarifies canon without contradicting it), and let the reader make up their mind for themselves how to fit it all together. --[[User:Jeysie|Jeysie]] 20:04, 29 June 2010 (EDT)

:::::::::::::::::Where/when have the FP stories been stated to not apply to every universe? Just out of curiosity. I hadn't heard this before.--[[User:Jimsorenson|Jimsorenson]] 22:51, 28 June 2010 (EDT)
::::::::::::::::::Sinclair mentioned on the Allspark that [http://www.allspark.com/forums/index.php?s=&showtopic=64273&view=findpost&p=1388259 "Movie continuity is outside the multiverse."]. --[[User:Jeysie|Jeysie]] 22:58, 28 June 2010 (EDT)
:::::::::::::::::::That's.... very interesting to know. I think it's a perfect illustration of Jeysie's point, too: While Forest Lee may be the closest thing we have to the Mouth of Sauron, in every practical way his voice has been a squeak. He's no George Lucas, and if his multiversal-singularity foundation has really been so solidly established since 2003, then why didn't Orci and Kurtzman conform to it? Why did Pete have to hand-wave their work away? Because until possibly - ''possibly'' - now, the people who actually MATTER at Hasbro haven't given two shits about this level of continuity. And pretending like we can apply a Lucas-level primacy to the FunPub work has been and probably always will be an endless source of headaches, since other creators will keep blithely making square pegs that we bend ourselves over backwards trying to fit into Forest's round hole. (Uh.... that wasn't supposed to sound so filthy.) (Okay, it wasn't at first, but then I admit I kind of ran with it.)
:::::::::::::::::::Anyway, as to the matter at hand, I'm in favor of patience. Also of doing our damnedest to separate what's actually in the fiction from what's been said elsewhere. As others have mentioned, it's possible that the Exodus 13 aren't actually singularities, or maybe more than one being in the multiverse happens to be named "Alpha Trion"... Let's wait and see how the WFC/Exodus/Prime universe unfolds.
:::::::::::::::::::- [[User:Jackpot|Jackpot]] 23:50, 28 June 2010 (EDT)
::::::::::::::::::::Thank you... that more or less sums up how I feel in a nutshell, better than I have so far. I mean, I hate sounding like I'm running down FunPub or Lee because I like their stuff, but... up until now I just don't see it as being the driving force some folks seem to wish it is, when you actually look outside the circle of us hardcore fans. We keep giving Lee and FunPub an importance that, when it comes to how things have actually worked in a practical sense, they just do not have.
::::::::::::::::::::So, I'd rather wait to see which way Hasbro is gonna bounce... whether it's retconning the retcon and letting the continuities (seemingly) continue to do what they will or won't regards the matter, or changing to making a firm and noticeable statement in favor of the matter outside of a single obscure continuity. --[[User:Jeysie|Jeysie]] 11:09, 29 June 2010 (EDT)

::::::::::I consider actual fiction canon, then authorial intent from the people who actually wrote the fiction for things that don't contradict canon. And the fact that Trion is not a historian and there's no Vector Sigma IS canon for Animated. Like I said, if Hasbro actually cared about the matter they could very very easily have made Isenberg write something in somewhere and removed all doubt, or told the creators to stop making untrue statements.
::::::::::Plus, it's not the existence of the 13 that's the problem, it's the idea of the singularity nonsense that's the problem. So far Hasbro's ''never'' said a single thing about that. All the info has been about ''the 13'' and has been related to TF: Prime; I haven't heard anything about singularities, unless there's BotCon news that wasn't reported.
::::::::::(And "official call" makes no sense. If anything, the opposite: all we've gotten is from FunPub fiction/writers, and FunPub's editor flatly said that the Movieverse, at least, is separate from FunPub's take. Meanwhile, IDW, the Movies, and Animated all have canon and statements flatly going against the singularity, and Hasbro's current statements have been about TF: Prime, not TF as a whole. So I don't get why people claim Hasbro's pushing the singularity when I've never seen a statement from them about it and they keep approving fiction that contradicts it.) --[[User:Jeysie|Jeysie]] 02:36, 28 June 2010 (EDT)

:::::::::::: Here's the problem. Hasbro HAS said officially that all the 13 are Multiversal Singularities. And they HAVE said A3 is a 13er. That's canon. That's what the wiki needs to go by. Nothing personal, but it doesn't matter what you personnally think about Authoral Intent. How like canon you make it in your own mind/fanon. That is NOT canon. It can be interesting. It can be worth mentioning on the wiki. But it is NOT CANON until it appears officially approved by Hasbro somwhere. So going by what's official the pages really need to be merged. --[[User:ZacWilliam|ZacWilliam]] 06:38, 28 June 2010 (EDT)
:::::::::::::No, they have not said that. The only thing I've ever seen about multiversal singularities has, like I said, come from FunPub writers and fiction. And, like I said, it's been stated directly by FunPub that at least one continuity is separate from what FunPub does. Like I also said, everything Hasbro has said about the Thirteen has only mentioned a single continuity: Exodus/TF: Prime; they haven't said the Thirteen are singularities. And, like I also also said, it's not just authorial intent but actual canon in the fiction that has contradicted the singularity idea. Fiction that was approved by Hasbro, I might add.
:::::::::::::It's you folks claiming that Hasbro is supposedly pushing the singularity that are ignoring canon and what Hasbro actually has and hasn't said. Not only that, but you are actually also going by authorial intent. In fact, you're being worse about it than I am, since you're going by authorial intent of people who have nothing to do with writing the continuities in question!
:::::::::::::So, to the contrary, going by what's official there's no reason to merge at all. Trion is a Thirteener in some continuities, yes, but that's it.
::::::::::::: When Hasbro actually comes out and says that the Thirteen are singularities and we see some actual mainstream fiction saying so--and Hasbro made the effort to explain that Zeta Prime was "Sentinel Zeta Prime", so we ''know'' they'll speak up when they actually do have problems--then I'll concede the point. Until then, all canon, official evidence, and authorial intent from the actual continuity writers, that I've seen is to the contrary, which is why the wiki's stance bugs me so much. --[[User:Jeysie|Jeysie]] 09:41, 28 June 2010 (EDT)
::::::::::::::Jeysie, you do realize that when we're saying "Hasbro", we're basically saying "Forest Lee", right? The guy who wrote both the FunPub coimcs and bios dealing with the singularity thing, and is also Hasbro's bio-writer. And who answered the Q&A question about singularities. Lee saying it is "Hasbro" saying it. - [[User:Chris McFeely|Chris McFeely]] 09:59, 28 June 2010 (EDT)
:::::::::::::::And again, FunPub's come out as saying their fiction doesn't apply to at least one universe. And 99.9% of the time we don't let toy bios override the actual fiction, so I'm not sure why this case is different.
:::::::::::::::To me "Hasbro saying it" equals someone like Archer, who deals with more than just a single company's continuity or toy blurbs that often don't match up with actual fiction anyway. The whole Sentinel/Zeta Prime thing, for instance, was (AFAIK, correct me if wrong) commented on by an overseeing Hasbro person, rather than by a writer who writes for a continuity entirely separate from WFC's. --[[User:Jeysie|Jeysie]] 10:17, 28 June 2010 (EDT)

::::::::::::::Did Hasbro know that that was the author's intent? If they never specifically mentioned those ideas, Hasbro would not have known "to put their foot down". I don't know one way or the other, but that is an unspoken assumption in your argument that needs to be examined. --[[User:Khajidha|Khajidha]] 10:07, 28 June 2010 (EDT)
:::::::::::::::I find it hard to believe that they had no clue what someone like Isenberg was planning on doing with the fiction. Especially when they've been shown to be perfectly picky about any number of minor details in the fiction, so why would they fail to worry about major ones? --[[User:Jeysie|Jeysie]] 10:17, 28 June 2010 (EDT)

::::::::Contrary to what you think, Vector Sigma DOES exist in Animated continuity (even according to Wyatt!). Read A3's Animated page. It's there. If you're going to argue a point, at least research it first. - [[Special:Contributions/72.128.51.130|72.128.51.130]] 10:38, 28 June 2010 (EDT)
:::::::::Again, like I said, it's not the Thirteen specifically that's the problem, it's the singularity that's the problem. There's no issue with the Thirteen existing in a continuity (any more than any other character the writers want to have existing in a continuity), it's the idea that they're some singularity that has to exist always in the same way that's the sticking point.
:::::::::Vector Sigma can exist in Animated all he wants; that doesn't prove anything except that he exists and can travel between dimensions (which is true of plenty of characters who aren't Thirteen members or singularities, so that doesn't say much on its own). And heck, Animated Alpha Trion may even be part of the Animated Thirteen for all we know--he's just not a singularity as far as Animated is concerned. --[[User:Jeysie|Jeysie]] 10:43, 28 June 2010 (EDT)
::::::::::This is probably the one thing that confuses me about the Thirteen; are they singularities in the sense that Unicron is (there's only one, and they can travel between dimensions at will), or like how Primus is (there's only one, and they exist simultaneously at all times in every universe)? That writeup that Forest did is so quantumy that I can read it either way.

:::::::: IIRC, "A3 is one of the Thirteen" is originally a speculation (or, at least, not official) until the publication of ''Exodus''. Also, I think I agree with Jeysie's argument/point. --'''[[User:TX55|TX55]]'''''[[User talk:TX55|TALK]]'' 03:48, 28 June 2010 (EDT)

Considering Lee wrote Reunification, as well as the bio for Nexus Prime and the tidbits about Alpha Trion helping split up Prima's sword? Yeah, I'd wager Lee has an explanation for this waiting in the wings. I can't imagine he wasn't already planning for this at that time.--[[User:Rosicrucian|Rosicrucian]][[User Talk:Rosicrucian|Talk]] 16:03, 27 June 2010 (EDT)

:Yeah, absolutely. There is very obviously something ''big'' planned for the Thirteen, and has been for some time, but they're either taking their time very deliberately and building slowly, slowly, ever-so-slowly, or they can't quite find the right venue for the story. I can't think of a ''worse'' way to do it than through IDW, so I was quite glad when I heard that idea had been scrapped after it became "more of a Hasbro thing than an IDW thing", but it seems like something that needs more exposure than just a fanclub comic, so... I'm talking like I'm on a message board, so I'll stop. - [[User:Chris McFeely|Chris McFeely]] 16:09, 27 June 2010 (EDT)

::Considering this from a wiki standpoint, I'll just say that this takes us into ''tremendously'' fertile territory for bi-monthly Q&A submissions.--[[User:Rosicrucian|Rosicrucian]][[User Talk:Rosicrucian|Talk]] 16:11, 27 June 2010 (EDT)

:::I guess the problem with merging is that we first have to find out if there one, even is an explanation, and two, what said explanation is. --[[User:Jeysie|Jeysie]] 22:51, 27 June 2010 (EDT)

::Unless Alpha Trion is just like Vector Prime in some way, or an explanation like the ''ROTF'' Fallen, but I'll hate it if that becomes true. What I worry is that if we ask in Q&A, will they made a explanation in rush? Or should we find a way to ask the writer(s?) of ''Exodus''? --'''[[User:TX55|TX55]]'''''[[User talk:TX55|TALK]]'' 22:57, 27 June 2010 (EDT)

::::I see it the other way, merge the articles with a note that the explanation is unclear and fill in the explanation later. --[[User:Khajidha|Khajidha]] 22:55, 27 June 2010 (EDT)

:::::What Hasbro says, goes. Whatever anyone else says is a trivia note at best if it conflicts with Hasbro. I say we merge, since that's the official word, with a note explaining that the merger has a few weird issues and we don't have an official explanation yet.--[[User:ZacWilliam|ZacWilliam]] 23:15, 27 June 2010 (EDT)

:::::: My thing is, until we have some clear idea how it all fits together structure-wise, trying to merge everything is going to be one very long pile-on mess. Especially when we try to write up how to reconcile SG and Animated Alpha Trions. --[[User:Jeysie|Jeysie]] 23:18, 27 June 2010 (EDT)

::::::: I vote for note vote until we get a clear explanation. However, if possible, I do consider using subpages if confirmed because there are a big divergence between all Alpha Trion. --'''[[User:TX55|TX55]]'''''[[User talk:TX55|TALK]]'' 23:22, 27 June 2010 (EDT)



::::::::Tx? What does that mean? Anyway, I don't really see the issue. They get a write-up on what they did in each continuity under the correct header in "Fiction" and the section starts with a continuity note that says "This doesn't seem to fit with the nature of the character as dictated by Hasbro, but who knows the conflict may be explained away in the future." Boom. Where's the "complications"? Kinda how the Sunbow Toon is handled in the Unicron and Primus articles.--[[User:ZacWilliam|ZacWilliam]] 23:26, 27 June 2010 (EDT)
::::::::: (COming in kinda late but...) I also vote on just waiting this out for a bit... It's not even that big of a deal if you ask me. Any author could just come along and make up an easy explanation to solve this problem. Even I can do it, watch: "Eons ago, A3 split himself from a singularity into a multitude of individuals to better understand non-singularity beings blah blah blah blah..." When you read mystery fiction, do you just flip out when something doesn't add up and confuses you? No, you keep on reading, and odds are by the end of the story, something comes up and makes you say "oh! It all makes sense now!" --[[User:Ascendron|Ascendron]] 12:08, 28 June 2010 (EDT)
::::::::::Yeah. Considering we're usually patient, I don't see a problem with just waiting until we get a clear idea of things. We can always just stick a message box at the top saying that we think they all need a merge, but we're waiting on the matter.
::::::::::(Heck, for all we know, it'll end up being canon that, like you say, he's actually a ''split'' singularity that's deliberately many separate individuals who are all part of the same, uh, personality gestalt. In which case merging might not make sense after all.) --[[User:Jeysie|Jeysie]] 12:14, 28 June 2010 (EDT)
::::::::::::If we stick a very clear, unambiguous message that these should probably be merged at the top of the pages I would have no problem with waiting a reasonable time period before merging. It should not be hidden down at the bottom in the notes though, we need to be out in the open with this. --[[User:Khajidha|Khajidha]] 12:21, 28 June 2010 (EDT)

So, what to do with [[Alpha Trion (Prime)]]? I suggest phrasing it like this: "'''Alpha Trion''' is one of the [[Thirteen|thirteen original Transformers]] and the Archivist who bears the [[Quill]] that writes the [[Covenant of Primus]]. He might be the same Alpha Trion as [[Alpha Trion (G1)|him]], [[Alpha Trion (RID)|him]], [[Alpha Trion (Energon)|him]] and [[Alpha Trion (ROTF)|him]], though probably not [[Alpha Trion (SG)|him]]." [[User:Alientraveller|Alientraveller]] 11:56, 11 July 2010 (EDT)

:Something like that. The idea in the note on the AT disambig. page was to use the Prime page for all the info on AT that we know is about the 13er Singularity, with obvious links to the others and info about the retcon. I just wanted to make sure folks were cool with the notes on the Disambig. page and the G1 Trion page before expanding the idea. As it's been a few days now with no one objecting I think the idea should be completed as at least a temporary solution, pending future info from Hasbro. --[[User:ZacWilliam|ZacWilliam]] 12:02, 11 July 2010 (EDT)

==Another perspective on Multiuniversal Singularities==
Is it absolutely, 100% set in stone that every version of a character who's referenced as a Multiversal Singularity is definitely the same guy? How about Megatronus? Megatron used to go by that name. If we REALLY follow the idea that every character sharing a name with a Multiuniversal Singularity is the same guy, then every Megatron is also the Fallen. Assuming no one hear actually takes that position, then we have precedent where there are two characters sharing a name, one of whom is a confirmed Multiuniversal Singularity, and the other of whom is not. Once we have one example, it logically follows that there might be more.--[[User:Jimsorenson|Jimsorenson]] 12:15, 28 June 2010 (EDT)

:This makes perfect sense to me. Then again, pretty much every explanation people have come up with for, say, A3's status as an MS has made perfect sense to me, so..... --[[User:-Blackout-|-Blackout-]] 12:22, 28 June 2010 (EDT)

::That actually is something that I've also considered. It ''would'' be a rather tidy "have your cake and eat it too" kind of explanation that undoes some of the thorniness of the matter. --[[User:Jeysie|Jeysie]] 12:29, 28 June 2010 (EDT)

:::It makes sense to me, too. I really like "two characters sharing a name, one of whom is a confirmed Multiuniversal Singularity, and the other of whom is not." --'''[[User:TX55|TX55]]'''''[[User talk:TX55|TALK]]'' 13:25, 28 June 2010 (EDT)
::::It sounds good to me. It wouldn't be the first time 2 characters with the same name existed in the same universe at once. Look at [[Silverbolt (G1)|Silverbolt]] and [[Silverbolt (BW)|Silverbolt]]. Hell, you could even argue that the non-MS character was (in-universe) named in honor of the MS. -- [[User:Semysane|Semysane]] 03:42, 29 June 2010 (EDT)

::::Or, in SG Alpha Trion's case, he went crazy and started to believe that he's the MS A3. There's just so many issues that we can explain away with this. --[[User:-Blackout-|-Blackout-]] 03:45, 29 June 2010 (EDT)

== The 13 as singularities concept obsolete? ==

My opinion is that, in all likelihood, the wiki is slavishly adhering to a concept (the 13 are mutiversal singularities) that isn't really going anywhere. As far as I know, it hasn't been followed up on since a [http://www.allspark.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=70811&st=120&p=1585399&#entry1585399 fan-club story from around 2005] (the wiki still needs a specific citation). Yes, there was a Q&A answer, but that isn't exactly fiction. Dare I say that it is closer to [[authorial intent]] mixed with a little bit of humoring detail-obsessive fans? We are apparently in the near future getting treated to the definitive story of the original 13. I see no hints that they are going to be anything other than simply residents of the "Prime"-verse. If the 13 aren't singularities in "Prime", then I think the wiki should probably consider the concept obsolete and save a lot of headaches. If they are singularities in "Prime", I will eat my hat. This is just my 2¢. - [[User:Starfield|Starfield]] 13:34, 21 July 2010 (EDT)
:There might be something to this. I definitely think taking a 'wait-and-see' approach to Prime and the 13 is a good idea.--[[User:Jimsorenson|Jimsorenson]] 13:38, 21 July 2010 (EDT)
::Maybe it's just taken them a while to figure out how to put things together. They have been rather busy with a multimillion dollar, multipart movie series. To me Prime seems like it is going to integrate and synthesize a lot of things and inform not just where the stories go from here, but also how the previous stories are understood. We need to exercise a little patience and see what Hasbro does next. --[[User:Khajidha|Khajidha]] 13:40, 21 July 2010 (EDT)
:::We shall see, Galvatron, we shall see.....[/zarakquote]
:::Also, you're on. If the 13 are singularities in "Prime", I expect to see pics of you eating your hat. --[[User:-Blackout-|-Blackout-]] 13:43, 21 July 2010 (EDT)
::::It's certainly possible Hasbro will let the concept go at some point. But they have not yet. IF they do, then we change things, but until then we wait and go with the last official word on the subject: The 13 are singularities. Since Hasbro apparently has big plans for them soon we have a good chance to see one way or the other soon. --[[User:ZacWilliam|ZacWilliam]] 14:25, 21 July 2010 (EDT)
:::::I seriously doubt that Prime will have anything to say about the 13 being singularities, one way or the other. --[[User:KilMichaelMcC|KilMichaelMcC]] 15:23, 21 July 2010 (EDT)
::::::From what Hasbro's said it sounds like they plan to express the 13 backstory on a number of fronts, not just the Prime toon. I think there's a decent chance it'll be adressed at some point. Not definate, but certainly a posibillity. --[[User:ZacWilliam|ZacWilliam]] 16:00, 21 July 2010 (EDT)
:::::::Given the amount of product-moving time required, I doubt Hasbro would see any benefit to talking about not just one backstory but ''infinite'' backstories, dragging in dimensions that have nothing whatsoever to do with the story itself just to show some characters vaulting back and forth between them. The very concept of multiversal-singularitism is of interest to only a handful and, almost inherently, does not "work" within one discrete storyline. They very well may leave the whole matter undiscussed and, for all intents and purposes, abandoned. But time will tell. --[[User:Thylacine 2000|Thylacine 2000]] 16:38, 21 July 2010 (EDT)

==Alien Traveler's version==
I'm sorry, but your version made up wayyyyy too much stuff. For example:
:As Unicron learned how to change his planetary form, Primus created the 13 in imitation of him. The 13 reproduced by budding, but the process had dark byproducts, so Prima was given the Matrix to perpetuate their race instead.
This was under the MARVEL COMICS CONTINUITY section! There was no 13 in the Marvel Comics continuity! They hadn't been created yet! This is absolutely not what we should be doing. We do not make up canon to make our pages read cohesively. --[[User:ItsWalky|ItsWalky]] 11:03, 12 August 2010 (EDT)
:And aside from that? Anyway, let's continue that discussion on [[User talk:Alientraveller/The Primes]]. You must admit my version is far more in-depth. [[User:Alientraveller|Alientraveller]] 11:12, 12 August 2010 (EDT)
::Well no one put any input, but I hope my changes are now are more to your liking and rather than reverting a lot of work you could improve upon it instead, the article now longer seems like a stub with an elaborate intro and lots of notes. [[User:Alientraveller|Alientraveller]] 07:18, 14 August 2010 (EDT)
:::But you're not really chronicling the thirteen as a group in fiction. You're just going in-depth in what the individual members did. How is the Nexus Prime stuff relevant? Are you also going to note everything Vector Prime and Alpha Trion did? [[User:Interrobang|—Interrobang]] 08:20, 14 August 2010 (EDT)
::::I did actually! The I looked and realized Trion and Vector and Nexus's individual exploits are better covered in this own article as it was becoming a bit of a Frankenstein, and that it should only cover instances of the Thirteen interacting. Which is why Fun Pub.'s section is fairly big, considering it does feature Vector, Alpha (and possible doppleganger) and the five components of Nexus.
::::Maybe we could hide the second two paragraphs about Fun Publications and unhide them if we get a Q&A answer regarding evil Trion. [[User:Alientraveller|Alientraveller]] 08:32, 14 August 2010 (EDT)
:::::I appreciate your compromise approach, though I still think the current draft is heavily dependent on the "multiversal singularity" policy still being in effect, something that hasn't been touched on for these characters since like 1 page in 2005. --[[User:Thylacine 2000|Thylacine 2000]] 18:34, 14 August 2010 (EDT)

== Solus Prime ==

I'm assuming we're going to wait for [[Transformers: Exiles|Exiles]] to be released before potentially adding him(/her?) to this list? --[[User:Karhukjnsi|Karhukjnsi]] 03:49, 25 March 2011 (EDT)
: Probably for the best. There really isn't anything to say till then. Wish it were closer than Sept.--[[Special:Contributions/76.28.76.206|76.28.76.206]] 07:02, 25 March 2011 (EDT)

== misspelling ==

Could someone change "Finally, there came a time when Prima had to relenquish the Matrix." to "Finally, there came a time when Prima had to '''relinquish''' the Matrix."? The page is locked. --[[Special:Contributions/81.164.215.61|81.164.215.61]] 12:56, 4 October 2011 (EDT)

== Nexus ==

Except for Nexus, each of the bullets at the top describes what kind of person the Transformer was. Nexus's line, however, just focuses on what he physically was, a combiner. Exiles describes him as a cunning magician, so can someone with write access add that in?[[Special:Contributions/192.249.47.196|192.249.47.196]] 14:05, 17 October 2011 (EDT)
:Thanks, Zack.[[Special:Contributions/192.249.47.196|192.249.47.196]] 15:15, 17 October 2011 (EDT)

== Move? ==

Seems to me that this should be moved to "Thirteen", since that's the consistently-used proper name of the group. Or the most common "Thirteen (blank)" used in fiction. [[User:Interrobang|—Interrobang]] 17:01, 17 October 2011 (EDT)

== Beast Mode Prime ==

[[Image:OneShallRise1-WellofAllSparks.jpg|thumb|right|250px]]

Is the Prime on the upper right corner (the one to the left of the energy sphere/Vector Prime) the Beast Prime? Judging by the fact that he looks distinctly centaur-like... [[User:Tom Servo the Great|Tom Servo the Great]] 18:22, 20 October 2011 (EDT)
: We don't know. Was hoping someone would interrogate Hasbro/Prime crew at NYCC. No luck. --[[Special:Contributions/76.28.76.206|76.28.76.206]] 18:50, 20 October 2011 (EDT)
:::It's not confirmed, but I think it's evident like Solus Prime. [[User:Interrobang|—Interrobang]] 18:54, 20 October 2011 (EDT)
::::I disagree. It definately could be him. And may be him. But there's at least one huge monstrous member in the charging to battle pic that it could also be. We need to stay away from guesses as much as possible. As we always say, we don't need to have info "first". There is no race, and accuracy is more important. So until confirmed there's no reason for us to guess. Even if it's a reasonable guess.--[[Special:Contributions/76.28.76.206|76.28.76.206]] 19:28, 20 October 2011 (EDT)

I don't think the energy sphere guy is Beast Prime, seeing as Minicon Prime is supposed to be the smallest, which the energy sphere guy seems to be. speaking of which, unless 'Prime' is not in his name, he may not even be a Mini-con in the movieverse, unless he got a lot larger. in the ROTF appearances of the 7 Primes, they're all seemingly larger than Megatron. [[User:CrowBuster|CrowBuster]] 17:21, 11 January 2012 (EST)[[User: CrowBuster|CrowBuster]]

== Alpha Trion ==
Since you've decided to keep all Alpha Trion's article's seperate, and just note that [[Alpha Trion (Prime)]] is a multiuniversal singualarity and the others disputed, does this mean that future incarnations of Alpha Trion will have their own article, or be included on [[Alpha Trion (Prime)]]? Just wondering.[[Special:Contributions/71.162.97.20|71.162.97.20]] 12:08, 11 November 2011 (EST)
: We'll address that when it happens, according to the circumstances. Impossible to say until then. --[[User:ItsWalky|ItsWalky]] 12:42, 11 November 2011 (EST)

== Current placement of "Conceptual History" as of December 2nd, 2011 ==

I am personally not a fan of its placement in the page (or perhaps it's the title), I feel that goes more along the line of "trivia" which would typically reside at the bottom of the page with "Notes". I strongly feel that we should keep the structure of: "Members", then "Fiction", then either "Conceptual History" (CH), or mix the CH with "Notes". --[[User:Karhukjnsi|Karhukjnsi]] 06:38, 2 December 2011 (EST)
:I wrote the CH section at Interrobang's suggestion to specifically move it ''out'' of the bullet-pointed notes into full prose to give room for a proper charting of the ideas concept. Placement, you can argue, sure, but I just like having conceptual history sections up top as with [[Matrix of Leadership|the Matrix]], or [[Energon]], or the [[Allspark]], as they are key to understanding the precise chronological unfolding of a lot of the information that then follows them on the page. - [[User:Chris McFeely|Chris McFeely]] 06:58, 2 December 2011 (EST)
::I prefer it at the top, as the Thirteen, like Unicron, energon, the Matrix, etc., are not a consistently portrayed concept. Better to elaborate on that fact to start with instead of having poorly-connected fiction sections and then an explanation why. [[User:Interrobang|—Interrobang]] 15:06, 2 December 2011 (EST)

Talk:Dion (G1)

2012-01-10T22:09:44Z

CrowBuster:

==Who is Dion? section==
Just wondering if the "Who is Dion?" bit isn't a bit too speculative? Really this should be a tiny footnote about the references to his origins. Sure, it's nice to note about the fan speculation -- but should it take up the bulk of the entry? I also the question of putting "Who is Dion" links on other character's pages considering there's no concrete links between these characters and Dion -- other than wishful thinking by fans. ---JHIAXUS.
:I think the article is fine as it is. Fandom debate about who, if anyone, Dion got rebuilt into is pretty much the most significant thing about the character. --[[User:KilMichaelMcC|KilMichaelMcC]] 22:39, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
::Yeah. The Dion debate is too significant to the fandom (enough that Dreamwave's comics and the RID cartoon gave it lipservice) to ignore. --[[User:ItsWalky|ItsWalky]] 22:41, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
:::Is it just me, or does Dion's color scheme and vehicle mode remind anyone else of Huffer? -- [[User:Hunter-113|Hunter-113]] 00:04, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

==Huffer? Really?==
I'll bow to others if they think so, but I really question Huffer belonging in the "who is" section. Magnus and Ironhide have been cannadates argued over since the internet was a yong trasnsistor, but I've never heard anyone suggest Huffer before. Sure, there's the color scheme likeness but that's all I see. Is there REALLY any argument to keep him in there?--[[User:ZacWilliam|ZacWilliam]] 02:39, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

:I buy it even LESS than I buy Ironhide or Magnus being Dion... and I don't think either damn one of them was ever Dion. This is the first time I've ever heard this little piece of badly-argued fanon. --[[User:M Sipher|M Sipher]] 02:42, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

:Of course not. But this article isn't constructed along sane lines. You could have Ultra Magnus walk up and say "Prime, you were my good friend Orion Pax when I was Dion<ref>In the episode [[War Dawn]]. - Referential Simon</ref>, and I have to speak with you!" and people would ''still'' argue that this statement can't be applied to cartoon continuity. They're attached to Ironhide in their personal continuity. 
:Maybe the footnote would persuade them... but I doubt it. -[[User:Derik|Derik]] 02:49, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
<references/>

:That's three votes for "No Huffer," one more and I say he goes. (Not that it's particularly relevant but I'm a Magnus man myself. I'm sure the writers didn't imntend it, but who cares about that? It makes sense to me and fits the universe and the characters and, to me atleast, it just feels right. But eh, to each his own.)--[[User:ZacWilliam|ZacWilliam]] 02:57, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

:In my opinion, the entire "Who is Dion?" section is ridiculous and should be trimmed down to consist only of the first two sentences, perhaps with the third tagged on (but with Huffer reverted out of the list). Spending even a second paragraph on the idea that Dion ''must'' be somebody important is way more than the idea deserves. --[[User:Steve-o|Steve-o]] 03:19, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
:: What? Even the stuff about how Dion/Ultra Magnus stuff was brought up again in ''Robots in Disguise'' and the Dreamwave comics? Whether the idea of Dion being somebody important is stupid or not, we can't really ignore that it's been brought up, officially, over and over. --[[User:ItsWalky|ItsWalky]] 04:01, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

:::Oh, actually, I forgot those parts. Basically I want to minimize all speculation to as few sentences as possible. Making arguments for and against particular candidates strikes me as silly. However, I will admit that I am probably biased on this since the whole "Dion must be somebody" thing is a pet peeve of mine. On the other hand, everybody making a case for him being somebody is obviously biased, too. If there's anybody out there who considers themselves neutral on the whole thing, maybe they should be the one to do the revision. --[[User:Steve-o|Steve-o]] 16:25, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
::::I'm for Dion not being anybody and being dead, and I wrote the original section. --[[User:ItsWalky|ItsWalky]] 17:13, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

:: I agree, only with more profanity. --[[User:M Sipher|M Sipher]] 03:35, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I restructured the section to downplay Huffer a bit. I suppose the whole thing could stand to be reduced a bit, but as I said above some months back: fandom debate about who, if anyone, Dion got rebuilt into is pretty much the most significant thing about the character. So I have no real problem with the article reflecting that. --[[User:KilMichaelMcC|KilMichaelMcC]] 03:40, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

:I can live with the downplay of Huffer since he isn;t brought up as much as the other two. I also argee that the speculation of Dion's identity is pretty much the only thing that makes the character worth talking about. -- [[User:69.182.245.28|69.182.245.28]] 03:49, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

The reason I put Huffer in the article is because it seems to make to the most sense. From the discussion above I'm not the only one that noticed a similarity. Personally, I think Dion is kind of a loser that should never be mentioned in the same sentence as Ultra Magnus or Ironhide. On the other hand I don't feel the same about the Huffer connection. If the whole "Who is" section must go than so be it, I just thought since it was here it made sense to include Huffer as well. Just give it a some time, maybe a week, before deleting just the Huffer part so more than 3-4 users can comment. -- [[User:69.182.245.28|69.182.245.28]] 03:44, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
: The problem is that you edited the section to say that Huffer is one of the most popular suggestions for who Dion allegedly was, despite it being something that you just decided right now made the most sense. Bad anonymous editor! --[[User:ItsWalky|ItsWalky]] 03:58, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
::My Bad -- [[User:69.182.245.28|69.182.245.28]] 04:00, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

==A note on the link==
to JHIAXUS' site. I think JHIAXUS is being disengenuous in asserting that it's certain Dion is dead. I'm saying it's certain that he's not either- it's possible that he had died in the time Alpha Trion was rebuilding Orion Pax (though Ariel lived), but the Arielbots make repeated references to fixing Orion's friends (plural), even though they only mention Ariel by name.
Slingshot: "We've got to find someone who can repair him, and his friends!"
Air Raid: "He's not the only one: there are others back at the hanger- his girlfriend Ariel!"

Watch for yourself.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mt7W2IA7kKI —The preceding unsigned comment was added by [[User:Molybdenumtop|Molybdenumtop]] ([[User talk:Molybdenumtop|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Molybdenumtop|contribs]]){{#if:17:14, 3 October 2007| 17:14, 3 October 2007|}}.

==Colors==
I removed the "Dion and Huffer share colors" speculation on the basis that Huffer is lavender and Dion is bright blue, which are not the same color. As well, the "Alpha Trion/Elita One commando" that was previously mentioned in that section was identified as a female Transformer in the episode cast list - and was also lavender and orange, not blue. -- [[User:Monzo|Monzo]] 18:33, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

==Whoops!==
Sorry about the Wheelie speculation, I did not realise humor wasn't allowed here. I was under the impression that it was, for some reason. Or perhaps it is, but only for the inner circle jerk of wankers.

Really- what is this wiki about? Are you going for standards? If so, get out the watering can, because half the garbage on here is POV/speculation and wouldn't last 5 minutes on Wikipedia. Anyway, here were my additions (in quotes):

"Dion and [[Wheelie (G1)|Wheelie]] share an almost exact toy design, one being a repaint of the other. In this continuity, Alpha Trion was exhausted after building Optimus, Elita, and all the other robots in his shop that had been "pouring in since this morning." So, he cut a lot of corners... a lot of corners. Ironically, Optimus would not see his old friend until shortly after being brought back from death himself in 2006. (Optimus: "Who the f**k is this Autobot? Wheelie: "Wheelie's my name. Wanna play a game?" Optimus: "No!")"

(Ultra Magnus is a popular suggestion because his cab turns into a white version of the original Optimus Prime body design, and)
"their alternate forms on Earth are also similar, suggesting that they were of the same "mold" (as indeed their toy models were.) It"
would stand to reason that if Alpha Trion rebuilt both of them at roughly the same time they would have similar designs. More, Optimus specifically calls Magnus "old friend" when he passes the [[Matrix of Leadership]] to him. (Though, really, Prime calls everybody that.) To many, Ultra Magnus, being a large powerful character with a latinate name in a leadership role, just seems a fitting completion to a potential triumverate of Optimus, Elita, and Magnus as the first modern Autobots built by Alpha Trion.
"Also noteworthy is the upgrade in characterisation in each case, from giggly teenagers to noble leaders. Post-G1 writers may have tended towards this continuity because due to nothing more than coincidence, it makes more sense in every meaningful way."

Other than the last sentence, what is so ojectionable, or out of character with the rest of the paragraph? The whole paragraph is speulation. The whole article's focus is speculative. {{unsigned|Molybdenumtop}}

:1) You quote a Youtube video and present it as if it were canon. This is horribly misleading.
:2) "Who is Dion?" is a very popular debate amongst Transformers fans, so much that it's been addressed in later canon. The debate consisted of a few very popular answers, which we present. Ironhide and Ultra Magnus (and to a much, much smaller extent, Huffer) are the hotly contested candidates for Dion, one of which has been hinted at, again, as I said, in later canon.
:3) Your random, joking suggestion of Wheelie has nothing to do with the context of this article. We are not making up things whole cloth right here to "answer" this debate. This article only ''reports'' what fandom thinks and why.
:--[[User:ItsWalky|ItsWalky]] 21:35, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Let's address your arguments, even though they don't address mine:
:1) the video I quoted was the G1 episode War Dawn. These quotes were from that show. (Do you understand?) If not, watch the clip, noting the quotes I've pointed out, then click on the link to J's site (the only external link on the Dion page,) compare his version of War Dawn to the one you just saw, and tell me who's being "horribly misleading."
:2) Obviously- do you think I would disagree? I was under the impression that I was contributing to that, in making further arguments for why it might be Ultra Magnus. Is it not a valid point that Magnus's personality is more similar to Prime's and Elita's then Ironhide's? Does speculation have a place in this article? Some people seem to think so, some people think not, and others think only their point of view should matter.
:3) Fine... yes, I got a little carried away, I still thought it was funny.

==Sentinel Prime==
What does everyone think of Sentinel Prime = Dion? In Animated we now have the "old trio" of Optimus, Elita-1 and Sentinel. Substitute Orion Pax for Optimus and Ariel for Elita and you're left with...Sentinel = Dion. He also has a similar color scheme: blue with yellow/orange highlights. --[[User:Xaaron|Xaaron]] 19:12, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

: I think people should stop desperately fishing for imagined patterns to explain irellevent things that do not need explaining. --[[User:M Sipher|M Sipher]] 19:28, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

:: I thought that was the point of this page. I mean, there's a Huffer reference. --[[User:Xaaron|Xaaron]] 19:56, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

:::Is this a good time to ask if anybody minds removing Huffer from the list? The only person I've ever heard with that theory was the anonymous editor from further up the talk page and I've become more and more disdainful of it every time I've seen the article since then. --[[User:Steve-o|Steve-o]] 20:56, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

:: Animated Sentinel Prime is the same age as Optimus. In other words, he's not old enough to remember the Great War. There's no way he's Dion.

:: (Besides, [[Sentinel Prime (G1)|the original Sentinel Prime]] is also orange/yellow.) --[[User:ItsWalky|ItsWalky]] 19:31, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

:::But in no way is he blue, the dominant color of Dion and Animated Sentinel.

:::And I'm not saying Animated Sentinel was previously known as Dion millions of years ago, but that Dion could be the G1 cartoon version of this Sentinel Prime. G1 Elita-1 and BW Blackarachnia are not related at all, but Animated Blackarachnia is an alternate version of G1 Elita. And while G1 Dion is unrelated to any of the three comic versions of Sentinel Prime, Animated Sentinel could be an alternate version of him. --[[User:Xaaron|Xaaron]] 19:56, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

::::Personal speculation is fine and all, but there's no Animated version of Dion nor any G1 cartoon version of Sentinel Prime, so it means nothing to the wiki.--[[User:Apcog|Apcog]] 20:17, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

::::Just stop. --[[User:M Sipher|M Sipher]] 20:21, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

:::::Geez sorry -- I didn't realize this was a forbidden subject. --[[User:Xaaron|Xaaron]] 00:09, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

:::But Animated Optimus Prime doesnt' remember the Great War either. Dion and Orpon Pax were the same age. Animated Oppy and Sentinel Prime are the same age. (I'm not saying he's Dion, I'm just pointing out your counterargument is kinda flimsy.)

::::This... hurts my head so damn much.--[[User:Rosicrucian|Rosicrucian]][[User Talk:Rosicrucian|Talk]] 00:48, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Not so much a forbidden subject as a floodgate. If we allow one guy's personal theory in here, we have to allow another, then another, and another, etc, until the entire article is one giant fanwank. It's just a door that shouldn't be open. -- [[User:SFH|SFH]] 00:15, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

==So, wait, Dion is...==
Dion?!?!?! Way to dance around the rabid fanbases there, Alvarez. [[User:Khajidha|Khajidha]] 19:35, 9 December 2009 (EST) (personally still thinks Huffer is a possibility, but doesn't care enough to argue)
:So the Diamond Edition is out?--[[User:Rosicrucian|Rosicrucian]][[User Talk:Rosicrucian|Talk]] 20:09, 9 December 2009 (EST)
::It is! Cover by Guido. Will scan soon. --[[User:ItsWalky|ItsWalky]] 20:12, 9 December 2009 (EST)
So Dion is......... Dion. Guess that takes care of that. Shot by Megatron, then woke up later.[[User:Protoman|Protoman]] 21:05, 20 December 2009 (EST)
:::Am I the only one thinking the issue isn't over yet though? Between Dion and newly-introduced Magnum, the intent of the Ultra Magnus-implication is so obvious that I don't believe it'll end that way. [[User:Geewunling|Geewunling]] 02:52, 21 December 2009 (EST)

==Cop-Tur Micromaster or Mini-Con?==
Dion's page calls Cop-Tur a Micromaster but the [http://www.transformersclub.com/|club website] is calling him a Mini-Con. The website isn't the official bio, and I suppose it could be an understandable mistake. Is there another source that calls him a Micromaster? - [[User:Starfield|Starfield]] 21:56, 19 January 2010 (EST)
: [[Pete Sinclair]] calls him a Micromaster. --[[User:ItsWalky|ItsWalky]] 21:57, 19 January 2010 (EST)
::OK. That makes more sense. I hope he stays a Micromaster. - [[User:Starfield|Starfield]] 22:03, 19 January 2010 (EST)
:::The instructions refer to him as a "Mini-Con". Authorial intent vs. final product?--[[User:Nevermore|Nevermore]] 13:49, 26 October 2011 (EDT)

==Dion is Jazz?==
[http://www.hasbro.com/transformers/en_US/discover/movie-news/TRANSFORMERS-HALL-OF-FAME-Nominee-3.cfm According the the Transformers hall of fame finalist entry], "Before OPTIMUS PRIME became leader of the AUTOBOTS, he was known as Orion Pax and AUTOBOT JAZZ was his closest friend."

So, if Dion was his best friend before Optimus got rebuilt, doesn't that mean Jazz is Dion? {{unsigned|96.26.4.170|06:13, 6 May 2010}}
:No. Because that bio is basically an "all-encompassing bio for all Jazzes past present and future" therefore there's no way to know if this is referring to G1 Jazz specifically, or Prime Jazz or Movie Jazz or Animated Jazz or Comic Jazz rather than Cartoon Jazz and so forth. --[[User:Detour|Detour]] 06:24, 6 May 2010 (EDT)

::Yeah. ONE Optimus Prime had this friend called Dion. This is a general "capsule" of all Jazzes. Maybe it's specifically referring to the Jazz-like guy we saw in flashbacks during the Unicron Trilogy. Maybe it's UK Comics Jazz. Maybe it's only canon for TF:Prime and the Ladybird storybooks. [[User:Hooper X|-hx]] 06:57, 6 May 2010 (EDT)
::::Except that Sunbow Prime is the only one who was called Orion Pax. - [[User:Magnus Maximus|Magnus Maximus]] 13:36, 6 May 2010 (EDT)
:::::Not true. His name is also Orion Pax in the upcoming [[Transformers: Prime]] and its [[Transformers: Exodus|related fiction]]. --[[User:ItsWalky|ItsWalky]] 13:42, 6 May 2010 (EDT)
::::::According to who? The ''Prime'' page doesn't mention Orion Pax at all, and the only indication of continuity on the Exodus page is that it may be tied to WfC, which so far has been said to be connected more to G1 than the ''Prime'' franchise. - [[User:Magnus Maximus|Magnus Maximus]] 13:53, 6 May 2010 (EDT)
:::::::If there are holes, it is because the pages are incomplete. It is known already that WfC will serve as part of the official history of Hasbro's upcoming fiction initiatives. --[[User:ItsWalky|ItsWalky]] 14:12, 6 May 2010 (EDT)
::::::::Didn't the Keeper Trilogy books make Orion Pax a nickname of Op-ix in DW? [[User:Geewunling|Geewunling]] 14:20, 6 May 2010 (EDT)
:::::::::That too. Further cementing that "Orion Pax" is not limited to Sunbow continuity. --[[User:ItsWalky|ItsWalky]] 14:21, 6 May 2010 (EDT)
::::::::::It might be nice if any of this was actually mentioned anywhere on the wiki. Do a search for Orion Pax, and the only results apart from Exodus are about the Sunbow toon. But whatever, I really don't care that much. Even if it was the same Orion Pax, it doesn't mean much, unless you assume he only ever had one friend. Still, I would argue that it's more of a connection than Ironhide has gotten so far. - [[User:Magnus Maximus|Magnus Maximus]] 14:48, 6 May 2010 (EDT)
::::::::::::Yes, it WOULD be nice if we had all the information laid out, but these articles are about books and video games and cartoon series that WILL NOT BE OUT FOR MONTHS. So your belly-aching is kind of premature. --[[User:ItsWalky|ItsWalky]] 15:34, 6 May 2010 (EDT)
:::::::::::::I'm not "belly-aching" about a lack of information that hasn't been released yet, I'm bitching about the lack of information that has apparently already been confirmed (i.e. the link between Exodus, WfC and Prime). Unless of course it's hasn't actually been confirmed, in which case it shouldn't be used to justify decisions about official canon. - [[User:Magnus Maximus|Magnus Maximus]] 15:51, 6 May 2010 (EDT)
::::::::::::::The real reason is that while we know Exodus, WfC, and Prime are linked, we don't know what continuity family these stories will ultimately end up in, whether it be another G1 continuity or the beginning of a new continuity family. The wiki is reluctant to put up more information along these lines until we know how to best categorize the information. No more, no less. Deciding that Jazz is Dion, meanwhile, is completely unsubstantiated, and doesn't have a decade or so of fandom discussion to inflate its importance. --[[User:ItsWalky|ItsWalky]] 15:57, 6 May 2010 (EDT)
:::::::::::::::In that case, I'll go ahead and change those pages to reflect this. - [[User:Magnus Maximus|Magnus Maximus]] 16:10, 6 May 2010 (EDT)
:::::::::::The Optimus Prime (G1) does mention the Orion Pax tidbit. How better would you suggest it to be documented? Also, no one is denying the wiki is far from complete - that's why there's this many edits a day. What ain't documented now might be tomorrow or the day after or not for another two years. Might be nice if it was all done already, but it ain't. [[User:Geewunling|Geewunling]] 14:51, 6 May 2010 (EDT)
::::::::::::Is it actually Orion Pax in Keepers, or just Orion as the DW section on Optimus' page says? The only result that's caught when you ctrl+F for the full name is the Sunbow section, and there's no mention on the Keepers Trilogy page at all. - [[User:Magnus Maximus|Magnus Maximus]] 15:12, 6 May 2010 (EDT)
:::Can I apologize now? I make one little joke about what was almost certainly an unintended parallel, and every anon on 4 continents rushes to add it somewhere. --[[User:Khajidha|Khajidha]] 11:58, 6 May 2010 (EDT)
::::Never underestimate the anons. :P --[[User:Jeysie|Jeysie]] 12:03, 6 May 2010 (EDT)
I would say that regardless of what the HoF bio suggests, it's a bit ludicrous to make a section for Jazz. The reason Ironhide and Magnus get a section seems to be based around the fact people have been arguing over it for years. It's a major discussion point in the fandom's history. Jazz is just...here. Give it four years of threads dedicated to the topic, then add it in [[User:Eire]] 20.44 May 6th 2010 (UTC)
::::::That's almost the definition of fanon. - [[User:Magnus Maximus|Magnus Maximus]] 15:57, 6 May 2010 (EDT)
:::::Frankly, now that Dion has other fiction to his name, I think we should cut out that section almost entirely. He used to be a three-second character whose "true identity" was debated ad nauseum online for over a decade. But Dion is more than who he may or may not be, now. It is no longer nearly as important. --[[User:ItsWalky|ItsWalky]] 15:51, 6 May 2010 (EDT)
::::::I agree with that. - [[User:Magnus Maximus|Magnus Maximus]] 15:57, 6 May 2010 (EDT)
::::::Dion was always more than who he could be, imo. How would you suggest making the section smaller? The debate remains significant as part of the fandom (which the WoH fiction won't shoo away) and the canon intents and references to the matter should remain as well. [[User:Geewunling|Geewunling]] 16:04, 6 May 2010 (EDT)
:::::::Never mind. You've doen well, ItsWalky. [[User:Geewunling|Geewunling]] 16:18, 6 May 2010 (EDT)

[http://www.tfviews.com/news/main/hasbro-q-and-a/1024] Boosh! [[User:Onslaught Six|Onslaught Six]] 08:17, 27 July 2010 (EDT)
: So, do we need to add a note that the "he isn't anybody, he's dead" position seems to be Hasbro's official word? Would that mean removing the section entireley? Or just restating it as a common fanon theme that was overruled by Hasbro? --[[User:Khajidha|Khajidha]] 09:51, 27 July 2010 (EDT)

==Duro-Lifters==

Does anyone know if this feature was built into the Hot Shot mold on purpose, or if it was just a happy accident people discoved? Not to sound like a weenie, but I actually like the option, but would feel a little more secure about popping the pieces off and on, if I know the toy was specifically designed to do so.
: It doesn't appear to be designed to do so, if I had to guess. There's no support for it. --[[User:ItsWalky|ItsWalky]] 22:44, 14 June 2010 (EDT)

== Continuity Header change ==
Er. I should point out that the "Wings of Honor" continuity is ''not'' actually a part of the cartoon continuity itself, but a separate G1 continuity that includes the cartoon within it (And not necessarily an as-is copy, either, going from some of Pete's comments). So I feel like keeping it separate but with a note would be more accurate. (Maybe we should turn the standard note we've been using in some of the other articles into a template, since it seems it's going to be used a lot over the next few years?) --[[User:Jeysie|Jeysie]] 11:07, 7 July 2010 (EDT)
:Well, that's why I made it a subset of "Cartoon continuity" instead of a sub-subset of "The Transformers cartoon". Wings is relying on the cartoon episodes of War Dawn, The Rebirth, and so on to establish the "spine" of the stories it's telling...I think it makes more sense to have the Wings fiction grouped with the Cartoon fiction. Granted it doesn't make much difference for Dion, but for guys like Kup the cartoon is fiction section 1.1, and Wings is down the page in section 1.10. I think a note saying things aren't ''quite'' the same as the cartoon is essential, but it makes more sense to say "Wings is derived from the section immediately above" vs. "Wings is derived from that first section waaaaaaaay up at the top of the page." --[[User:Xaaron|Xaaron]] 11:48, 7 July 2010 (EDT)
::I guess it's that to me, putting them like that feels to me like they're directly connected, and/or that what happens in Wings of Honor could be chosen by the reader to be interpreted as a retcon to the cartoon itself.
::Whereas it's not. It uses a near-copy of the cartoon as a part of itself, but the FunPub folks have basically said that it may not always follow the cartoon exactly, and any changes aren't really meant to be read as retcons, they're meant to be read as a slightly different version of the cartoon being used.
::It's a semantic point, I suppose, but still. Since I plan on still working on these pages when I get a sub again, I'm curious about getting it hashed out consistently, whichever way it goes.
::As for organization, there's no real reason we couldn't just go ahead and put the Wings of Honor sections as separate but directly underneath the cartoon stuff... is there? I'm admittedly not sure if organizing chronologically is a hard rule or just done for ease of adding new sections. (I know that I switched Around Cybertron around a bit since the WoH stuff is meant to be read as coming "before" the TransTech stuff even though it was released afterwards.) --[[User:Jeysie|Jeysie]] 12:01, 7 July 2010 (EDT)

==Ultra Magnus? Really?==
I'm not seeing how there could be a shred of ambiguity about Magnum becoming Ultra Magnus; siding with ambiguity seems to be itself an unsupported and, if you will, partisan pretense. Magnum and UM have the same colors, almost exactly the same head, and Ultra Magnus says "Now they call me Ultra Magnus" and Prime goes "Makes sense, since you're so big now!"--thus making the "Ultra" the differentiating term and taking the "Magn-" as a constant. I have a hard time believing anybody ever really cared about Dion being rebuilt into anybody (and I was round during those arguments and just thought they were done-for-LULZ at the time), but now if anything the case seems even weaker. So, do we really have to dignify this alleged mystery? --[[User:Thylacine 2000|Thylacine 2000]] 23:36, 20 December 2011 (EST)
:The ambiguity is supported -- it is, in fact, specficially detailed in the story itself. We see two guys on the operating table, and are told only one will survive. A new guy shows up later and says, "I am the guy who survived". That is, by definition, ambiguous. There were some hints that support Dion being Ultra Magnus...the suggestion that he would make a great Magnum one day, and Optimus Prime calling Magnus "old friend", when in ''[[Battle Lines]]'' he apparently only met Magnum just in time for that fateful battle. You personally feel the evidence is mostly strongly in favour of Magnum becoming Magnus, and that's fine...but the situation isn't any less ambiguous than similar article sections, like "[[Cyclonus (G1)#Who is Cyclonus?|Who is Cyclonus?]]" --[[User:Xaaron|Xaaron]] 14:06, 21 December 2011 (EST)
::The ambiguity is definite, intentional, and delicious. I wish I'd thought of it.--[[Special:Contributions/24.218.136.182|24.218.136.182]] 14:50, 21 December 2011 (EST)
:::It's not only definite and intentional, but also author-supported: [http://www.allspark.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=83755] --[[User:ItsWalky|ItsWalky]] 15:47, 21 December 2011 (EST)
::::"Who is Cyclonus?" comes down pretty firmly on Bombshell. It describes a disagreement without falsely indulging it. There's also the "let's admit we can see stuff" factor, as described at http://tfwiki.net/wiki/Talk:Ultra_Magnus_%28G1%29#Ummm_Megs_Origin_.233. That, I believe, is how we should handle this. --[[User:Thylacine 2000|Thylacine 2000]] 18:39, 21 December 2011 (EST)
:::::We have already listed all the facts. What more do you want? (I really disagree with you on your interpretation of the "I'm Ultra Magnus now" dialog exchange. All it's implying is that it's a bigger name for a bigger body. It implies nothing more.) --[[User:ItsWalky|ItsWalky]] 19:02, 21 December 2011 (EST)
:::::I should also add that it would annoy me more than anything else in the world if Dion were explicitly said to become Ultra Magnus. But the comic says what it says, and what it says is "this is purposefully a mystery." --[[User:ItsWalky|ItsWalky]] 19:05, 21 December 2011 (EST)
to me, this sounds a lot like Schrodinger's Cat, and possibly to satisfy everyone, (except those who believed Ironhide or Huffer were Dion)Fun Publications made Ultra Magnus simultaneously Dion and not Dion. [[User:CrowBuster|CrowBuster]] 17:09, 10 January 2012 (EST)User: CrowBuster

Talk:Protoform

2012-01-09T22:40:29Z

CrowBuster:

Hey, I was wondering how we should work movie protoforms into this article. They really don't serve anywhere near the same function as the BW style ones (Movie Protoforms are already existing characters who are cybertronic vehicles morphed into atmosphere entry forms, whereas BW ones are like "newborn" Transformers), but I don't think they deserve their own page.--[[User:UndeadScottsman|UndeadScottsman]] 10:51, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
Whatever we do, I was wondering if this image should be worked in. It's a concept image by Ben Procter, For the movie:
http://www.benprocter.com/SITEv2/HTML/ZOOM_Trans/ZOOM_70.html
That's the link to the image, I can't get it imported. [[User:JimCappuccino|JimCappuccino]] 20:23, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

==BWII==
I may have noted this already, but the grey guys from Beast Wars II are identified in one of my guidebooks as "sentouin".

[http://obscuretf.com/tfscans/BW2ndProto.jpg Scan, with descriptor]

As far as I was able to discern at the time, "sentouin" is the general term Japan uses to identify groups of generic cannonfodder bad guys, like the Putties from Power Rangers. I don't remember what the descriptor itself says, though. --[[User:Monzo|Monzo]] 05:40, 12 November 2009 (EST)

ROTF: could we have a video of the decepticon protoforms landing?--[[User:Jonny|Jonny]] 12:32, 20 July 2010 (EDT)

== DOTM ==

If you look closely, one of the protoforms looks a bit like Megatron. --[[Special:Contributions/66.82.9.57|66.82.9.57]] 22:21, 19 November 2011 (EST)

Speakin' o' DOTM Protoforms, there's Protoform art for the Dreads and Wreckers, so why is only Roadbuster's mentioned anywhere?[[User:CrowBuster|CrowBuster]]

Talk:Scale

2012-01-04T21:50:28Z

CrowBuster:

Hi, this is my second (and much larger) personally-originated article. I hope you like it; I certainly had fun writing it.

As I discussed on [[micro-continuities]], I'm keen for people to contribute to the article; I'm not overly precious about it. All I'd ask is that if you really hate something, please discuss it HERE first, rather than outright deleting or extensively re-writing it just yet.

I'd particularly appreciate anyone wanting to add examples from other franchises. It's pretty G1 and Beast Era-centric at the moment. More/better pictures would also be great.

Also, I'd REALLY appreciate any suggestions as to what category(ies) this article should be placed in. I'm really scratching my head here...

Anyway, don't be shy, let the newbie know what you think!

Cheers,
[[User:PacifistPrime|PacifistPrime]].

:Wonderful article. I enjoyed it. This is something that's always on my mind when I'm looking at my toys or comics. About the proto-humans in Beast Wars, though: proto-humans were smaller than modern humans (around 4 ft tall). So the scale problems, while still an issue, are not as drastic as they seem. I'm not sure how to integrate that into that section. --[[User:Crockalley|Crockalley]] 18:02, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

::Wow, thanks man. And cheers for the protohumans info. Please feel free to contribute anything, especially pictures! Ta, [[User:PacifistPrime|PacifistPrime]].

I love the subtle hilarious genius of giving this the Things that Don't Exist category. --[[User:Terrocon Blot|Terrocon Blot]] 05:55, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
:Uncyclopedia reference FTW! --[[User:TVsGrady|TVsGrady]] 04:07, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

== Alternators having a problem?==

Pardon me for asking, but what problem is there with the Alternators line? Kiss Players obviously deserves its place, but isn't that line seperate from Alternators? {{unsigned|66.161.202.19}}
:It's just a joke at Kiss Players' expense. And they're not entirely separate; some Alternators toys ended up as Kiss Players toys. [[User:JW|JW]] 20:11, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

== JBW Scales? ==

I remember hearign that the JBW TF's were scaled like classic G1 TF's, not the 8' tall BW-era average, but it's been so longsince i saw parts of BW2 that I can't back that up. 
(This of course creates issues with Primal suddenly getting that size int he teamup. which I suppose is a problem in Robotmasters too.) 
Pic of Robotmasters Primal & Prime vs. a 2-shot from Agenda? -[[User:Derik|Derik]] 07:53, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

:I wouldn't know; I've never seen more than the teamup movie of BWII and some painful snippets of BWNeo on YouTube. Frankly I loath the little I've seen of these shows, and most Japanese-originated fiction for that matter, although I don't want to force that opinion on anyone. Love the leader-toys though ;-)

:Please feel free to add anything like that if you can verify it, and if accurate please do point out the resulting scale problem with Primal in relation BW and RM. Cheers, [[User:PacifistPrime|PacifistPrime]].

::Such misconceptions were probably caused by the fact that in BWII Most of the Destrons turn into vehicles, the J-Beast Warriors are only G1-Sized if we assume that the Destron's vehicle modes are supposed to be real world scale. They could just be tiny vehicles like in Dawn of Futures Past. Which is probably the most likely, as Lio Convoy has been shown to be the same size as the Lion he scanned, while on the other hand Tasmanian Kid turns into a huge Tasmanian Devil, much like Rattrap turns into a huge rat.

:::But that's inconsistant as well. I did a quick search and found evidence that LioConvoy was about the size of his lion, as you said [http://bigbot.com/beast_wars_2/pictures/cartoon_tv_show/02_White_Lion_Run/], but I also saw an image of Tasmania Kid cradling a tasmanian devil that he scanned in his hands [http://bigbot.com/beast_wars_2/pictures/cartoon_tv_show/04_Lake_Trap/]. Wikipedia [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tasmanian_devil#Physical_description] places the average length of a Tasmanian devil at 652 mm, which would be over one-fourth the height of an average man. So it's still confusing.-[[User:EricMarrs|EricMarrs]] 23:41, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
::::Contextually, though I haven't seen the episode, I'm betting that's a baby Tazmanian devil.
::::Sale in JBW is weird. It appears that Lioconvoy was 'real' sized, (about 7 feet tall, and transforms into a normal-sized lion.) while others in hsi crew are ridiculously undersized. By contrast- the Destrons turned into TINY versions of jets and such. The toy scale was (loosely) maintained. Robotmasters is fucked though.
::::I might rephrase the entry to more accurately reflect this contradiction. -[[User:Derik|Derik]] 00:15, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

== Mini-Cons ==

The first paragraph on Mini-Con scale bugs me. The Earth-based altmodes have always been pretty clearly intended as small-scale reproductions of actual vehicles, no different from how Waspinator is (theoretically) a large-scale reproduction of an actual wasp. So Sparkplug, for instance, has windows because he's a tiny Lamborghini and Lamborghinis have windows. (A case could be made for the non-Earth-design vehicles, I suppose.) It just seems to be inventing an issue for the sake of having something to question on a subject where there's already plenty going on that's questionable... if anything, Mini-Cons in Armada are one of the few cases of ''consistent'' scale in Transformers. --[[User:Andrusi|Andrusi]] 18:23, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
:Well, except the weapons. --[[User:Andrusi|Andrusi]] 18:24, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

: Yeah, I'm not wild about it either. They're not supposed to be having passengers at all ever, and clearly were never intended to... except in ''Cybertron''. (And, well, the SAT, right.) --[[User:M Sipher|M Sipher]] 18:43, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

::Well, I take your point, but it seems to me that it's still a valid inclusion. Even if Mini-Cons were never ''intended'' to hold passangers (although for that matter, frankly, how often do you see post-Movie characters actually carrying passangers anyway...?), they nevertheless turn into vehicles that ''appear'' to be able to carry people in them but are too small to actually do so. They are, almost by definition, SCALED DOWN representations of (mostly) real vehicles. So feel free to reword the paragraph, but I still think Mini-Cons warrant a reference. That's my two cents, anyway. Ta, [[User:PacifistPrime|PacifistPrime]]

==Question==

Why does Lio Convoy and Primal being the same size in BWII cause a problem. Lio convoy was the same size as a real lion.

==Nanotyrannus?==

You should remove the nanotyrannus caomment since many now believe it's just a young rex.
:Except that when Mainframe created the CGI models for Beast Wars, Nanotyrannus was believed to be a real genus. I always assumed that they had Megatron get his beast mode from scanning Nanotyrannus fossils so he wouldn't completely dwarf the rest of the cast. --[[User:Rotty|Rotty]] 20:36, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
:Maybe the same explanation of Nanotyrannus applies to Meg's beast mode scale-he just scanned the fossil of a juvenile T-Rex. [[User:Darktruth|Darktruth]] 23:17, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

== Scale within Toylines ==

Parts of the paragraph involving the movie toys are very inaccurate, especially the claim that non-Prime or Megatron characters having toys in different classes representing the same body is virtuarlly unprecendeted. If it were just the Legends that were the exception, that would be fine, as the reason for that class was "small versions of the large toys", much the TF-Juniors (same goes for fast-food toys and kabya kits).

The main problem with this is Beast Machines, as the first Megatron (Mega) toy is the same "body" as his TMII form (Ultra), three toys for Cheetor (Mega, Supreme, Deluxe) and Primal (Deluxe, Mega, Supreme), Jetstorm (Deluxe and Ultra), Tankorr (Mega and Basic), and Thrust (Deluxe and Basic). (Yes, the Basics forms of the last two were techinaclly Drones, but the ''Beast Wars Returns'' line released the Basics as the Generals, and the visual difference between General and Drone was some extra paint.) --[[User:FortMax|FortMax]] 20:41, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

== Awsomeness. ==

Hey man love the article. I wish all of wikipedia could be like that, informal and with a bit of humour, instead of being as about as much fun as getting repeatedly kicked in the face. Lauds.

== Movie ==

While not perfect, the movie has avoided many of the scale issues that previous generations have had, and should be mentioned. As with Beast-Era, this entire new kettle of fish is in need of its own section and should probably be added soon. If anyone can point out any scale problems in-movie (not in the toys, though there are many there) please mention them here. -[[User:King Starscream|King Starscream]] 14:08, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

* In the movie we are shown the All-Spark compressing itself from a massive cube to a much smaller one, in which a human is easily able to hold and run with it. Isn't it reasonable to suggest that the Transformers, being a product of the All-Spark, would be able to, to some degree, compress or expand themselves in the same fashion?
::Yes, but that's a topic for the [[size changing]] article. While this article does talk about size changing (possibly too much), any discussion that's ''just'' about size changing shouldn't be here. [[User:JW|JW]] 20:34, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

== Featured? ==

Any chance of this article becoming a featured article? It contains an enormous ammount of knowledge, and is also witty at the same time. As such, this article could be said to be a perfect example of what this wiki is about. [[User:Tindalos|Tindalos]] 20:39, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
: Well, as the originator of the article, I'd second that! ;-) I'm enormously chuffed to hear you say that, thanks. [[User:PacifistPrime|PacifistPrime]].

:: Ideally, I'd like to see the BW sections edited a bit more, and possibly integrated into the top sections of the article. Currently, the article is partly organized by topic (scale and toys, scale and fiction) and partly by franchise. Also, it needs to be trimmed of discussion of size-changing that is not relevant to scale (with that discussion moved into the size changing article). [[User:JW|JW]] 02:10, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

:::Hi there [[User:JW|JW]],
::: Your points are valid, but I'd actually argue that the BW stuff ''should'' stay separate. Although there's no massively logical rationale behind this (scale, after all, is scale), I think the fundamental aesthetic differences between the vehicular TFs that dominate the franchise and the animal altmodes of the Beast Era, especially Season 1 of BW (which is mostly what this material covers, since they were the only significant depiction of "real animal" altmodes) are better discussed separately. I know that falls a little bit afoul of the usually meaningless "toasters versus squishies" dualism, but in this case I really think it just''feels right'' as an organisational divide for this particular article.
:::As to the size-changing stuff; I'll have a closer look but I really thing that some discussion of size-changing is inevitably required with a topic concerning scale.
:::Cheers, [[User:PacifistPrime|PacifistPrime]] 23 October 2007
Me again, [[User:JW|JW]],

I've had a close look at the article and I really feel that all the discussion of size-changing herein really ''is'' neccessary, and thoroughly relevant. Sorry.
[[User:PacifistPrime|PacifistPrime]] 26th Oct. 07

:If you think the amount of size-changing discussion currently in the article is about right, I won't quibble much. [[User:JW|JW]] 11:50, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

== Metroplex ==

While his "city" mode isn't really shown, Metroplex is about the size of Autobot City in the UK comic ("Space Pirates", to be precise).

[[User:Cliffjumper|Cliffjumper]] 09:42, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I've added a short line to indicate this, though I'm buggered if I can work out how to link to Space Pirates properly...I've tried it with an underscore, with a space, and both with and without the exclamation mark, but it keeps redirecting me to a new page. Anyone?

[edit]...aha, fixed it. The Space Pirates article has a picture of 'Plex in robot mode that might be useful for this article too, if the Citybot section was more substantially re-written.

[[User:Emvee|Emvee]] 05:10, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
:The recent changes to this article removed the Space Pirates info about Metroplex and it now once again reads 'almost no fiction even begins to approximate the logical size of a true "city-bot"' - is there some reason why the one instance of a Citybot being shown to a reasonable scale is being omitted? [[User:Emvee|Emvee]] 06:45, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

== movie scale alert ==
i think there might be one more scale problem in the 2007 transformers movie : when bumblebee shrinks the all spark he holds it fairly easily with one hand and when ladiesman217 takes it he holds it just as easily with two hands[[User:217.43.84.145|217.43.84.145]] 13:57, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
:Yah, but the All Spark explicitly can change size, so it's hard to argue Bumblebee didn't just shrink it again . . . [[User:JW|JW]] 15:31, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

== Long Article ==

For people who are tempted to add to this article, please note that it is close to the maximum recommended length of 32kb already. Don't add new stuff unless it's pretty important to the article. New material that is ''just'' jokes will probably get cut again to make room for more substantive stuff. [[User:JW|JW]] 11:55, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

== Animated ==

There's nothing in the article about any size inconsistencies that may have cropped up in ''Animated'', so, as the series goes forward, we should probably keep an eye out. Im' guessing the first problems to crop up will involve Prowl, as he's a motorcycle rather than a car or truck. --[[User:Nemesis Primal|Nemesis Primal]] 05:26, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

:I've noticed a few instances, but they're more "animation company screwups" than any kind of consitent scale issues. Look at Prime from the first episode when Bulkhead is loading an injured Prowl onto his bed. Prime's truck mode is HUGE. That's not a consistent thing, though, so I don't know that' it's worth mentioning outside of the episode's "animation errors" listing. --[[User:M Sipher|M Sipher]] 18:51, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
::Forget Prime. PROWL in robot mode is gigantic in many shots, considering his tiny altmode. --[[User:ItsWalky|ItsWalky]] 19:23, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

== minicons ==

i think the gigantion minicons are supposed to be huge because in the episode showing the origin of soundwave and sideways it says that the people turned there planet and THEMSELVES (which would include the minicons on that planet) into giants[[User:81.108.233.59|81.108.233.59]] 17:54, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
:Except they're clearly ''not'', and they're explicitly said to be ''tiny'' to do detail work. --[[User:M Sipher|M Sipher]] 18:46, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

== Rattrap ==

The article mentions that only Cheetor and Tigatron were seen next to their actual flesh and blood counterparts, but I could have sworn there was a scene where Rattrap was seen next to a real rat (and the real rat was tiny compared to him). In A Better Mousetrap, perhaps? [[User:Excise|Excise]] 14:33, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
:True. Fixed. [[User:JW|JW]] 14:44, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

==Dinosaur Alts==
Dinobot cannot be a Utahraptor OR a Velociraptor. While he IS much too large to be a Velociraptor, Utahraptors are about 7 meters long and 2 meters tall, and he is shown to be shorter than Optimus Primal in beast mode. Additionally, Megatron's Nano T.Rex is not even confirmed as a genuine species, and is 17 feet tall anyway. It's probably wiser to assume the same matters of scaling as with the insects and Rattrap. [[User:Harley Quinn hyenaholic|Harley Quinn hyenaholic]] 07:48, 24 April 2009 (EDT)

==Dreamwave Devastator Pic==
While it's an excellent example of scale problems, it doesn't belong in the Toys section (since it's not a pic of a toy), and in the section where it ''does'' belong, we already have a Dreamwave Menasor pic which illustrates the problem. Unless there's another place to put it where it will fit, it should probably be cut. [[User:JW|JW]] 12:53, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

==Alternators ''Only'' Toyline to Scale?==
Perhaps I'm missing the intention of the statements in the article, but a couple of times the Alternators are spelled out as the ''only'' exception to the scale difficulties that plague all-that-is-Transformers. The G2 GoBots (later known as Spychangers) were designed to be 1:64 scale, weren't they? Or is there something wonky about their scale I'm missing?--[[User:G.B. Blackrock|G.B. Blackrock]] 17:30, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
:I think if you place RID Hot Shot, Ironhide, and Mirage next to each other, you'll see that they're only ''roughly'' to the same scale. Mirage is big for an Indy car, and Ironhide is a small pickup. "1:64 scale" in this case means "about yay long". [[User:JW|JW]] 17:38, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
::Yeah, basically in this case it means "Fits most Matchbox/Hotwheels tracks."

==Article cleanup==
This article, with its many many subsections and considerable length, has been bothering me for a while. I think I figured out why: it had sections talking about a type of ''problem'', such as explicit size changing, then it also has sections about various fictions, then it ''also'' has sections talking about a type of ''Transformer'' that suffered from those various problems, thus repeating all the information previously given.

It seems to me it's got to be one or the other -- we either break it down by type of problem, by fiction, or by type of Transformer. It's redundant and sloppy to have it all three ways. Considering how many kinds of Transformers there are and how much media exists, the logical choice is by problem type. That's what I'm shooting for with the most recent edit.

It still needs further cleanup; for example, the city and planet sections should be combined with other instances of an alternate mode implying a different size of robot than is actually shown. When you get down to it, Seaspray has exactly the same type of scale problem as Unicron; the article should reflect that instead of rambling all over the place. -- [[User:Repowers|Repowers]] 15:45, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
:The [[Scale#Fictional_scale_.E2.89.88_toy_scale|Fictional scale ≈ toy scale]] section in your rewrite cuts off abruptly mid-sentence. - [[User:SanityOrMadness|SanityOrMadness]] 16:16, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
::Thanks, missed that. And sorry I just called you someone else's user name in the Recent Changes list. <:D -- [[User:Repowers|Repowers]] 16:39, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

==A "scale canon"==

Sorry for this brain-dump, but it's one of the few places I can think of with the collective knowledge to make this work. Most lines are not even remotely in scale within a [[size class]], especially if we're talking about aircraft. However Scout or Legends-class car characters could sit alongside Deluxe or Voyager aircraft, and be in scale. Given the number of size classes in the larger lines, and the plethora of figures in those lines, ultimuately you could concoct one or more "scale canons" per line containing a range of characters which are approximately in scale with each other. Any thoughts? [[Special:Contributions/82.41.72.10|82.41.72.10]] 10:12, 23 August 2009 (EDT)

:So the idea would be to list the toys which have relative sizes matching the relative sizes of the characters in fiction? Are you talking about robot mode or vehicle modes, cause I can see arguments for both, but they're not always the same... --[[User:Abates|abates]] 16:59, 23 August 2009 (EDT)

::If you were going to base their relative sizes on the fiction, then it would make sense to do it based on robot modes, IMO. If it was going to be based on their expected relative sizes in reality (which obviously only works for real-life alt-modes) then it would make sense to do it based on vehicles. [[Special:Contributions/82.41.72.10|82.41.72.10]] 00:48, 25 August 2009 (EDT)

== Nebulans ==

Assuming that Nebulan partnered cars are the same size to Earth cars and that Nebulan partnered jets are the same size as earth jets, wouldn't that make the Nebulans to be different sizes to each other? This is especially apparent for Targetmasters in vehicle mode with their Nebulan partner attached. I assume that Nebulans would not wear a suit of armor the same size as they are (as seen in the eighties comic and cartoon) but a personal mobile suit as depicted in Dreamwave's MTMTE (the Nebulan sits in the torso area) - it beats the Nebulan having to move their legs in impossible ways when transformed as the toys would let us believe. [[Special:Contributions/90.242.193.102|90.242.193.102]] 18:18, 23 August 2009 (EDT)

== More for toys out of scale with themselves ==

Energon Omega Supreme is out of scale with himself, one half of him is a construction crane while the other is a space battleship. Just compare the sizes of the 1-2 person train cab against the multi person battleship bridge. Add to that Devastator from ROTF. One of his arms is a giant crane while the other is a small, um, you know, bulldozer thing that isn't a bulldozer.[[Special:Contributions/81.108.237.26|81.108.237.26]] 09:24, 12 December 2009 (EST)

Also, there's the fact that vehicles have compartments in them, meaning that a TF that has a, say, car alt-mode will be smaller in robot mode than in vehicle mode. However, most Transformer toys have the limbs and all that crammed into the vehicle, so the robot mode is out of scale with the vehicle mode. even alternator and HA figures can suffer from this, but not as much as others.[[User:CrowBuster|CrowBuster]] 16:50, 4 January 2012 (EST)CrowBuster
== Waaaaaaaaaait a minute ==

This is in the "Planets" category because.....? --[[User:-Blackout-|-Blackout-]] 13:16, 26 October 2010 (EDT)
:I guess because it discusses the scale of Primus and Unicron. But scale is not really a planet, so... --[[User:NCZ|NCZ]] 13:49, 26 October 2010 (EDT)

== Implicit Size Changes ==

Great article and I'm not even done reading it yet! One suggestion: The "Implicit Size Changes" section needs some references/examples as I'm not sure what/who you are talking about. Just a little example to illustrate the point. [[User:Shockwave 75|Shockwave 75]] 19:00, 5 May 2011 (EDT)Shockwave 75
:But... there are a whole bunch of characters named in that section. --[[User:Abates|abates]] 20:13, 5 May 2011 (EDT)

== Snake-Eyes Optimus Prime pic ==

The Snake-Eyes/Optimus Prime main picture doesn't seem like it has much of a scale problem. He looks like he would fit right into the driver's seat of that truck to me. It's not like it is super-exaggerated or anything. - [[User:Starfield|Starﬁeld]] 21:27, 1 January 2012 (EST)
: If the cab is as small as you seem to be thinking it is, then Optimus Prime's head is as large as his own torso. ~--[[User:ItsWalky|ItsWalky]] 21:39, 1 January 2012 (EST)

Talk:Roadbuster (DOTM)

2012-01-03T22:39:38Z

CrowBuster:

== Preliminary names ==

I removed the following note, as it was ungrammatical and I wasn't sure if it was true: "Early working name for him was intended to be Warpath". If this is true, feel free to re-add it after correcting the grammar. --[[User:Khajidha|Khajidha]] 19:33, 3 July 2011 (EDT)
:The Wreckers are listed under two names in the credits, Final/Working. Not entirely sure which one is called what.--[[User:Nevermore|Nevermore]] 19:10, 5 July 2011 (EDT)
::The Wreckers are listed in the credits by their final names and their primary sponsor ("Roadbuster/Amp" and "Leadfoot/Target"). No relationship with the production art identifying them as Tempest, Warpath and Flash (and note that both Roadbuster and Steeljaw are labelled as "Warpath"). Along with the Shockwave art labelled "Blitzwing", the Megatron art labelled "Cyclonus" and the Soundwave art labelled "Breakdown", it seems very likely that these were all "smokescreen" names intended to prevent unknowledgable Paramount/ILM employees being able to tell other people which characters were going to appear. -[[User:LV|LV]] 19:17, 5 July 2011 (EDT)

== Redneck ==

Roadbuster isn't a redneck!

== Hahahah ==

I knew that it would happen: protect the page against me. =)

== Roadbuster or Leadfoot as the leader ==

While, yes, Roadbuster is the highest ranking of the Wreckers in the toyline, it's Leadfoot we see giving orders in DOTM proper. We... er, well, I don't mean to style myself as a regular member of this Wiki like Walky or someone, but, it could just be noted that Leadfoot is the one giving orders in the film, despite Roadbuster being the highest ranking in the toys. Personally I think Leadfoot is the leader.

i don't see how "Wreckers, kill 'em" is a real order. "let's get some" is about as much of an order as it. [[User:CrowBuster|CrowBuster]] 17:39, 3 January 2012 (EST)CrowBuster
[[Special:Contributions/76.186.90.217|76.186.90.217]] 21:58, 15 November 2011 (EST)

== Orange Version ==

Why is there no mention of the orange version of the toy? I saw a hundred of them at Wal Mart. [[User:Bioniclepluslotr|Bioniclepluslotr]] 13:05, 25 November 2011 (EST)
:It's there, there's just no picture as of yet. --[[User:Khajidha|Khajidha]] 14:08, 25 November 2011 (EST)

== Helmet ==
the toys seem to have an entirely different 'helmet' than the CG model, which covers the head more and has a generally less baseball cap-ish look. then there's also the fact that the movie shows him with red eyes, but his eyes are blue on all the toys and merchandise. [[User:CrowBuster|CrowBuster]] 17:39, 3 January 2012 (EST)CrowBuster

Talk:Roadbuster (DOTM)

2012-01-03T22:39:14Z

CrowBuster:

Talk:Gold Plastic Syndrome

2012-01-03T22:15:26Z

CrowBuster: /* Ultimate movieverse Optimus */ new section

About TM megs, I think the plastic used has some form of GPScombined with problems with stress. From what I've found, the ''Beast Wars Metals'' Metals Megatron does not have the problems Hasbro's TM megatron has, nor does ''Armada'' Predacon. That, and the post common breaking points on toys with GPS are stressed areas like joints, pegs, and fist holes. --[[User:FortMax|FortMax]] 15:47, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I've been talking with Kyde, and he says that ABS plastic is the kind that GPS affects. (Versus PVC or nylon). I'll bug 'im to research it a bit more. You know, find out what causes the "swirlies." --[[User:ItsWalky|ItsWalky]] 16:24, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

:Might not be the right answer, but my hypothesis is that the fillers and paint added to the plastic don't mix entirely right, like oil and water, and over time either chemically seperate or oxidize, leaving behind a messy gold powder and broken childhood memories. [[User:70.161.57.72|70.161.57.72]] 03:33, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Having talked with a few people who have snapped Megatrons, the breaks on that toy all sound very clean to me, and sound liek a "Gradual pressure" situation. As such, I can only conclude that the original TM Megatrons simply had the wrong kind of plastic for that joint, one that would not stand up to the constant pressure applied in transformation, not "bad" plastic. And as the article notes, GPS breaks are anything but clean... I've got a few toys that suffer from it... virtually all of them were like-new (being either purchased in sealed bubbles or were obvious display pieces), and they CRUMBLED near-instantly. There was no give, no pressure, just *turn * *CRUNCH* *flinders*. I'll be taking pictures of my GPS-affected Roadblock to illustrate. --[[User:M Sipher|M Sipher]] 19:49, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

:Will one of those pictures be used to illustrate this article? (I suppose for aesteric purposes, it should be a picture of Electro...)-[[User:Derik|Derik]] 06:26, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

::No, I thought I'd just let it sit on my hard drive and I'd never show anyone. What the fuck do you THINK I even brought it UP for? --[[User:M Sipher|M Sipher]] 09:58, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

:::Hey, I take notes and snap all sorts of TF related stuff and just have it sit on my hard drive. Mostly out of laziness for actualyl doing anythign with it. The Wiki is funt hat way- it's so much less WORK to put it up someplace... -[[User:Derik|Derik]] 12:00, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

RE: Joes: I clearly remember seeing posts in the Joe fandom, I forget where, though, that Serpentor suffered from GPS, and that one guy had Serpentor's entire thigh assembly collapse into dust and shards. [[User:Hooper X|-hx]] 23:16, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

== Skyquake ==

Does anyone know if the Predator Skyquake (aside from the missile launcher) suffers from GPS? I've been wanting to get all of the Predators and Turbomasters, but since I like to play with my TFs, I don't want to spend a lot of money on one who will crumble apart when I pick it up. --[[User:FortMax|FortMax]] 16:06, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

:Skyquake isn't actually gold. That deeper bronzey color plastic is not at all known for disintegrating, although Skyquake IS notable for breaking off Predator gun handles because of his giant deep fists and overall mass going up against the same tiny pegs his little friends have.

(It is HILARIOUS that Siph hasn't actually uploaded those pictures of Roadblock ten months later.) -[[User:LV|LV]] 16:57, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
: Thanks. Do you know if the Predator launchers get GPS? The launcher from my Stalker broke at the trigger, but I'm not sure if it was GPS or just because it was old hard plastic that really should have had a hinge to push the trigger. --[[User:FortMax|FortMax]] 21:17, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

::"That deeper bronzey color plastic is not at all known for disintegrating" - I appreciate it was said two years ago, but *what*? Skyquake's supersight contraption breaks ludicrously easily, without warning or stress marks.--[[User:PTX-015R|PTX-015R]] 11:34, 13 May 2009 (EDT)

== Couple'a questions... ==

With the new Movie figures coming out, I've noticed Starscream has the characteristic streaks of color that are evident in toys that suffer from GPS. So what I'm wondering is a) do the swirls only appear in the ABS grade plastics, or so they appear in PVC as well? and b) What is the general life-span of a toy that suffers this lamentable condition? [[User:Dracokanji|Dracokanji]] 12:51, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I forgot to mention in the above post that I noticed Energon Starscream's transparent green wings seem to suffer from GPS. I myself rarely used the hinge on the wings used for the missile launchers (considering I LOST one of the missiles... ) but one day I noticed a break in the plastic around where the pin that holds it in place was situated. It didn't look like a stress fracture, but more like plastic rot. If anyone else has noticed this, maybe it should be added to the main article.

:There's already been one reported case of a Protoform Starscream suffering from a GPS-like disintegration, but that user added extra paint details using some kind of paint markers, which may have accelerated or enhanced the process. [[User:Hooper X|-hx]] 17:47, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

::Yeah. Enamel paints can have odd chemical effects on certain TF plastics. I painted an old Tracks black about a decade back, and the paint made the blue car-panel parts all gummy. I'm disinclined to think Protoscream will have issues unless you start adding chemicals into his mix. --[[User:M Sipher|M Sipher]] 01:42, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

::I forgot to mention one last thing. Is there any way to prevent the plastic from deteriorating? I don't do custom painting, so that won't be a problem. What I am worried about is if oxidation has something to do with it, and how long older figures (g1, beast wars, etc.) lasted before turning to powder. [[User:Dracokanji|Dracokanji]] 01:32, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

==Thunder Clash==
Okay, I see Thunder Clash got pulled off the list, but I'm going to dispute that one. Mine in particular, which I keep in the box 95% of the time, cleanly (no whiteness) snapped off both ratchet tabs within the feet a couple years back. A year after the right fist split cleanly on the inside (also without whiteness). I'm terrified to touch the handgun. This sure as hell sounds like GPS to me, don't you think?--[[User:MCRG|MCRG]] 07:06, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

:Yeah, TC is a textbook example of GPS. That's the whole reason why his gun is impossible to find. I don't remember anyone's lasting more than a few months "back in the day". The missile launcher bays are also known to just fall apart, as well as the tabs inside his feet.. --[[User:PTX-015R|PTX-015R]] 11:34, 13 May 2009 (EDT)

== Seibertron's Slingshot gallery ==

Seibertron's G2 Slingshot gallery has come pics of a very broken one. We might want to use one of those for the main pic. --[[User:FortMax|FortMax]] 03:22, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

== Variants==
Can a similar form of GPS happen to Alternators? My Rarley played with Hound Alternator is showing MAJOR signs of stress all over, especially on the shiny green areas. He is one of my favorite figures, I really don't want him to break :([[User:AutobotFreak643|AutobotFreak643]] 19:09, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
:GPS breaks don't show stress marks.--[[User:FortMax|FortMax]] 20:05, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
::Worth noting though that it's only called "Gold Plastic Syndrome" because that's the most common plastic to show the classic symptoms. It's really a problem with ''any'' swirly/metallic plastic.--[[User:Rosicrucian|Rosicrucian]][[User Talk:Rosicrucian|Talk]] 20:10, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
:::That's something else - other shiny/metallic plastic is more prone to *breaking* due to stress, yes. Looking at you, TM Megatron, but it's not the sort of "randomly crumble into flinders/dust out of nowhere" behavior that GPS specifically refers to. [[User:Hooper X|-hx]] 19:25, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
::::Right. GPS is CRUMBLING like dried-out clay, not snapping. --[[User:M Sipher|M Sipher]] 21:35, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

== UT Optimus Prime ==

You haven't really specified ''which'' UT Optimus Prime has GPS. You say "Leader Class," but there isn't a toy from that entire franchise family that has metallic plastic for its fists. Can you be more specific?--[[User:Rosicrucian|Rosicrucian]][[User Talk:Rosicrucian|Talk]] 15:51, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
:Of course, the simple answer is that none of them have GPS, unless the K-Mart super base version's cab starts exploding.--[[User:MCRG|MCRG]] 13:55, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
::Armada leader prime,his arms suffer from GPS. Who keeps removing the info about protoform starscream? [[User:Rhinox555|Decepticon Rhinox]] 22:22, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
:::Armada leader prime had no gold plastic on him, just gold paint applications.. Even the K-Mart super base version didn't have any on the ''arms''. As for Starscream, the only confirmed cases of him showing symptoms are on custom figures who have been repainted.--[[User:Rosicrucian|Rosicrucian]][[User Talk:Rosicrucian|Talk]] 22:33, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
::::His cab's arms crumbled on mine for no reason. :-(. [[User:Rhinox555|Decepticon Rhinox]] 22:36, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
:::::Superbase Prime does indeed have gold plastic, most notably the cab elbow joints, supermode "ears" and minicon-activated blasters, but he does not suffer from GPS. GPS breaks are uneven and leave plastic dust and plastic shards. They also do not leave white marks on the plastic since GPS isn't a stress fracture. I don't have my Superbase Prime in front of me, but I'm pretty sure his gold plastic is unpaintable, meaning it isn't the type of plactic that can be affected. Also, there has been exactly ONE case of Protoform Starscream disintegrating, and it was a figure the owner had painted. --[[User:FortMax|FortMax]] 22:59, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
::::::My prime did not have stressmarks either,it just shattered for no reason. [[User:Rhinox555|Decepticon Rhinox]] 08:00, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
:::::::Yeaaaaaaah, i can add my Armada super base 'Prime to it, one of the arms turned to dust, without stressmarks with a bit of dust(ON the arm joint).--[[User:Sunjumper|Sunjumper]] 15:03, 6 September 2009 (EDT)
::::::::Talked to two people about the figure on a Convention today. Both of them had their figures succumb to GPS as well. So he definitely, '''definitely''' suffers from it.--[[Special:Contributions/86.87.28.191|86.87.28.191]] 15:32, 13 June 2010 (EDT)

== Torca & Killbison ==

Does he actually have GPS? All I've seen are ones with a snapped tail joint. Also, I've heard varying reports on whether Killbison actually has GPS or not. --[[User:FortMax|FortMax]] 19:06, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

== Your toy is DOOMED! DOOOOOOOMED!!! ==

I was under the impression that GPS is not universal across the board, even in toys where it's common. Something about how some plastic batches weren't mixed well, but some were. Am I just confused and clinging to foolish hope? -- [[User:Repowers|Repowers]] 10:59, 28 June 2009 (EDT)
:I dunno. My Skyquake seems fine. My Electro hasn't disintegrated. I dunno about G2 Slingshot yet; I'll be getting to G2 after the Micromaster pictures, I think. --[[User:M Sipher|M Sipher]] 12:00, 28 June 2009 (EDT)
::My Japanese Electro shows no sign of it, and so does my Skyquake--apart from the highly disturbing "birth" of a few little gold fragments the first time I folded his scope into his torso, but never again mind you. --[[User:Thylacine 2000|Thylacine 2000]] 17:19, 1 September 2009 (EDT)

==De-snarking?==

While the new information here certainly is welcome, where did all this talk about 'snapping like your grandma's ankles' and, worse yet, 'like a tight virgin in prison' come from? Way too many jokes are getting in the way of the facts here, I think. [[Special:Contributions/200.3.177.134|200.3.177.134]] 14:24, 15 July 2009 (EDT)

==Hasbro's Q&A session about GPS==

http://www.transformerland.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=3481

It was noted here that hasbro is awere of the problem, and has done everything they could so that this might never happen again.(Hopefully this will save Protoform Starscream)--[[User:Sunjumper|Sunjumper]] 15:16, 1 September 2009 (EDT)

== Movie Legends Scorponok ==

I've seen many reports that the tip of Legends Scorponok's tail (originally made out of soft rubbery plastic) has a tendency to harden and then break. My Scorponok's tail appears to be very hard now, and I don't even DARE trying to apply force to it to see if it will break. Is this related to GPS? Should it be mentioned here? It seems to be a common problem, not a few isolated incidents.--[[User:Nevermore|Nevermore]] 11:38, 20 September 2009 (EDT)

== Animated Arcee ==

Of course she isn't GPS, but she is so #$%& fragile. I believe she needs to be covered in this section. Specially her thumb (Arcee Thumbs Syndrome)_--[[User:ACIDSTORM92|ACIDSTORM92]] 21:44, 5 March 2010 (EST)
:We're not going to include every toy that breaks into this article. [[User:Interrobang|—Interrobang]] 23:48, 5 March 2010 (EST)
:Maybe, but her pink glittery plastic is kind of GPS to me, because of the nature of the plastic.--[[User:ACIDSTORM92|ACIDSTORM92]] 01:14, 6 March 2010 (EST)
:With Arcee, the common complaint is the stress marks on the thumbs, with them actually breaking being a secondary issue. The article repeatedly states that GPS does not have stress marks. Stress marks are a warning and a luxury where this particular thing is concerned. Since Arcee shows stress, she's not a case of GPS... just bad engineering/weak plastic. She doesn't belong here. [[User:Luke|Luke]] 18:33, 2 April 2011 (EDT)

== Universe 1.0/Cybertron (Europe) Micromaster Superion ==

[http://www.tfw2005.com/boards/transformers-toy-discussion/300674-warning-universe-micromaster-superion-suffers-gold-plastic-syndrome.html] There's also talks about Movie Protoform Starscream, but reports on him seem to be 50/50 (mine was fine a week ago) suggesting that he came out in a transitional period when Hasbro fixed the problem.--[[User:Nevermore|Nevermore]] 18:03, 16 December 2010 (EST)

== Youtube video for GPS ==

claywyatt1982 has uploaded a video demonstrating Gold Plastic Syndrome:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qcjAUN5Ssj8

How about linking it on the page? I think it would be great to show people the fragility in action. [[User:Fiction Alchemist|C. V. Reynolds]] 05:35, 21 April 2011 (EDT)
:I WILL CRUSH YOU WITH MY BARE HANDS indeed.
:I don't think there would be a problem with putting it in the "External Links" session--we have several instances of linking to 'net fan reviews of, say, the release of Marvel #1, or MOSC rubber rot on the Pretender Monsters. --[[User:Thylacine 2000|Thylacine 2000]] 08:16, 21 April 2011 (EDT)

== Transmetal Megatron ==

So is [[Megatron (BW)/toys#MegaTransmetal|Transmetal Megatron]] GPS or not? According to this page it is, according to his page it isn't clear what is the cause of his fragility. --[[User:Khajidha|Khajidha]] 08:48, 22 September 2011 (EDT)
: In short, no. TM Megs has the problem of metallic plastic being more susceptible to stress, but doesn't just spontaneously disintegrate. --[[User:King Starscream|King Starscream]] 15:57, 10 November 2011 (EST)

== Cybertron Repugnus ==

I think [[Repugnus (Cybertron)|Cybertron Repugnus]] suffers from GPS, specifically at the lower jaws, which easily break when you try yo make him hold his tail/flail.
:That sounds more like a stress fracture than GPS. Remember, just because it breaks doesn't mean it is GPS. GPS is crumbling for no reason, not snapping when things are forced into tight spaces. --[[User:Khajidha|Khajidha]] 14:02, 18 October 2011 (EDT)
::It did not snap : it crumbled. First the peg, then the whole jaw. Looks like GPS to me, but I could be wrong. Just wanted to know if anybody else experimented this.[[Special:Contributions/82.238.12.114|82.238.12.114]] 08:48, 19 October 2011 (EDT)

== 10th Anniversary Dinobot ==

Dinobot's beast mode toes have crumbled on me for no reason. Has anyone else had this happen to them? [[User:Tom Servo the Great|Tom Servo the Great]] 14:16, 18 October 2011 (EDT)

== Ultimate movieverse Optimus ==

A gentle toss to the floor tore the cab's arm off. i had bought it not even half a day ago, i think it might be GPS. the symptoms matched up, but either way, i returned it, so i cannot check again. (sorry for the wording.) [[User:CrowBuster|CrowBuster]] 17:15, 3 January 2012 (EST)CrowBuster

Talk:Transformers: Dark of the Moon (film)

2012-01-03T17:35:33Z

CrowBuster: /* Destroying Cybertron */ new section

{{chapters
|title=Talk:Dark of the Moon (film) Archives
|content=*[[Talk:Dark of the Moon (film)/Archive 1|Archive 1]]
}}

== TITLE ==

[http://www.seibertron.com/transformers/news/transformers-3-title-revealed-the-dark-of-the-moon/19947/ Looks like we've got a title.]

--[[User:-Blackout-|-Blackout-]] 09:35, 6 October 2010 (EDT)
:Can I just go on record that that is a crappy name? --[[User:Khajidha|Khajidha]] 09:42, 6 October 2010 (EDT)
::I agree with you, but it comes with many joke opportunities.
::I just.....haven't figured out what they are yet. --[[User:-Blackout-|-Blackout-]] 09:53, 6 October 2010 (EDT)
:::All I can think of is the Alabama song "Fire In The Night". --[[User:Khajidha|Khajidha]] 09:57, 6 October 2010 (EDT)
::::The ''Dark'' of the moon? Does that mean the movie is going to be just another one of those crappy conspiracy theories saying the US didn't get to the moon first? Does this mean this is hardly going to be a movie about Transformers? This seems pretty likely. Also, that name is just borderline teen novel. Hopefully they'll change everything at the last minute into something relatively better like they did before. --[[User:LokitheGrammarNazi|LokitheGrammarNazi]] 09:59, 6 October 2010 (EDT)
:::::Here are some jokes we could use.
:::::"Dark Side of the Moon was taken."
:::::"Is it a Twilight crossover?"
:::::(Thank you Seibertron forum posters!) --[[User:-Blackout-|-Blackout-]] 10:01, 6 October 2010 (EDT)
::::::I hadn't even thought about Twilight until Loki said teen novel. Now, I can't get the word "Vampformers" out of my head. --[[User:Khajidha|Khajidha]] 10:08, 6 October 2010 (EDT)
:::::::Does this mean the main pic has to be that shot of John Turturro's as from ROTF?[[User:Riddlerj|Riddlerj]] 10:22, 6 October 2010 (EDT)
::::::::No and shame on you for even thinking it. --[[User:-Blackout-|-Blackout-]] 10:27, 6 October 2010 (EDT)
:::::::::One thing I really like from the first 3 movies (86,07,09) wiki articles are the running joke used throughout. Star Wars, the 86 movie, and Empire Strikes Back. I would have thought we would use nothing but Return of the Jedi quotes here, but with this new title part of me thinks it would be great to use nothing but lyrics off the Dark Side of the Moon album. --[[User:Bluestreak7|Bluestreak7]] 12:36, 6 October 2010 (EDT)
::::::::::We picked Star Wars and Empire for their respective films because the TF creative teams in those years specifically compared their products to those films--it was us making a joke out of their marketing idea. Though having captions about ROTJ would obviously "complete the set," I'm kind of against us making jokes out of ''our own traditions'' instead of the traditions of the franchise creators. It would seem like we're just jerking off. So I'd actually prefer Pink Floyd too. Of course, given that there's still a year for someone at Paramount to make a comparison between the respective 3rd films, the point may be moot. --[[User:Thylacine 2000|Thylacine 2000]] 14:02, 6 October 2010 (EDT)
:::::::::::Actually, using Pink Floyd quotes here would preserve and extend the pattern we have going. 1st Movie/Star Wars Universe quotes, 2nd Movie/Non-SW quotes, 3rd Movie/SW Universe quotes, 4th Movie/Non-SW quotes. Remember that 1st - 4th is in real world terms, ignoring the fact that the 1st movie was not part of the same universe as the current trilogy. --[[User:Khajidha|Khajidha]] 14:10, 6 October 2010 (EDT)
::::::::::::Agreed. --[[User:-Blackout-|-Blackout-]] 14:29, 6 October 2010 (EDT)

Should we also put in a note that "dark of the moon" is real phrase and not completely made up? --[[User:Lonegamer78|Lonegamer78]] 15:35, 6 October 2010 (EDT)

Ahem. IT WAS THE DARK OF THE MOON ON THE SIXTH OF JUNE WITH A KENWORTH HAULIN' LOGS/ CABOVER PETE WITH A REEFER ON AND A JIMMY HAULIN HOGS/ WE WAS HEADED FOR BEAR ON I-1-OH ABOUT A MILE OUTTA SHAKEY TOWN/ I SAID "PIG PEN THIS HERE'S THE RUBBER DUCK, WE'RE ABOUT TO PUT THE HAMMER DOWN." -hx at work, this is all the caption you need.
:ARGH! I can't believe I forgot that! I can just see the "bout to put the hammer down" part as an Optimus Prime caption ("Convoy", don't you know. :)). --[[User:Khajidha|Khajidha]] 17:49, 6 October 2010 (EDT)
::I agree with this comment. Also, now we have a title, is it time to add it to the left-hand navigation menu? --[[User:Abates|abates]] 19:16, 6 October 2010 (EDT)
:::Save it for the Japanese release info. "Ironically enough, not a great big Convoy rockin' through the night." [[User:Hooper X|-hx]] 19:30, 7 October 2010 (EDT)
I don't see any Amazon listings anymore, but the [http://www.transformersmovie.com Transformers movie website] is called "Transformers: Dark of the Moon". (Don't look at the logo, look at the title of the website in the web browser.) Should we lose the "the"? - [[User:Starfield|Starfield]] 16:43, 29 October 2010 (EDT)
:At the same time, the domain they registered is "transformersthedarkofthemoonmovie.com", which has the leading "The" in it. --[[User:Abates|abates]] 17:00, 29 October 2010 (EDT)
::"transformersdarkofthemoonmovie.com" is also registered by the same party. - [[User:Starfield|Starfield]] 17:03, 29 October 2010 (EDT)
:::Why would they register it with the "The" if "The" isn't in the title? Whereas I can see why they'd also register it without, because people might accidentally leave it out when typing the url (and also for brand protection). --[[User:Abates|abates]] 17:57, 29 October 2010 (EDT)
::::Similar reasons apply for registering the name with a superfluous "the". "The dark of the moon" is a preexisting term, people might easily insert it by mistake. --[[User:Khajidha|Khajidha]] 20:08, 29 October 2010 (EDT)
:::::IDK, the title of a web page just doesn't seem like enough to me to move the page. The titles on Amazon all had "The" in them, which might have been added mistakenly by whoever added them there, or might not have been. I suspect we should wait for some sort of official unveiling, because if we move the page now, we may well just be moving it back later. --[[User:Abates|abates]] 22:13, 29 October 2010 (EDT)
::::::According to the teaser trailer, at least in Latin America, the international title of the movie is '''Transformers 3''' (THANK GOD). Should we put it on the article?-[[User:ACIDSTORM92|ACIDSTORM92]] 03:28, 1 January 2011 (EST)
:::::::Are you sure it's the international title, or is it just the title in your area? Either way, it could be added somewhere in there I'm sure. [[User:The Autobot Hero|Hero]] 00:15, 8 May 2011 (EDT)
::::::::Scratch that, the new trailer calls the movie "El lado oscuro de la Luna" (Dark side of the moon), at least the movie looks awesome.-[[User:ACIDSTORM92|ACIDSTORM92]] 19:23, 8 May 2011 (EDT)

== Uh, Walky.... ==

How does "www.transformersdarksideofthemoon.com." confirm that "The Dark of the Moon" is the title? Or did you put in the "side" in that URL by mistake? --[[User:Khajidha|Khajidha]] 12:56, 6 October 2010 (EDT)
: Yeah. Mistake. Durrr. --[[User:ItsWalky|ItsWalky]] 13:02, 6 October 2010 (EDT)
:: Fixed. I expect this slip-up to happen only 30,000 more times. --[[User:ItsWalky|ItsWalky]] 13:03, 6 October 2010 (EDT)
:::Yeah, mainly I was asking on the off chance that the other things we've found had accidentally left out the "side". --[[User:Khajidha|Khajidha]] 13:07, 6 October 2010 (EDT)

== Accident ==

Does last month's stunt accident where an extra got critically injured belong on this page, and if yes, where?--[[User:Nevermore|Nevermore]] 14:22, 7 October 2010 (EDT)
:I thought the top of this page said that the wiki does not care about news on the set. --[[User:LokitheGrammarNazi|LokitheGrammarNazi]] 14:46, 7 October 2010 (EDT)
::This is '''obviously''' not the kind of news the top of the page is talking about. Yes, the accident and lawsuit should be addressed on the page for the movie. Where, I dunno. Probably its own section. --[[User:ItsWalky|ItsWalky]] 14:58, 7 October 2010 (EDT)
:::Maybe "Production", if it ever gets made. [[User:Interrobang|—Interrobang]] 16:30, 7 October 2010 (EDT)
::::I thought we usually didn't do production sections though? What if it was placed in it's own section down at the bottom with the notes and trivia and such. [[User:The Autobot Hero|Hero]] 00:20, 8 May 2011 (EDT)

== Disambig? ==

What are we going to use as the disambiguation suffix for this movie? I used (TDOTM) for the Carly artilce I created, but I could see just (DOTM) instead, or perhaps something from out of left field -- [[User:G1MarvelBlaster|G1MarvelBlaster]] 23:04, 7 October 2010 (EDT)
:(TDOTM) would be the most consistent. But (TF3) would be cool. - [[User:Starfield|Starfield]] 23:22, 7 October 2010 (EDT)
::The only other franchise I can find with an initial "the" is [[The Headmasters]], which has the disambiguation suffix (Headmasters). Going by that, I would say (DOTM). --[[User:Khajidha|Khajidha]] 09:20, 8 October 2010 (EDT)
:::Considering Hasbro applied for the trademark "Dark of the Moon" without "the", I'm favoring (DOTM) too.--[[User:Nevermore|Nevermore]] 08:05, 13 October 2010 (EDT)
::::(TDOTM) is a horrible disambig. I prefer (DOTM). --[[User:-Blackout-|-Blackout-]] 08:11, 13 October 2010 (EDT)

== The Superfund Armored Truck as Sixshot and Rosenbaurer as Inferno ==

November-21=Michael Bay confirms the Superfund Armored Truck as Sixshot.
:Hi. Cite a source. Sign your posts. Thank you. Goodbye. --[[User:-Blackout-|-Blackout-]] 08:22, 21 November 2010 (EST)

== Should we add Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin? ==

Well, should we?

-ThiAthEhn
: And [[Walter Cronkite]]. --[[User:ItsWalky|ItsWalky]] 11:56, 10 December 2010 (EST)

::Well, the question is, will they actually be ''in'' the film? This teaser feels very much like the teaser for the first movie, in that we may see only a little, or possibly even none, of the actual content of it in the film. - [[User:Chris McFeely|Chris McFeely]] 11:57, 10 December 2010 (EST)

:::And we don't know if (though unlikely) they are main cast. And save their page for another day. --'''[[User:TX55|TX55]]'''''[[User talk:TX55|TALK]]'' 12:00, 10 December 2010 (EST)
::::I dunno, I think all promotional stuff still counts as "fiction" under our mandate. While they shouldn't be on the main cast list, I wouldn't be opposed to making articles on them and making some mention of them on the article. [[User:Interrobang|—Interrobang]] 14:16, 10 December 2010 (EST)
:::::And in any case, we already have a [[Neil Armstrong]] page, per [[Ghosts of Yesterday]]. So I'll ask my question here: how much do we want to put into that article? -- [[User:SFH|SFH]] 14:42, 10 December 2010 (EST)
::::::I'm tired of seeing useless perpetually incomplete pages for trivial as fuck foil characters that usually were only ''mentioned'' in the movie or even movie novelization in question and have no real story signifigance at all. I respectfully say nay to more character pages like this and I would recommend deleting such pages that are already created, such as the Mohammud page. --[[User:LokitheGrammarNazi|LokitheGrammarNazi]] 11:14, 14 December 2010 (EST)
::::::::Then that's really too friggin' bad, because ''that's what this wiki is for.'' --[[User:ItsWalky|ItsWalky]] 11:28, 14 December 2010 (EST)
:::::::::You really want your wiki to go to hell, to run rampant with the constant mindless page creations of anonymous IP adresses? You made one of the qualifications to delete a page "We are not a dictonary," but now you want to contradict yourself. --[[User:LokitheGrammarNazi|LokitheGrammarNazi]] 11:32, 14 December 2010 (EST)
::::::::::Uh, we've been making pages like this since the very beginning of the wiki back in 2006. At no point has this site ever succumbed to your insane scenario. So pardon me if my eyes roll so hard they pop out of my skull. --[[User:ItsWalky|ItsWalky]] 11:36, 14 December 2010 (EST)
:::::::::::What you said officially makes it okay to make pages like the pages made by anons from the start, so now you have put yourself in the situation where now a whole lot of anons who look around without editing will get that idea and tell all their friends about it and soon you have too many pages for Detour to put the speedy template on. Sure, in the past this has never happened, but now there is the possibility. --[[User:LokitheGrammarNazi|LokitheGrammarNazi]] 11:39, 14 December 2010 (EST)
::::::::::::Now that we're going to continue doing the exact same thing we've been doing for the past four years, suddenly it's all going to be different now and ruin us. Got it. --[[User:ItsWalky|ItsWalky]] 11:41, 14 December 2010 (EST)
:::::::::::::It's not that you've been doing the same thing all along, it's now you've said that doing what has been described now is alright and acceptable, and you seem to be ignoring/avoiding that. Besides, of course the consequences are not going to affect you immediately, so you shouldn't just assume that if the ramifications aren't immediate then there aren't any at all. Your 16-year-old level of sarcasm and quickness to attempt to avoid a situation is what makes people not like you. --[[User:LokitheGrammarNazi|LokitheGrammarNazi]] 11:47, 14 December 2010 (EST)
::::::::::::::I'm not ignoring anything, because I shouldn't have to distinguish for you the differences between making a page for a guy featured heavily in a trailer for a blockbuster Transformers film and between making a page for "floor." The difference seems to be obvious to everyone else. Do you have any other recourse to people disagreeing with you that isn't calling them an X-year-old? --[[User:ItsWalky|ItsWalky]] 11:58, 14 December 2010 (EST)
:::::::::::::::The reason I used the X-year-old argument is because that is what I usually only see here that warrants a recourse from me, what with the "Um, yes it does" and "pardon me if my eyes roll so hard they pop out of my skull" statements. I understand now that you have from the start always had a staff that can make the distinction between what is too little information and what isn't and make decisions based on that. I don't think that most people know what "too little information" is (including myself), so maybe that could be something you could put into the FAQ of the wiki for anons that want to be good editors but aren't and so people like me don't go anally retentive apeshit and get in heated arguments with the wiki's administrator. --[[User:LokitheGrammarNazi|LokitheGrammarNazi]] 12:10, 14 December 2010 (EST)
::::::::::::::::When the sole basis of your argument is "tons of anons will make bad pages", it's kind of hard to do anything but roll one's eyes at it. --[[User:Detour|Detour]] 12:14, 14 December 2010 (EST)
::::::::::::::Anons will make useless pages regardless of policies. I truly doubt making a page about Buzz Aldrin is suddenly going to open the floodgates for pages about grass, the birds, the bees, the peanut butter jelly time banana and Zartan's male pattern baldness. Your apocalypse scenario is ridiculous to say the least. --[[User:Detour|Detour]] 12:01, 14 December 2010 (EST)
:::::::They exist in the Transformers universe. Why shouldn't we have pages for them? --[[User:NCZ|NCZ]] 11:17, 14 December 2010 (EST)
::::::::Saying something like, "What would Jesus do?" is not making them in-universe. Besides, the pages always stay shitty and are just bytes of worthless space-taking crap. What if the wiki made a whole page for every single obscure character that happened to be seen in a passing glance of the camera? The whole wiki would be have millions of pages of crap that nobody cares about. Besides, if somebody wanted to read about Buzz aldrin, they could just go to wikipedia. --[[User:LokitheGrammarNazi|LokitheGrammarNazi]] 11:21, 14 December 2010 (EST)
:::::::::Um, yes it does. If someone mentions Jesus in Transformers, that means that Jesus is in the Transformers universe? That'd be like if there was a standalone story where someone mentions how Bumblebee is a great scout, but Bumblebee doesn't appear otherwise. Does that mean Bumblebee doesn't exist? And there's a difference between making an article for someone who has no name, personality, or role, and making an article for someone who has a name and has a role hinted at. (We wouldn't make an article for a generic with no dialogue who's just there in the background, but we WOULD make an article for Bumblebee since he was named and we know that he's a scout.) And what if someone was curious about what Buzz Aldrin did in the Transformers world? Wikipedia wouldn't have that. --[[User:NCZ|NCZ]] 11:24, 14 December 2010 (EST)
::::::::::You know very fucking well what I am talking about, don't act like a ten-year-old. I do not mean that important characters fiction wise (as in appearing in more than one piece of fiction in one universe) shouldn't have pages, they do have pages that account what they are important in. I mean not have pages about characters like the [[Muhammad]] or [[Jesus]] page that have no significance whatsoever in any piece of fiction. If they were more important in another piece of fiction, then they could have pages. What I want is quality control that isn't headed by ten-year-olds or anal people. --[[User:LokitheGrammarNazi|LokitheGrammarNazi]] 11:29, 14 December 2010 (EST)
:::::::::::But they do have significance. A character mentions them and gives some details. Small significance, but they exist. When I said "standalone", I was referring to a whole new universe, where we don't know if Bumblebee exists or not. Then, someone confirms he exists, so we make a page for him. How am I acting like a ten-year-old?
:::::::::::(I WILL admit there's a line. Remember "History vid Megatron", anyone?) --[[User:NCZ|NCZ]] 11:34, 14 December 2010 (EST)
::::::::::::I think someone needs a timeout. --[[User:-Blackout-|-Blackout-]] 12:02, 14 December 2010 (EST)
::::::::::::I remember "history vid Megatron"! According to a history video in Animated, he was a Decepticon during Animated's Great War. He looked like he commanded at least a platoon or something. - [[User:Starfield|Starfield]] 12:19, 14 December 2010 (EST)

== Astronomical/Apollo Errors in Trailer/Movie ==

The trailer seems to suggest that, after it landed, Apollo 11 passed around to the dark side of the moon, or out of radio range, or something. This is, of course, nonsense, since the moon doesn't rotate with respect to Earth. If the trailer counts as canon, do we want to start an errors section for this? [[User:JW|JW]] 14:59, 13 December 2010 (EST)
:I think it is canon. That was strange. That looked like a real clip from Walter Cronkite, but maybe it was spliced together from different reports. Or maybe it was actually from before the landing when they were still in orbit. They sort of undercut the impact of the radio silence bit when mission control was still able to communicate with them. Maybe it was Sector 7 technology? - [[User:Starfield|Starfield]] 15:19, 13 December 2010 (EST)
:: My reading of the trailer was that the astronauts WALKED to the far side of the moon once the feed was cut, explored, and then returned all within 21 minutes. Which is just as ridiculous. --[[User:ItsWalky|ItsWalky]] 15:24, 13 December 2010 (EST)
:::You could be right. I was thrown off by one image where they were right next to the lander when they were "dark on the rock". That was probably out of sequence. Then again, being a movie trailer, the whole thing may be various images and dialog thrown together without regard to sequence. - [[User:Starfield|Starfield]] 15:34, 13 December 2010 (EST)
::::But ''did'' they go to the dark side? I took "dark on the rock" to mean that communications were nil, that they were "in the dark", as it were. A figurative phrase, not literal. After all - you can SEE the Earth in the sky behind the spaceship! That couldn't be the dark side! - [[User:Chris McFeely|Chris McFeely]] 16:02, 13 December 2010 (EST)
:::::Cronkite says "We now have had confirmation of loss of signal from Apollo 11. Apollo 11 is on the far side of the moon". - [[User:Starfield|Starfield]] 16:07, 13 December 2010 (EST)
::::::"Apollo 11" is the name of the mission, which involved the Columbia rocketship and the Lunar module that landed. The Columbia was in lunar orbit while Buzz and Neil were on the surface of the planet. The Columbia part of Apollo 11 definitely could have been on the far side of the moon, unless it, was, like, circling the exact circumference of the moon that we can see from Earth. --[[User:ItsWalky|ItsWalky]] 16:13, 13 December 2010 (EST)
:::::Mind, the actual "dark side of the moon" where the Autobot spaceship had crashed sure had a lot of friggin' light about and plenty of crisp shadows. --[[User:ItsWalky|ItsWalky]] 16:09, 13 December 2010 (EST)
::::::I tried to find out if the lander bounced signals off the ''Columbia'' but my Google skills failed me. - [[User:Starfield|Starfield]] 16:18, 13 December 2010 (EST)
::::::I'm pretty sure the whole "Dark of the Moon", "dark on the rock" thing is figurative, to both describe the mystery on the Moon and NASA's real reason for traveling there, rather than literally "the ''Ark'' crashed on the dark side of the moon, and the dark side of the moon is a short walk from Tranquility Base." [http://science.howstuffworks.com/lunar-landing2.htm This article] suggests that ''Columbia'' served as the communications link between ''Eagle'' and Earth. Wish I could find a better article or source, but my google-fu is not great. --[[User:FFN|FFN]] 06:50, 22 December 2010 (EST)
:::::::Even taking that as figurative, the trailer shows the Earth close to the horizon, when it should be nearly directly overhead. It also appears to move between shots only a short time apart. [[User:JW|JW]] 06:55, 22 December 2010 (EST)
::::::::Yea, it doesn't look like an actual error, except the movie makers wanted the Earth in every shot (I don't blame them). But the trailer doesn't make it clear that the ''Columbia'' is a communications link or anything like that so it is confusing. If it wasn't on the far side of the Moon, I don't see how they could have kept it secret. Anyone with a big enough telescope would be able to see it, I would think. At least observatories. - [[User:Starfield|Starfield]] 11:19, 22 December 2010 (EST)
The term "Dark side of the moon" was a misnomer even before Transformers got hold of it. The dark side of the moon refers to the side of the moon that always faces away from Earth. But it gets just as much sunlight as the near side. It should rightly be called the FAR side of the moon.[[Special:Contributions/180.176.116.4|180.176.116.4]] 23:45, 22 April 2011 (EDT)

It has been noted that on the way to the MOON in the historical intro to the movie Apollo is seen without the Lunar Excursion Module. But what has not been noted is that when the Transformers in present day land next to the crashed Transformers craft, that the return module of the Lunar Excursion Module is still there 41 years after Neil and Buzz used it to return to the Earth. {{unsigned|121.45.204.195|05:15, 28 September 2011 (EDT)}}
:That's mentioned in the sixth note in that section. --[[User:Abates|abates]] 05:40, 28 September 2011 (EDT)

== MEGATRON IN DARK OF THE MOON ==
I have been looking around the internet about Transformers 3, and everywhere says that Megatron is returning for Transformers 3 as a Mack Titan Tanker Truck, I know that Michael Bay hasen't released any news yet on any Decepticons apart from Shockwave, but if Hasbro didn't release the pictures of the Megatron tanker truck toy, how the hell did they get on the internet, even Leader Class Ironhide pictures are around. Does anyone think that megatron should be added to the Decepticons?
Thanks Plo Koon 1
:It's most likely a stolen prototype from a factory, and NO, Megatron '''will not be added until Hasbro or Michael Bay or some other official source says he's in'''. --[[User:NCZ|NCZ]] 12:42, 27 December 2010 (EST)
:Kindly go away and never return. This is all you do, come here once a movie is in production and either add stolen info, or rant on talk pages about how we should add stolen info, and frankly I am sick of it. --[[User:Detour|Detour]] 15:13, 27 December 2010 (EST)
::Why don't you go look up some more information and get adding to the page instead of waiting for Michael Bay's and Hasbro's precious information. {{unsigned|Plo Koon 1}}
:::Because we only use OFFICIAL information. If it doesn't come from Hasbro, Bay or another official source, it ISN'T information as far as we are concerned.--[[User:Khajidha|Khajidha]] 16:45, 27 December 2010 (EST)
:::Yeah, that's a great idea, let's post every single thing anonymous people post on Wikipedia, that's the best way to do research. Or post about stolen toys, thieves are always the best source of info. And then we'll have to take it down, because it turns out to be wrong. Or get crap from Hasbro, because it's stolen. That'll work out great. This Wiki is interested in getting things ''right'', not ''first''. The policy and the reasons for it have been explained quite clearly. - [[User:Cattleprod|Cattleprod]] 16:53, 27 December 2010 (EST)

== Ashton Kutcher ==

Just noticed, along with Ben Kingsley theres a spoof of the Heidi Montag audition by Ashton Kutcher. I can't put a link in though, as i have no idea how to.[[User:Burnout|Burnout]] 11:40, 20 January 2011 (EST)Burnout

Just paste it!—[[User:TOM|TOM]] 13:05, 23 January 2011 (EST)

== THE FIRST offical Images for DOTM Toys ==
Are these Officals right? http://www.asmzine.com/geekly-rewind/2011/01/28/toy-fair-uk-images-of-starscream-and-ironhide/ If so then its time to add these pics to Starscream and Ironhide Pages and make the DOTM Toyline Page well that its if anybody here considers these officals—[[User:Eagc7|Eagc7]] 28 January 2011 (EST)
:Well, the article ''claims'' the pics are from Hasbro, but we better hold off until we're sure (as well as hold off on creating any 'MechTech' articles) - [[User:Zadok Rox|Zadok Rox]] 22:41, 28 January 2011 (EST)
::ASM would be the last site in the world to lie about that. They're official, and they were delivered to most every Transformers website. I wouldn't be surprised if we got them too, but I'm not [[User:Monzo|Monzo]], so I couldn't tell you. --[[User:ItsWalky|ItsWalky]] 22:48, 28 January 2011 (EST)
:::Yes, we received the images from Hasbro as well. --[[User:ItsWalky|ItsWalky]] 02:23, 29 January 2011 (EST)
::::Thank You, Jesus, we finally got toy pics that aren't stolen prototypes! :D - [[User:Zadok Rox|Zadok Rox]] 14:19, 29 January 2011 (EST)

== Ratchet and Ironhide ==
i think we should add ratchet and Ironhide in the cast and character list sicne the 2 were in the trailer and the trailer like an Offical Source—[[User:Eagc7|Eagc7]]

== Laserbeak (?) ==

A bird-robot was also in the trailer.--[[User:TOM|TOM]] 19:51, 9 February 2011 (EST)
:Looked more dragon-y than bird-y to me. --[[User:KilMichaelMcC|KilMichaelMcC]] 20:03, 9 February 2011 (EST)
::Either way, the wiki isn't much of a place for speculation so whoever it is is moot until we get an official toy listing or promotional render. --[[User:Detour|Detour]] 20:07, 9 February 2011 (EST)
:::Indeed, Detour. It could be Laserbeak, or Buzzsaw, or something new. Could it be Laserbeak? Most likely, yes. However, like Detour said, TFwiki.net doesn't deal with "most likely". Be patient, folks; we'll find out soon enough (the movie will be out in five months and we might find out officially before then). - [[User:Zadok Rox|Zadok Rox]] 21:40, 9 February 2011 (EST)
::::Whatever. If the toy we've seen resembling it is the same character, it must have two modes: condor mode and dragon mode. - [[User:CAJH|CAJH]] 19:35, 13 March 2011 (EST)

The same character (or an identical one) in the game is confirmed as Laserbeak. Is that sufficient enough to list him as a film character?
 - [[User:Queso|¡Usa El Queso!]] 2:58 PM, 27 March 2011 A.D.
:Confirmed where? By whom? --[[User:Khajidha|Khajidha]] 15:45, 27 March 2011 (EDT)
::Well, it WAS on the page for the DOTM game, but it isn't anymore, so I'm guessing that was incorrect.
::- [[User:Queso|¡Usa El Queso!]] 5:04 PM, 27 March 2011 A.D.
:::I removed it from there as there was no source listed. --[[User:Khajidha|Khajidha]] 17:10, 27 March 2011 (EDT)

== New guys? ==

Just a question. From the Superbowl trailer you can see that there are some "already dead" guys. I mean Barricade°(here it isnt really certain), Long Haul and (desert) Brawl. Should these be added into the list of appeared characters, since they were'''officially revealed''' via trailer? --[[Special:Contributions/194.228.147.9|194.228.147.9]] 21:12, 11 February 2011 (EST)
:No. Just because they look like the old characters doesn't mean they are. More there's no reason to list nameless characters we know nothing about. Be patient. Plenty of time after the movie is out. We're in no rush.--[[User:ZacWilliam|ZacWilliam]] 21:19, 11 February 2011 (EST)
::(That was not Barricade, but Sideways. Well, *a* Sideways.) --[[User:ItsWalky|ItsWalky]] 11:01, 20 February 2011 (EST)
:You recognized Long Haul and Brawl? You mean like how [[Grindor (ROTF)|we recognized Blackout in ROTF?]] --[[User:Andrusi|Andrusi]] 12:04, 20 February 2011 (EST)
:: Because of Hasbro's action figures, we knew that there was a Blackout lookalike named "Grindor" from the start. Until Hasbro reveals some alternate names for these guys, I think we can feel safe keeping them under the umbrella of their known names, like we did and do with ROTF's Constructicons. --[[User:ItsWalky|ItsWalky]] 12:22, 20 February 2011 (EST)
::: Long Haul and Brawl ''do'' have same-body-type buddies from the toyline--Payload and Tankor respectively. --[[User:Andrusi|Andrusi]] 12:33, 20 February 2011 (EST)
:::: Yes, but all of the green Long Hauls are accounted for on Long Haul's page. This is just another green Long Haul, and we should treat it as such until we know differently. --[[User:ItsWalky|ItsWalky]] 12:42, 20 February 2011 (EST)

== Crankcase, Ratchet, etc ==

Dudes, if we have a trailer and a Toy Fair, and we see vehicle modes that we know belong to movie characters, and we see those vehicle modes that belong to movie characters ''transform into the robot modes of said movie characters'' I really think we need to get beyond the "we pretend we don't know anything" schtick. --[[User:ItsWalky|ItsWalky]] 10:59, 20 February 2011 (EST)
: Also, the whole "what if this is not the real Crankcase and the real Crankcase is elsewhere" is an argument that ''predicates'' on the idea that the "real" Crankcase is in the film. And if there IS no "real" Crankcase in the film, then this "generic" BECOMES the "real" Crankcase. Either way, he's in the damn film. --[[User:ItsWalky|ItsWalky]] 11:07, 20 February 2011 (EST)
:: FurtherFURTHERmore, the fact that the counterargument has gone from "it's just an SUV" to "it's just a robot" to "it's just a robot mode that looks like Crankcase's" as this goes on just feels like this is a counterargument based not on facts but on obstinate reluctance. --[[User:ItsWalky|ItsWalky]] 11:12, 20 February 2011 (EST)
::: And to put a final nail in the coffin, there were several [[Long Haul (ROTF)|Long Haul]]s in ''Revenge of the Fallen'', but they were all accounted for on Long Haul's page as Long Haul. --[[User:ItsWalky|ItsWalky]] 11:16, 20 February 2011 (EST)
::: I think if this passes based on this argument, then everyone in charge of this site better remember this when others are putting up information using the same reasoning. [[User:Karhukjnsi|Karhukjnsi]] 15:23, 20 February 2011 (EST)

== New Chevy Beat/Spark 'Bots (?) ==

Nelson said that a Chevy Spark spotted on set was not Skids, but a ''new'' character.--[[User:TOM|TOM]] 20:11, 25 February 2011 (EST)
:We'll get to it when '''''official information comes out'''''. --[[User:Lonegamer78|Lonegamer78]] 23:30, 25 February 2011 (EST)
::So, Nelson isn't a trustable source?--[[User:TOM|TOM]] 17:19, 4 March 2011 (EST)
:::There's literally not enough information to do anything with. What do you want, a page for ''Unnamed Chevy Spark character who might just be one of the Twins, we aren't sure yet''? - [[User:Cattleprod|Cattleprod]] 17:46, 4 March 2011 (EST)
::::Those Sparks were seen in trailer, but I still don't believe non-appearance of the Twins being misinformation. Characters were said to be cut off from the film, but the vehicles not. --[[User:CAJH|CAJH]] 9:24, 2 May 2011 (EST)
:::::If their vehicles appear, the characters are in the film. Please don't revert again. --[[User:ItsWalky|ItsWalky]] 02:31, 2 May 2011 (EDT)
:::::CAJH, considering how much Bay lied about Megatron not coming back in ROTF, and his (and Nelson's) claims about the Twins not coming back in DOTM (despite all evidence to the contrary), we're better off including them based upon what we can actually see rather than they tell us. --[[User:FFN|FFN]] 03:33, 2 May 2011 (EDT)

== Is Mirage really in DOTM??? ==

I saw that Mirage was added to the cast list (as of 11:09 pm EST on April 8th, 2011). Besides the Speed Star toy of Mirage, is there any actual evidence that the red Ferrari in DOTM is Mirage? I think the addition is a bit premature (I was about to undo the addition, but I thought I would play it safe). - [[User:Zadok Rox|Zadok Rox]] 23:13, 8 April 2011 (EDT)
:We're not exactly sure yet, so leaving him off for now is probably for the best. --[[User:FFN|FFN]] 01:28, 5 May 2011 (EDT)

==Brains==

Some believe that Brains might become the Einstein-Mercedes-bot, but I don't think so. Bay confirmed Brains being small in film too. What would you think that Einstein-bot be, if he's not Brains? --[[User:CAJH|CAJH]] 12:53, 18 April 2011 (EDT)
:More than likely just an early head design for Wheeljack. But we'll know for sure when the movie's out or more promotional renders are revealed. --[[User:Detour|Detour]] 06:00, 18 April 2011 (EDT)
:: Brains is in the "Rising Storm" comic prequel. He's a tiny hatchling guy that Bumblebee and Sam escort. Wheeljack is a separate dude who looks like Wheeljack. --[[User:ItsWalky|ItsWalky]] 10:23, 18 April 2011 (EDT)
:::And if Wheeljack ever is that Mercedes-bot, it's very understandable that he would be different in film. Shockwave and Sentinel were too different in comic adaptations. And do not forget Mirage, though it's not officially confirmed, if he is the Ferrari-bot or not. And Brains we'll see in film looks definitely different than Brains we saw in comics.--[[User:CAJH|CAJH]] 14:28, 19 April 2011 (EDT)

== Darkside Moon ==

I am a fan of these two titles because they have that "crazy" factor to them. That said...

I notice there's exactly one dot in those there katakana. I don't suppose it's actually "Darkside Moon", eh? You see "Darkside" here and there, really. [[Special:Contributions/174.111.86.22|174.111.86.22]] 09:53, 26 April 2011 (EDT)
:Maybe. could be. Anyone else think it should be changed to "Darkside Moon" as opposed to the "Dark Side Moon" title that I originally wrote? --[[User:Sabrblade|Sabrblade]] 16:04, 20 May 2011 (EDT)

== Trailer ==

http://www.tfw2005.com/transformers-news/transformers-movie-just-movie-31/transformers-dark-of-the-moon-trailer-172021/ It also seems that Simmons lost a leg, and there are many Crankcases--[[User:Primo|Primo]] 19:46, 28 April 2011 (EDT)
:I think he broke his leg, but anyway people can see the video for themselves so we don't need to mention stuff in it here. If you want to discuss the content of the video, you should take it to a forum. --[[User:FFN|FFN]] 19:48, 30 April 2011 (EDT)

== Washington Post thing ==

That video is from 2010. Why did you date it April 30, 2011? Also, it's probably too plot point spoilery for us to use. --[[User:FFN|FFN]] 19:36, 30 April 2011 (EDT)

== Avon sweepstakes ==

Looks like Avon's having a contest to meet Patrick Dempsey at the premier of DotM. Link [http://www.avon.com/PatrickDempsey here]. Worth mentioning on the page? (Started last week if you want to add this to the timeline) -[[User:King Starscream|King Starscream]] 09:13, 3 May 2011 (EDT)
:I personally don't think it should be added to the ''film'' article of the DOTM franchise, but this is unique in that Avon is having this contest without (as far as I know) having any merchandise tie-ins. Perhaps it could be noted on the main DOTM franchise article page as well as on the Patrick Demsey article. Either way, this is note-worthy. - [[User:Zadok Rox|Zadok Rox]] 09:28, 3 May 2011 (EDT)

== Hatchet is he,in the film? ==

Is it just me or should we add him because somebody add the "more info will pop up in July,1,2011" box-thing,just sayin' - [[User:Dinodigger97|Dinodigger97]],May-4-2011
:If you mean Ratchet, he is already in the cast list. --[[User:Abates|abates]] 20:33, 4 May 2011 (EDT)
::Actually, there's a new Decepticon named [[Hatchet]], so I think that's who he meant. -- [[User:SFH|SFH]] 21:05, 4 May 2011 (EDT)
:::D'oh! Sorry, hard to keep up with all these new dudes. --[[User:Abates|abates]] 21:30, 4 May 2011 (EDT)
::::To answer your question Dinodigger97, no, we don't know. I'm not sure why Hatchet's article has a fiction section already, as there has been no indication that he is in the movie. --[[User:FFN|FFN]] 01:34, 5 May 2011 (EDT)

== Amazon comic spoilers ==

Could we please not get all excited about the spoiled comic adaptation pages on Amazon and rush off to the wiki? I think CAJH even cited Alientraveller's edits with a flickr account (with, I presume, pages of the comic). I wasn't about to spoil myself to look, so I just reverted everything. --[[User:FFN|FFN]] 11:33, 5 May 2011 (EDT)
:For that matter, the comic adaptations of the movie are usually done from earlier versions of the script, and aren't guaranteed to reflect the movie itself. If we ''must'' document every little nugget, those spoilers would more properly go on the comic adaptation's page.--[[User:Rosicrucian|Rosicrucian]][[User Talk:Rosicrucian|Talk]] 11:42, 5 May 2011 (EDT)
::Sorry guys, I concur as Amazon.com has apparently removed those pages (and TFW followed suit). Just a shame I still can't find a source to confirm the name of Shockwave's pet, or Dempsey's character for this page. [[User:Alientraveller|Alientraveller]] 11:45, 5 May 2011 (EDT)
:::... did you just mention a spoiler? --[[User:FFN|FFN]] 12:22, 5 May 2011 (EDT)
::::Maybe the comic adaptation has little differences with the film. But some elements like rest of the characters can't be different. But ok then. Let's wait at least until the release date. --[[User:CAJH|CAJH]] 19:43, 5 May 2011 (EDT)
:::::Why couldn't the characters be different? Characters might appear in fight scenes in the comic with names and personalities yet be represented in the film only by an indistinguishable mass of duplicates of someone else. Thus, the [[Dread (subgroup)|Dreads]] in the movie might all be [[Crankcase (DOTM)|Crankcase]] doppelgangers but [[Hatchet]] might appear in the comic. --[[User:Khajidha|Khajidha]] 12:57, 5 May 2011 (EDT)
::::::Anyway, my main point for the revert was that the pages of the comics were apparently chock full of spoilers that were not supposed to be revealed yet (hence sites like TFW having to remove their news post). And even if Hasbro/Bay/Paramount didn't care (except they do), the wiki has a policy of avoiding overt spoilers for fiction until the release date. --[[User:FFN|FFN]] 13:12, 5 May 2011 (EDT)

== Dreads ==

Not trying to start a discussion with anybody, just pointing out: We already saw that there's a Black Dodge Charger, who's NOT Barricade, also we've seen that Hatchet is a Dread, and he has three other chances of appearing --[[User:Metroplex|Metroplex]] 14:19, 11 May 2011 (EDT)
:What? Seen what? Why are you pointing this out here? --[[User:FFN|FFN]] 14:34, 14 May 2011 (EDT)
::If you have something against this post, I have no problem in erasing it --[[User:Metroplex|Metroplex]] 18:06, 22 May 2011 (EDT)

== Just wondering... ==

The 2007 TF film article used quotes from the 1986 movie, should I replace those with one of the prequels of Star Wars. (or, to be more specific, Episode 3: Revenge of the Sith) --[[User:Kaon Prisoner|Kaon Prisoner]] 16:27, 20 May 2011 (EDT)
: Do not alter the captions on the 2007 film article. --[[User:ItsWalky|ItsWalky]] 16:29, 20 May 2011 (EDT)

Or maybe other stuff from Ep 4. --[[User:Kaon Prisoner|Kaon Prisoner]] 16:30, 20 May 2011 (EDT)

At Walky: OK, I ''will'' [Not alter the quotes].

But still, quite stupid to quote the 1986 movie. --[[User:Kaon Prisoner|Kaon Prisoner]] 16:34, 20 May 2011 (EDT)
: I've got an idea. Call our efforts stupid one more time and you can have a quite stupid ban. --[[User:ItsWalky|ItsWalky]] 17:39, 20 May 2011 (EDT)

== June 28 release? ==

I followed the link given for the release date, and that dateline site says it's coming out June 2'''9''', not 28. Is there something somewhere that suggests it's coming out on Tuesday instead? [[User:Magaroja|Magaroja]] 18:02, 20 May 2011 (EDT)

== Capone's AICN Review ==
Any thoughts regarding the first review of the movie?[[User:Ryantherebel|Ryantherebel]] 16:02, 23 May 2011 (EDT)
-I think the review said the twins are in there, is it a reliable source to put in the confirmed?? (how do I sign posts?)
:Regardless, the director of the film is a much more reliable source. And you sign your posts by typing "<nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>". (You may wish to review the [[Help:Contents|Help pages]].)
::-[[User:Queso|¡Usa El Queso!]]

== Foreign names ==
Serbian name for Dark of the Moon is: Transformers 3: Dark of the Moon, the only one with the "accurate" translation yet. Put it on the page in the Foreign names.[[User:DarkCon|DarkCon]] 12:57, 1 June 2011 (EDT)
:That's the translation, but what is it in actual Serbian?--[[User:Khajidha|Khajidha]] 07:29, 1 June 2011 (EDT)
:Transformers 3: Tama Meseca--[[User:DarkCon|DarkCon]] 20:04, 1 June 2011 (EDT)

== Mirage ==
Should the whole mirage is not the ferrari be on this article? [[Special:Contributions/68.197.232.80|68.197.232.80]] 15:48, 2 June 2011 (EDT)

== Renaming Wheeljack and Mirage ==
now we know the names they will use the film, should we add some info of the change on theri pages or Rename their Pages?
:If by "know", you mean "the same guy we didn't believe when he said it the first time just kept saying it", sure. - [[User:Chris McFeely|Chris McFeely]] 05:12, 6 June 2011 (EDT)
::These sound like nicknames given to them by crew members who don't know the real names and don't really care. --[[User:Khajidha|Khajidha]] 09:47, 6 June 2011 (EDT)
:::Okay. but if the name changes turns out to be true Are you guys going to Consider them Seperate Characters Or you are Still Going to consider them the Same bots, depsite the Name change (like you guys did with Simmons Parents Pages)
::::See [[Brawl (Movie)|Brawl, also known as Devastator]]. And we eventually merged the Simmonses. [[User:Interrobang|—Interrobang]] 16:07, 12 June 2011 (EDT)
:::::that means yes :P

== Barricade ==
[http://i256.photobucket.com/albums/hh199/eagc7/More/dotm20barricade.jpg] Confirmation that he is in the film?
Hope so -[[User:Kaine852|Kaine852]] 05:41, 17 June 2011 (EDT)
:This time around, I'd say yes! - [[User:Queso|¡Usa El Queso!]] 10:15 AM, 17 June 2011 A.D.
::Considering the reused character models which happened both last movie (Grindor, the new Buffalo MPV 'Con) and in this movie (Sideways), I really wouldn't jump the gun so quickly on this. --[[User:Detour|Detour]] 10:53, 17 June 2011 (EDT)
:::Ah, fair point. Yet those were instances of characters who had both died previously. Barricade has clearly been shown [[Alliance issue 1|to]] [[Transformers Comic issue 2.1|be]] [[The Veiled Threat|still]] [[Tales of the Fallen issue 1|alive]]. - [[User:Queso|¡Usa El Queso!]] 11:44, 17 June 2011 (EDT)
::::I'm not saying it's 100% totally not him, I'm saying they've reused character models in the past, so don't jump the gun and let's wait and see. --[[User:Detour|Detour]] 11:47, 17 June 2011 (EDT)

== Carly ==
Discussion moved to [[Talk:Carly Spencer|Carly's talkpage]]. - [[User:Starfield|Starfield]] 10:16, 18 June 2011 (EDT)

== Superfund Armored Truck ==

So we still don't know the identity of the Superfund Armored Truck, Michael Bay, you're doing a great job -_- --[[User:Metroplex|Metroplex]] 09:27, 25 June 2011 (EDT)

== Twins, Dino and Que ==
one guy in the tfw2005 site who saw the film says the twins appear for one Single scene in the film, the scene where they are seen in the trailer entering the NEST hangar, does this means they are TRULY in the film but for one scene link [http://www.tfw2005.com/boards/transformers-movie-discussion/423302-autocons-dotm-q-thread-spoilers.html#post6254202], Plus this guy confirmed WHeelajck and Dino are truly named Dino and Que[http://www.tfw2005.com/boards/transformers-movie-discussion/423302-autocons-dotm-q-thread-spoilers-3.html#post6254472] {{unsigned|Eagc7}}
:At this point it's less than a day until the movie's out. There's not really much hurry to add new information when everyone will be able to see it, and the whole article will be restructured anyway. --[[User:Abates|abates]] 00:34, 28 June 2011 (EDT)
:: Skids and Mudflap are in the film and should be listed as such. Bay only ever said that they don't PERFORM in the movie, which is true. --[[User:ItsWalky|ItsWalky]] 10:51, 29 June 2011 (EDT)
McFeely coming down on the side of "Que" (god, I hate typing that) makes me question whether I'm the one who's wrong about "Q" being in the credits. Does anyone at all have my back on this independently? -[[User:LV|LV]] 10:08, 30 June 2011 (EDT)
:Walky says he rewatched it and it's definitely "Que" in the credits. So against what I went on the rampage with earlier, these pages need to be changed back to the worst name in Transformers history. Sigh. (Yes, even worse than Rodimus Prime.) -[[User:LV|LV]] 08:39, 1 July 2011 (EDT)
::Oh lord... I'd been told it was "Q" in the credits, which is why I'd changed the latest additions... Eugh. I guess they didn't want to make the James Bond similarities ''too'' blatant, but still, eugh. --[[User:Detour|Detour]] 08:50, 1 July 2011 (EDT)

== Silverbolt ==

So...he's just simply out of the movie and no James Avery in the end? --[[User:Jolt17|Jolt17]] 11:01, 29 June 2011

:Seem so. --'''[[User:TX55|TX55]]'''''[[User talk:TX55|TALK]]'' 10:01, 29 June 2011 (EDT)

== It's Out ==

So when somebody takes a break from watching the best movie over and over again can you please add the info to it.

==Long Haul and Brawl in Dark of the Moon==
I haven't seen the movie yet but when the Super Bowl trailer was released Decepticons resembling Long Haul and Brawl were spotted, do they appear in the final film as I haven't seen it yet? [[User:DOTM123|DOTM123]] 12:08, 30 June 2011 (EDT)
: Brawl was replaced by Long Haul, if I recall correctly. This is going by trailer footage, though. The tan Brawl wasn't in the later ones, with Long Haul replacing him in the wide shot so that it better matched who Prime was rampaging through in the closeup. --[[User:ItsWalky|ItsWalky]] 13:37, 30 June 2011 (EDT)
::On the subject of background 'Cons, I think I recall seeing one in Chicago with massive forearms that it walked on... Am I imagining things, and if not, was it a new model? [[User:Jalaguy|Jalaguy]]

Here's what I'mma say on the subject of these generics.
*Brawl and Sideways - they're dead. Can't be them.
*Long Haul and Scrapper - Constructicons share body types. There are multiple iterations of each, and the DOTM appearance of these two should just be on the existing pages. Frankly, I've thought for a while the Constructicon pages could stand a bit of reworking to be about the body-types, rather than the individuals where applicable.
*Scalpel - he didn't die in ROTF. Sure, he died in the comic adaptation, but then, Barricade died in the TF1 adaptation, and Dino died instead of Que in the DOTM adaptation. So there's no saying with ''any'' certainty that Scalpel is dead, and one of those little guys could absolutely be him. He's turned up alive in Titan's post-ROTF fiction. - [[User:Chris McFeely|Chris McFeely]] 05:47, 1 July 2011 (EDT)
:About bodytypes vs individuals: I've said that same thing about Swindle, Longarm, Dreadwing and co. from the first movie for a while but it seems to go unnoticed... --[[User:Detour|Detour]] 09:05, 1 July 2011 (EDT)

==GI Joe/Transformers reference?==
So, I just got back from seeing it, and all I'm wondering: Sam's actions against Starscream, would they fall under the Transformers References section as references to Snake-Eyes own actions against Starscream in [[G.I. Joe vs. the Transformers issue 5|GI Joe vs. the Transformers #5]]? Unlike a lot of other things people ask are references, this seems pretty blatant. [[User:Boy Blunderous|Boy Blunderous]] 05:46, 1 July 2011 (EDT)
:Psht, you're silly. (I really wish this was an intentional reference, but all things considered, I really doubt those who worked on the script and shooting have read that story. Could be a ref, but not confirmed.) [[User:Antimatter|Antimatter]] 18:26, 1 July 2011 (EDT)

==Obscure Hard-To-See Decepticons==
I've heard around that throughout the movie, a number of Decepticons are shown with vehicle modes and all, not just drones. For example, there's a 'Con that turns into a military Stryker with a robot-mode that looks like the Cloverfield monster, a random polic car (not Barricade, all white) and one that turns into a garbage truck, but it's robot looks like Long Haul. Did anyone else catch these Cannonfodder/Deadguy Decepticons? If so, do you have any pictures?

== Silverbolt ==

Am I the only one who saw what might be Silverbolt lurking in the background when the Autobots are being exiled? --[[Special:Contributions/89.17.232.104|89.17.232.104]] 05:21, 3 July 2011 (EDT)
:In all likelihood, yes. --[[User:FFN|FFN]] 15:04, 5 July 2011 (EDT)
i think you mistaken silverbolt for [[Topspin (DOTM)]]

== Skids and Mudflap in the cast list? ==

I don't think the Twins belong in the cast list. They were deliberately dropped from the film, their one appearance basically an oversight. They effectively weren't there at all, in-story. That you can see them briefly should be noted, of course, but not in a "Main Cast" list. --[[User:KilMichaelMcC|KilMichaelMcC]] 10:52, 5 July 2011 (EDT)--[[User:KilMichaelMcC|KilMichaelMcC]] 10:52, 5 July 2011 (EDT)
: I feel every named Autobot or Decepticon who appears should be in the cast list. --[[User:ItsWalky|ItsWalky]] 10:57, 5 July 2011 (EDT)
Then shouldn't all humans who appear should be in the cast of the page?[[Special:Contributions/120.28.64.73|120.28.64.73]] 21:48, 9 July 2011 (EDT)

== The Wreckers a Star Trek refrence? ==
Do you think it sould be noted that the Wreckers being engineers with scottish accents is similiar to Scotty, the scottish engineer from the Starship Enterprise? May even be delibirate, considering the other amount of Star Trek refrences in this movie. --[[User:Captain-lelouch|Captain-lelouch]] 1:02, 5 July 2011 (EDT)

== Eight Autobots aboard the Xantium ==

Re: ''When the Autobots are boarding the Xantium, it's said that eight of them are leaving. Even assuming Wheelie and Brains don't count, that number is at least one too small. '' 
The line I heard was "Do you really think exiling nine Autobots is going to stop the Decepticons?". Or something along those lines. Either way, I clearly heard "nine." Where does "eight" come from? -- [[User:Dark T Zeratul|Dark T Zeratul]] 16:08, 5 July 2011 (EDT)
: I remember it as nine as well, which accounts for everyone other than Wheelie and Brains. (Optimus, Bumblebee, Ratchet, Sideswipe, Dino, Q, and the three Wreckers). --[[User:KilMichaelMcC|KilMichaelMcC]] 16:15, 5 July 2011 (EDT)
::They definitely said nine. --Walky not logged in
:::I must be remembering it wrong. Mea culpa. [[User:JW|JW]] 17:08, 5 July 2011 (EDT)

== Bonecrusher ==

I think I saw a Bonecrusher-type Decepticon during the film because the character has a "Mine-sweeping arm". Is there anyone who rewatch the film can confirm whether there is such a character or not? Thanks. --'''[[User:TX55|TX55]]'''''[[User talk:TX55|TALK]]'' 22:55, 5 July 2011 (EDT)

== Sentinel Error ==

[[Special:Contributions/180.191.75.154|180.191.75.154]] 05:59, 6 July 2011 (EDT)I believe that the error is Sentinel already speaking english just after his awakening.

Also, he is already disguised as the Rosenbauer fire truck on the Ark and before he is resurrected. [[Special:Contributions/24.7.13.69|24.7.13.69]] 03:24, 7 July 2011 (EDT)

:He is? I thought he appeared solely in robot mode in those scenes. --[[User:Abates|abates]] 03:32, 7 July 2011 (EDT)
::Yeah, I didn't mean that he appears as the firetruck, just that you can see all the truck kibble parts on his armor (front windshields are the most obvious)[[Special:Contributions/24.7.13.69|24.7.13.69]] 01:19, 8 July 2011 (EDT)
:He may be in robot mode but he does have the kibble of his Earth Mode so I think that would count as an error. [[User:DinoFreakUSA|DinoFreakUSA]] 11:03, 7 July 2011 (EDT)
sooo...can we get back to my question in which Sentinel can already speak english?[[Special:Contributions/120.28.64.77|120.28.64.77]] 08:59, 8 July 2011 (EDT)
:As a rule, "has altmode kibble before acquiring altmode" '''is''' something we comment on, but "can speak English with no explanation" is '''not''' (it happens in many, many, many places). [[User:JW|JW]] 10:07, 8 July 2011 (EDT)
::I'm adding it as an error.[[User:DinoFreakUSA|DinoFreakUSA]] 18:35, 8 July 2011 (EDT)
:: This actually isn't an error. While his apperance looks alot like he has his firetruck mode, he actually doesn't. He has many markings and small changes among them, a firehose nossle on his right arm, a rescue vehicle marking on his right shoulder and a Rosenbauer emblem on his left, having part of the 316 on his inner thighs, and having 07 on his knee caps, that aren't on him during his scenes, on the moon and the NEST base. He first has them during his drive with Optimus (when he has that mode). Therefore his appearance before that is simply kibble from whatever mode he had on Cybertron. Some one might want to note this somewhere.

== Note on top (leaks, set photos) ==

Now that the movie is out, this one can go, no? Set photos can now be used as evidence for deleted scenes etc.?--[[User:Nevermore|Nevermore]] 08:50, 8 July 2011 (EDT)

== Screwed physics ==

Does Sam hanging on tho the rope in the boomstick stuck to Starscream, then Sam holding it with one hand then he goes up and down without dislocating his shoulder, count as an error?(The one where the boomstick is stuck in the eye and then Sam is hanging on to the rope while Starscream is flying up and down without sam dislocating his bones?)[[Special:Contributions/120.28.64.77|120.28.64.77]] 09:03, 8 July 2011 (EDT)
:Nah, he's an action hero. They do that kinda stuff all the time. [[User:JW|JW]] 10:05, 8 July 2011 (EDT)

== Megatron/Galvatron ==

It seems like Megatron's "breakdown" in the film following the destruction of his master The Fallen after ROTF seems to mimic that of Galvatron G1: Season 3/Post-Movie after Unicron is destroyed, did anyone else notice this?
:No.--[[User:Nevermore|Nevermore]] 05:29, 9 July 2011 (EDT)

== Optimus's closing narration/monologue confusion ==

Somebody quoted him as saying:

{{quote|In any war, there are calms between the storms. There will be days when we lose faith. Days when our allies turn against us... but the day will never come when we forsake this planet and its people. For I am Optimus Prime, and I send this message to the universe: We are here. We are home.}}

However, in the 2D prints I've seen, the monologue (and indeed, the film) ends when he says "but the day will never come when we forsake this planet and its people." Is the second half of this quote from the 3D cut? An adaptation?? --[[User:FFN|FFN]] 10:13, 9 July 2011 (EDT)
:I can confirm the last part is in the 3D cut, since that's what I saw. -- [[User:Semysane|Semysane]] 21:03, 9 July 2011 (EDT)

::I just watched it in standard, and Prime's monolugue did indeed end at "never forsake this planet and its people."[[Special:Contributions/174.255.177.18|174.255.177.18]] 08:03, 10 July 2011 (EDT) (Sntint)

:::I watched in 3D, and I'm pretty sure he said more than "never forsake this planet and its people." -TheSuper200

==Synopsis==

Ok, reading it, it needs SERIOUS work. Some clunky writing, and its not written entirely in on-screen order. I'm thinking of having a go, but there are much better writers here than me. Just sayin' [[User:Eire|Eire]] 20.56 July 09 (BST)
:[[Transformers (2007)]]'s summary isn't in on-screen order either... Pardon me for following an established example.--[[User:Nevermore|Nevermore]] 17:36, 9 July 2011 (EDT)
::Clarity trumping chronology when summarizing interleaved action? -[[User:Derik|Derik]] 18:33, 9 July 2011 (EDT)

== TF movie 1 and DOTM Continuity error. ==

In Transformers 1, Megatron went to earth because he was chasing the Allspark, but in DOTM, he said he was supposed to meet with Sentinel Prime, so is that an error?[[Special:Contributions/180.191.113.87|180.191.113.87]] 09:35, 10 July 2011 (EDT)
:[[Movie timeline]]. [[User:Alientraveller|Alientraveller]] 09:35, 10 July 2011 (EDT)

== Ravage sighting ==

I think I saw Ravage fighting on Cybertron at the beginning of the movie.
Can anybody else confirm this for me?1:43, 11 July 2011 John Prime

:Yes, there was a Ravage model in the opening sequence. It seems to me, though, that this was a giant Ravage, as he was killing little tiny robot people. If so, I think it's safe to say that wasn't actually Ravage, just a lookalike. - [[User:Queso|¡Usa El Queso!]] [[User talk:Queso|Complain here]] 17:23, 11 July 2011 (EDT)
: There were like 30 of him and he was a much larger, modified model. Probably not RAVAGE-Ravage, no. --[[User:ItsWalky|ItsWalky]] 17:43, 11 July 2011 (EDT)

== Transformers references ==

:''Starscream yelling "My eye! My eye!" after Sam injured him with one of Que's inventions is reminiscent of his Generation 1 counterpart yelling "My foot!" after having it squeezed in 1986's The Transformers: The Movie.''

Does this really count as a reference? The only link between them is "My (bodyparts)". ''G1'' Starscream says "Ohhh, my foot!" while his ''Movie'' counterpart says "My eye! My eye!". --'''[[User:TX55|TX55]]'''''[[User talk:TX55|TALK]]'' 21:55, 11 July 2011 (EDT)
: Yeah, I don't think this is a reference so much as it is likely for Starscream to whine about pain. --[[User:ItsWalky|ItsWalky]] 21:59, 11 July 2011 (EDT)

==DOTM Watch-bot==
I didn't want to remove this without permission but Watch-bot dosen't appear in the movie, it only appears in the Novel. Its just like Optimus and Megatron make peace in the Novel but don't in the Movie and Megatron is killed by him, so shouldn't the Watch-Bot be moved to the book cast and removed off the movie cast? [[User:DOTM123|DOTM123]] 15:04, 13 July 2011 (EDT)DOTM123[[User:DOTM123|DOTM123]] 15:04, 13 July 2011 (EDT)
:You must've forgot the Decepticon on Sam's wrist causing him to behave freakishly at Cape Kennedy. [[User:Alientraveller|Alientraveller]] 15:16, 13 July 2011 (EDT)
:OOPS, sorry about that lol I remember now, is someone going to create the article for the character. [[User:DOTM123|DOTM123]] 15:19, 13 July 2011 (EDT)

== Quotes ==

So there appears to be some debate over whether certain lines are missing from the 2D version or not.

Based on [http://www.tfw2005.com/boards/transformers-movie-discussion/432568-2d-version-missing-lines.html this] and [http://www.allspark.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=80827 this] thread, I'm fairly confident that there is no "edited 2D version", Simmons ''does'' say the "I speak their language" bit in the 2D version, and Optimus Prime's closing narration ends with "its people" in the 3D version. Everything else is people misremembering, or applying dialogue from the novelization and the comic adaptation to the movie itself.--[[User:Nevermore|Nevermore]] 18:26, 15 July 2011 (EDT)

:SO CHANGE IT YOU FOOLS!!!~ --[[Special:Contributions/96.54.198.88|96.54.198.88]] 19:29, 23 July 2011 (EDT)

Que,"...take these [weapons], they're especially good for kicking ass!"[[Blurrzicon]]

== About Barricade's voice... ==

I don't think him having soundwave's voice is an error, I mean it is legal that two transformers can be voiced by one voice actor[[Special:Contributions/120.28.64.77|120.28.64.77]] 00:52, 16 July 2011 (EDT)
:"Legal"? What are you talking about? Frank Welker can be credited with as many voices he is cast in. The issue with Barricade was he was speaking in the exact same voice as Soundwave in a scene where Soundwave has several lines of dialogue. If they meant for Barricade to be the character dragging Que/Wheeljack away and talking, Welker would have been easily capable of performing in an entirely different voice. --[[User:FFN|FFN]] 13:59, 17 July 2011 (EDT)
::Actually, how do we know Barry's even the one talking? In a scene with Soundwave delivering so many lines, a voice that sounded like Soundwave could very well have ''been'' Soundwave. Unless, of course, the credits listed Welker as Barricade (but I do not recall that). - [[User:Queso|¡Usa El Queso!]] [[User talk:Queso|Complain here]] 18:41, 17 July 2011 (EDT)
::: haha barry! But has it been confirmed that while Barricade was shoving some cons his mouth or jaw was moving?(Just a question)
::::His mouth did visibly move.
:::::Yes, when we see Barricade initially grabbing Wheeljack, his mouth is animated to Soundwave's voice. --[[User:FFN|FFN]] 20:07, 27 July 2011 (EDT)

== Pink Floyd ''Dark Side of The Moon'' Quotes? ==

If we're going to go with [http://www.pink-floyd-lyrics.com/html/dark-side-moon-lyrics.html Pink Floyd ''Dark Side of the Moon''] quotes for the images on this page, now is the time to start. Some thoughts:
* For the Megs vs. Lincoln screepcap, "For the want of the price of tea and a slice, the old man died," or, "Listen son, said the man with the gun, there's room for you inside," or, "If your head explodes with dark forebodings too..."
* For the shot of Neil Armstrong, "I'll see you on the dark side of the moon." seems pretty obvious. Possibly too obvious.
* For the worm attacking Optimus, "For long you live and high you fly," maybe?
(There really aren't a lot of lyrics in those songs...) [[User:JW|JW]] 11:35, 27 July 2011 (EDT)
:Yeah... I don't know this band/singer/group/vocaloid, so I can only say, for the sake of those others who don't (I've no idea how famous/obscure this "Pink Floyd" is), how about using quotes from ''The Wrath of Khan'' (or just ''Star Trek'' in general), seeing as that's already a pattern in the film? - [[User:Queso|¡Usa El Queso!]] [[User talk:Queso|Complain here]] 16:51, 27 July 2011 (EDT)
::Look, I'm not a fan myself, but come on! Pink Floyd is one of the most influential bands of the 20th century! Dark Side of the Moon is one of the best selling albums of all time. -- [[User:Semysane|Semysane]] 19:55, 27 July 2011 (EDT)
:::Wrong album, but "Good morning, Worm, your honor!" is the best possible caption for the driller pic--yes, even better than "Waiting for Worms" or "Follow the Worms". So, are we going through with this or not? --[[User:Thylacine 2000|Thylacine 2000]] 20:51, 27 July 2011 (EDT)
::::Well, I'd literally never heard of them until people started trying to correct me on the title of ''DOTM'' based upon their album. Anyway, I'd wait for word from ItsWalky or another authority figure before doing it (though I personally wouldn't do it as I don't know stuff). For now, as the captions are "mine" currently, I'll go with ''Star Trek'' and see where it leads us. - [[User:Queso|¡Usa El Queso!]] [[User talk:Queso|Complain here]] 18:37, 28 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::I was hoping for ''Return of the Jedi'' quotes, but I could go with the ''Wrath of Khan'' quotes. - [[User:Zadok Rox|Zadok Rox]] 20:39, 28 July 2011 (EDT)
::::::Though the consensus up above was for Pink Floyd, ''Wrath of Khan'' would be ''awesome.'' (And Floyd's ''Dark Side of the Moon'' album was somewhere on Billboard's LP charts for over ''fourteen years,'' back when rock was young. I recommend it for your listening pleasure.) [[User:JW|JW]] 21:53, 28 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::::To hell with Pink Floyd, to hell I say! Wrath of Khan all the way! --[[User:Detour|Detour]] 00:31, 29 July 2011 (EDT)

While I agree that the Pink Floyd idea makes some sense, I personally think it's a better idea to go with quotes from a movie, as that has been the trend (unless the [[User:ItsWalky|powers that be]] say otherwise). The current ones were just quotes I found on a whim that work for the time being. Later, better pictures and more suitable ''Wrath of Khan'' quotes will likely be worked into the article... And when we get a pic of Sentinel being evil, the caption needs to be "There's a man out there I haven't seen in fifteen years who's trying to kill me." :) - [[User:Queso|¡Usa El Queso!]] [[User talk:Queso|Complain here]] 00:12, 29 July 2011 (EDT)
:Queso's got the right idea. Wrath Of Khan quotes would simply ''work'' better within DOTM versus Pink Floyd. --[[User:Detour|Detour]] 12:12, 31 July 2011 (EDT)

Wait... we're not following the trend and using Return of the Jedi quotes? Bummer. -- [[User:Boy Blunderous|Boy Blunderous]] 01:42, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
:As mentioned above, Star Wars was only a "trend" because we were building off the comments from the TF movie production teams themselves. Since none of them specifically cited a ROTJ similarity this time, us pawning things off that way would be far less appropriate and, at this point, kinda lazy too. Though I still '''strongly''' vote for Pink Floyd. --[[User:Thylacine 2000|Thylacine 2000]] 10:07, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
::I say Pink Floyd too. --[[Special:Contributions/89.17.232.104|89.17.232.104]] 12:00, 31 July 2011 (EDT)

== Only Paramount movie to reach $1bil? ==

Unless that's meant to be out of the movies Paramount currently has in theatres, that's not true, [http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=titanic.htm Titanic] was another Paramount movie that surpassed the $1 billion mark. --[[User:Detour|Detour]] 13:50, 3 August 2011 (EDT)
: Titanic was only Paramount in the US, where it was only in the $600 mil mark. --[[User:M Sipher|M Sipher]] 13:57, 3 August 2011 (EDT)
== Quote at Top ==

It was mentioned on Sentinel Prime's talk page that the quote at the top of DOTM's page would eventually be changed to "This is the one where Spock goes nuts" after the movie had been out for a while. Since it's been out for more then a month now, should the quote be changed? [[User:Ratchethide|Ratchethide]] 21:51, 3 August 2011 (EDT)Ratchethide
:No objection. -[[User:Derik|Derik]] 22:22, 3 August 2011 (EDT)
:Definitely should be done. --[[User:ItsWalky|ItsWalky]] 23:01, 3 August 2011 (EDT)
::Which Trek episode is that? I figure we can 'cap '''it''' for the Spock article. -[[User:Derik|Derik]] 23:47, 3 August 2011 (EDT)
:::I'm fairly sure it was the scene in Amok Time where he's tearing up his quarters, but my memory's a little fuzzy. - [[User:Cattleprod|Cattleprod]] 00:35, 4 August 2011 (EDT)

== Adding a quote ==

Anyone mind me adding Wheelie's quote from the beginning of the movie? -[[User:King Starscream|King Starscream]] 20:14, 4 August 2011 (EDT)
:If it's the Spock one, it's already at the top of the article, just after the intro paragraph. --[[User:Detour|Detour]] 20:23, 4 August 2011 (EDT)
::I see that now, sorry. -[[User:King Starscream|King Starscream]] 12:54, 7 August 2011 (EDT)

== Crash between Wreckers? ==

When the Wreckers retreat after distracting Shockwave, Topspin looks like to have collided with Roadbuster, because it seems that his back portion of the car got elevated --[[User:Metroplex|Metroplex]] 10:50, 12 August 2011 (EDT)

== Regarding Carly's dress / Xantium takeoff weather==
I don't think Carly's changing from evening gown to new clothes is so much as an error than as an advancement of time. Dylan Gould would probably be the kind of guy to have had a variety of lady friends, so he would be likely to have at least a wardrobe set aside for them.
Also, should we list the inconsistency of cloud cover in the shots with Sam and clear skies during the Xantium's take off? For one thing, none of the space programs around the world ever launch anything if there's cloud cover (heck, we hear it all the time on them having to delay the shuttles due to clouds). --[[User:Lonegamer78|Lonegamer78]] 14:33, 14 August 2011 (EDT)

== "Mexican Standoff" error correction ==

This error is not actually an error.

"During Ironhide and Sideswipe's "Mexican standoff" with Crankcase and Crowbar, all combatants drop their firearms, but when Ironhide is speared, his guns are on his back again. They disappear in subsequent shots."

I recently watched this again and this scene stuck out. After they drop their weapons, one of them draws out the spears and the standoff ends. Sideswipe does a flip kick and then yells, "Ironhide, catch!" as he kicks over his gun to him. I don't have permission to make changes though.

== Megatron on ground. ==

According to most articles on here Megatron ended upon the ground due to sentinel pushing him however on initial and several re-viewings I have not seen this scene, I hear its right after Megatron tells the decepticons to raise the bridge but right after that it cuts to the autobots. Did anyone else actually see this footage or possible dialog? --[[User:Randommore|Randommore]] 12:29, 23 August 2011 (EDT)

== Vandalism ==

This page has benn vandalised. Please, someone repair this situation

== Transformers references ==

Yeah, I don't think Steve Jablonsky reusing cues from his own scores for the previous movies qualifies as an actual "Transformers reference". It's not only the same composer (these guys recycle their own stuff all the time), it's also the same friggin' continuity. It's like saying "Optimus Prime has the same alternate mode as in ''Revenge of the Fallen''". "Transformers references" means references to ''other'' Transformers fiction that is ''not'' one of the live-action movies directed by Michael Bay.--[[User:Nevermore|Nevermore]] 15:35, 19 September 2011 (EDT)

== It defies your laws of physics ==

It seems strange that almost the first words out of Sentinel's mouth imply that he understands the current level of human technology and scientific knowledge. Is there any explanation within the film that would make it clear how he knows that much about the human race? Or does he just pick it up from glancing around at the dumpy warehouse he's in? -- [[User:Repowers|Repowers]] 23:24, 23 September 2011 (EDT)

== Megatron Lincoln ==

Now that it's available, can we change the picture of him blasting the Memorial with one of him sitting upon it? Like, say, [http://img402.imageshack.us/img402/4838/megatronsittingonthrone.jpg this one]? - [[User:Queso|¡Usa El Queso!]] [[User talk:Queso|Complain here]] 19:41, 3 October 2011 (EDT)
[[Image:DOTM-MegatronLincolnMemorialchair.jpg|thumb]]--[[User:ItsWalky|ItsWalky]] 20:43, 3 October 2011 (EDT)

== Insane Chicago geographic nitpicks - where? ==

I want to add some notes about how some scenes jump around geographically within downtown Chicago, while making it clear that these aren't really ''errors'' and that practically every film ever does the same thing... where would be the best place to put it? Here or the [[Chicago]] page? Errors section or trivia? -- [[User:Repowers|Repowers]] 23:16, 3 October 2011 (EDT)

== Main cast section ==

Okay, looking over the listings in "Main cast" I find myself wondering exactly who is "minor cast"? Should we trim the listing, change the name, or what; because it currently just doesn't make sense to me. --[[User:Khajidha|Khajidha]] 15:53, 18 October 2011 (EDT)

== Washington DC ==
Likewise, Dylan's auto collection museum, also set in (land-locked) Washington, is actually the Milwaukee Art Museum. Lake Michigan is even visible through the windows!

I live in Washington DC (for over 20 years)and "land-locked" is not true we have 6.9 sq mi of water in the form of: the Potomac River, the Tidal Basin, the Washington Channel, the Eastern Branch (a section of the Potomac) and the McMillan Reservoir(next to Howard University)heck Washington DC also has Islands in the bodies of water listed in fact the Jefferson Memorial is located on one of them, the METRO system has to go above ground to go over the Potomac. -- Marc Cahse

== Dino/Mirage and the Wreckers dissapear ==

Hey all. In the shot directly following Optimus throwing down Megatron's shotgun after killing Sentinel, we see all of the surviving Autobots approaching - Bumblebee, Ratchet, Sideswipe, Dino/Mirage, and the three Wreckers. However, a little later, when Optimus begins his speech ("In any war, there are calms between storms"), and begins to walk down the bridge a little bit, Dino/Mirage and the Wreckers are nowhere to be seen, and the only Autobots present are the "core cast" of Optimus, Bumblebee, Ratchet and Sideswipe. Shouldn't we point this out that four Autobots dissapear? [[Special:Contributions/76.186.90.217|76.186.90.217]] 00:21, 31 October 2011 (EDT)

== Epps's team ==

I had a look through the Chicago scenes to see if I would work out which of Epps's squad was which by comparing them with their IMDB pictures. [[Hooch]] is pretty easy to spot because there are pictures of the actor in the role on IMDB. Josh Kelly as [[Stone]] likewise, though he doesn't have any TF3 images on his IMDB profile. I think [[Marc L]] is the fellow waiting with Hooch at the start in the "RANGERS" shirt, and later can be seen wearing a light-coloured cap. Assuming the named characters are the ones with dialogue, I guess that means that the guy with the backwards cap who points out they only have one rocket is [[Mongo (ROTF)|Mongo]] (Aaron Garrido, who has no photos at all on his IMDB article). I'm hesitant to create articles for Marc L or Mongo without being sure though. Anyone want to put in an opinion? --[[User:Abates|abates]] 01:51, 13 November 2011 (EST)
:In the end, I found a picture of Kenny Sheard which showed he didn't have the tattoos that Mongo has on his arms, so it was pretty clear who was who and I think they're all named correctly now! --[[User:Abates|abates]] 03:01, 15 November 2011 (EST)

== Destroying Cybertron ==

It seems strange that the Autobots are ''trying'' to destroy Cybertron. It's apparent that it's proximity to earth has no effect, since we see no floating chunks of rock or cracks in the ground. also, the Autobots had the options of forcing Sentinel to return it, or just leave it as is and kill the Decepticons, because they're the threat, not Cybertron. Megs and Sentinel evidently didn't surrender once it was gone. on that note, how is shutting off the control Pillar different than destroying it? the bridge closes either way, so why did Cybertron collapse when the pillar was destroyed? still fun to think that there's a half of a giant metal honeycomb planet floating around somewhere out there.

Talk:Facial hair

2012-01-03T15:43:55Z

CrowBuster:

==Throttlebots==
I don't think Searchlight and Rollbar have facial hair any more than Blackarachnia does. --[[User:ItsWalky|ItsWalky]] 22:23, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
:Searchlight doesn't even really have much of a ''face''. I've had a close look at my Rollbar, and he definitely has a bit of a handlebar mustache thing going on. [[User:Semysane|Semysane]] 22:45, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
::Probably stemming from Marvel Comics issue #30 -
http://i147.photobucket.com/albums/r314/Gotthammer/TF/Mobots.jpg
::[[User:Sindersaur|Sindersaur]] 10:31, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
:::Yeah, that's not facial hair. That's the facial structure that BW Blackarachnia has, with the mouth being on a separate piece below the rest of the face, like a mask. I'll remove them from the list. --[[User:ItsWalky|ItsWalky]] 16:28, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
::::It looks alot like they have beards to me. [[User:Semysane|Semysane]] 08:02, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
==Rhinox==
Hey, would [[Rhinox (BW)|Rhinox]]'s beard count as facial hair, or just a sort of... facial decoration? [[User:Semysane|Semysane]] 11:32, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

== Stretching it. ==

I'm just throwing in my 2¢ in. I think some of these examples take a little too much imagination. Animated Megatron has some black paint apps on his chin. Dirt Boss has a dark gray line across his light gray face. Animated Jazz has a "chin strap" for his helmet (at least that's what I always took it as). I think a lot of G1 guys had similar chinstraps. I'll have to look out for Movie Optimus Prime's goatee and Megatron's mutton chops. I don't remember those. It seems like to be counted as facial hair, it should have hair-like features, protruding out from the face and whatnot. Markings shouldn't count as hair. - [[User:Starfield|Starfield]] 20:55, 26 July 2009 (EDT)
: I agree. I'm blowed if I can see anything clearly identifiable as facial hair on Movie Prime. [[Special:Contributions/110.33.112.127|110.33.112.127]] 03:59, 8 October 2011 (EDT)

==AniWheeljack==
Apparently, Jamie Hyneman's entire face is facial hair.[[User:CrowBuster|CrowBuster]]

Talk:Facial hair

2012-01-03T15:43:05Z

CrowBuster:

Talk:Ironhide (Movie)

2012-01-02T00:37:11Z

CrowBuster:

Leaked pic, so deletion required. --[[User:FFN|FFN]] 13:05, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

This article needs the pic of him (I was told it was him) looking at the little girl; I got the perfect caption for it.
:I think we should hold off on more pics until we can get more text into the main fiction body of the article. --[[User:FFN|FFN]] 19:16, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Neo thing was for his slow-mo bullet dodges.

Best reference I could think of immediatly.

: The movie Blade did it a full year before the Matrix. Why does nobody remember this? -[[User:Derik|Derik]] 18:56, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

==Trivia==

''Monroe Truck Equipment, in association with Hasbro, will release a GMC TopKick Ironhide special edition...''

I don't know that a Transformers tie-in version of a real truck being produced for the market is insignificant enough for the word "Trivia". Any objection to me moving it to an "Items of note" header?

:Well, I sort of object in the sense that I don't think "Items of note" is a standard section here. What's wrong with putting it under trivia? Etymologies aside, I don't think that implies that the information is "trivial". --[[User:Steve-o|Steve-o]] 00:20, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

==Missing sentence==
There's a place that reads "Soon afterwards, the Decepticon Brawl He did an unnecessary series of somersaults". I don't remember the scene well enough to fix this myself, but someone else needs to. --[[User:Suki Brits|Suki Brits]] 14:22, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
:Sorry, I was expanding the original writeup and screwed up. --[[User:FFN|FFN]] 14:37, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

==Tooth fairy==
I know the film's editing heavily implies that it is Ironhide, but to my recollection it sure as fuck doesn't look anything like him, and looks a lot like Prime. It's tall and thin, and doesn't have a dog-face... I can see why our anonymous editor made that change. I am highly uncertain on it myself. --[[User:Steve-o|Steve-o]] 05:43, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

:I think it is Ironhide. The four Autobot landing areas were a stadium, a field, a private backyard swimming pool, and a bar-thing. The bar-thing is obviously Ratchet, because we see him leave that very scene. The stadium is arguably Jazz, because the stadium is in the middle of a city where one can reasonably expect to also find a car dealership. I think Ironhide landed in the swimming pool, because I think it is most likely that he found a Topkick sitting in the driveway on the same property as the pool. Simultaneously, I think that Prime landed in the field, which had hills on at least one end, and after ascending a hill viewed a road from which we see him assume his truck form.

:As counterpoint, though, I did notice that the music noticeably ramps up as the Autobot leaves the pool, as one might expect when a movie introduces its Important Action Hero Character. --[[User:Sntint|Sntint]] 06:05, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
::...he scans the pickup truck in the girl's driveway. -[[User:Derik|Derik]] 09:33, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
:::To clarify- Jazz and Ratchet get their altmodes ''before'' the sequence at the pool. (Cut from Jazz's trans-scan to the girl at the pool.) There is literally no one else the pool-robot could be. -[[User:Derik|Derik]] 09:37, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
::::Pretty logical sequence of events - Ratchet lands the store near the bar/diner and we see the rescue H2 drive away. Prime lands a field somewhere, gets up and runs from the scene of his crater. Later, still in the middle of nowhere on a hill overlooking a road as '''The Most Blinged Up Peterbilt 379 In the Universe''' drives by which he scans. Ironhide falls into the pool, walk over from the girl, hides behind the trees as the girl's parents freakout over the pool and he drives away as the Topkick. In fact, the only ambigious one is Jazz, as he crashes into a baseball stadium yet is next seen at a car dealership. Boy, sure was lucky that the car dealer was so close to a baseball stadium. You know, so the homeruns could hit their cars.
::::As for the music during the pool sequence, Jablonsky played up the 'angel/fairy' angle of the scene with the backing choir. --[[User:FFN|FFN]] 13:49, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
:::::You all seem to forget that all the protoforms in the movie are the same. Look up protoform on this very site and in trivia it says "All the Autobot protoforms within the Transformers film are Protoform Optimus Prime. Not to say that ILM got lazy." --[[User:Skyglide|Skyglide]] 15:21, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

==spare pic==
[[Image:Ironhidemovie.jpg|thumb|right|150px|"I'LL KILL ALL YOUR DOGS!"]]

== IDW ==

Why the deuce do we have two identically-named sections for IDW comics?--[[User:Rosicrucian|Rosicrucian]][[User Talk:Rosicrucian|Talk]] 18:10, 13 September 2009 (EDT)

==Size Class Cover-up?==

Anyone else think the reason why Ironhide got a toy in a larger size class, instead of his largest toy being a class smaller like most other characters, is some form of hiding his death at the hands of Sentinel?--[[User:CrowBuster|CrowBuster]]