{{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)

===The Aligned Thirteen===
I have serious philosophical problems with continuing to add Alignedverse stuff here when we were essentially told that "what was true in previous universes isn't necessarily true" there. The present incarnation of the Thirteen is clearly intended to be a "perfect" ground-up version of the story that doesn't have to be jury-rigged from previous events. More crucially, there are obvious contradictions with existing entities, particularly Alpha Trion - the top of this ''very talk page'' emphasizes that there can be no "SG" version of the old Thirteen, because they are multiversal singularities, and yet we have an indisputably SG Alpha Trion in the old multiverse. Conclusion: Alpha Trion was not a member of the Thirteen in the old multiverse. Hand-waving the ridiculous chronology of the multiversal entities from the old multiverse can account for the difference in Nexus Prime's history, the same way we can assume the Fallen betrays Primus over and over and over again in every new reality, but it shouldn't need to. 
I know we greatly value our old multiversal entities on this wiki, and for the most part so do I - but the Alignedverse should have been drawn out as separate with regards to the Thirteen as well as, probably, Unicron as soon as we learned what a fundamental character Alpha Trion (not A3) was to the new reality. It's a big contentious undertaking and so I've kind of avoided starting the fight, but it needs to be said, and so I've said it. -[[User:LV|LV]] 14:34, 6 June 2013 (EDT)
:I vote for splitting into Thirteen (multiverse) and Thirteen (Aligned), or whatever the title would be. Along with Vector Prime, Liege Maximo, Prima, etc. being split up as well. --[[User:KilMichaelMcC|KilMichaelMcC]] 15:06, 6 June 2013 (EDT)
:Not that I carry a lot of juice around here, but I'd VERY much oppose splitting the articles. To my reading of Hasbro's explicit and cryptic statements since the whole multiversal singularities concept got rolling, especially as regards the 13, "Aligned" ESPECIALLY as regards the 13, represents Hasbro's official reveal of all the "we'll reveal it all later" stuff they've been saying for years.

:I'd even go one further, and suggest that, especially considering the HOF bios, some of the stuff from TF Legends, etc., I think Aligned (from Hasbro's non-wiki-friendly perspective) PROBABLY represents an official "upgrade" of EVERY major TF character to "multiversal singuilarity" status. I take Hasbro's statements RE: Aligned not as "This is a new clean copy of the TF Universe from the ground up" but rather as "Aligned represents THE clean copy of the TF Universe, of which all previous iterations were garbled and muddy photocopies"

:Which is not to say I'm suggesting that we start trerating all characters as singularities, quite the contrary. I believe Hasbro has rolled us back to their late 90's vision of "Transformers as Mythology" wherein there is "one ultimate truth" (probably unrevealed), which is represented by an infinite number versions all of which are allowed to count so long as they pass Archer's famous "squint test."

:SOOOO, if I were king of the wiki, this is what I'd do: Mentally note that Hasbro intends Aligned to be (for all intents and purposes) "Ultimate Truth." We promptly and effectively ignore that as "Authorial Intent" and document Aligned like any other continuity. MEANWHILE, any characters/concepts/etc. that Aligned paints a clear portrait of which have a meaningful (but poorly defined) analog in previous continuities, we retcon the squint-test in a general way to those previously poorly defined guys. Conviniently, and I'd wager by design more or less, 99% of what we have so far that qualifies as a "Well definined in Aligned, but present and murky/mysterious in prior continuities" are ALSO entities previously identified as singularities or their kin.

:Therefore where continuity specifics don't contradict (which we just document and ignore under the current system anyay), we assume that whatever is presented as true in Aligned for "singularities" holds true for them in non-Aligned universes. Eg. Minimus Prime is one of the 13 in G1 (though never explicitly named), and we can deduce he's probably (through whatever mysterious means) the creator of the G1 Microns (Micromaster/Micron = synonym in G1, Minicon/Micron = synonym in UT...but if that's a leap of logic too far by our standards, I get it). Since he's never mentioned by name in any G1 material, we can assume it's true, since we know he's a singularity-type-dude and that Hasbro means for the Aligned 13 to be the real-deal honest-to-betsy versions.

:Even if "multiversal singularity" as originally and explictly defined has become spread a bit thin, I think it's fair to say that the concept is still VERY useful as a functional category (for taxonomy, not neccessarily as a wiki-category), and the core concept very much works.

:By contrast SPLITTING 13 (Aligned) and 13 (EVERYTHING ELSE) does nothing other than return everybody who's not Fallen/Nexus/A3/Veccy to "name and details unknown" status outside of Aligned. Which is less than constructive.--[[User:Destrongerlupus|Destrongerlupus]] 15:21, 19 June 2013 (EDT)

::Your entire premise seems constructed on the idea that Hasbro intends for Aligned to retroactively apply to all previous continuities; there is nothing to lead us to believe that. The fact that the Thirteen never got any meaningful use before the old multiverse was dumped and replaced by Aligned doesn't mean we should falsely equate the two Thirteens when a) they conflict even in the tiny amount we know about the multiversal Thirteen and b) we have been explicitly told that things that were true before the Alignedverse aren't necessarily true now. -[[User:LV|LV]] 18:02, 19 June 2013 (EDT)
:::To back up Graham, Hasbro were very much explicitly against making Aligned part of the prior Multiverse. The Club wasn't allowed to roll it into the whole Axiom Nexus thing, and yes, the concept of the Thirteen in Aligned, and other universal hypermatters, were declared separate and distinct from their prior Multiverse's concepts. --[[User:M Sipher|M Sipher]] 20:15, 19 June 2013 (EDT)
::::Y'all are both missing my entire point (kind of making it FOR me in fact), but I was being long winded so, I'll try to be more brief here. As you say Hasbro has very explicitly said that "things that were true before the Alignedverse aren't necessarily true now." You all seem to be reading that as "Pre-Aligned and Aligned don't mix." I'm reading that as "All previous continuity was lies and falsehoods, that jazz never happened, Aligned is what's REAL." That's a thorny situation, but I'd bet my left knee that to the degree that Uncle PotatoHead cares about "canon" in general, THAT's what they mean. My understanding of how the wiki deals with all manner of retconning is that when a retcon doesn't explicitly screw up known-facts we acknowledge it, and when it DOES screw things up we either ignore or note it.

::::Sooooo....Pre-Aligned: Multiversal Singularities, notably the 13, were a thing, and that concept helped grease the wheels of Pre-Aligned fiction. OFICIALLY (by my interpretation), Hasbro says that with the start of Aligned all prior fiction is null-and-void, exisiting perhaps as a "squint test passing" version of something that might or might-not have happened. Since we have no intention of re-writing everything Pre-Aligned to say "This is crap and lies written by morons who didn't know the truth, please see 'Aligned Fiction' for real stuff", we find ourself in this position: Pre-Aligned Canon works the way we were told it worked when it still "counted." Aligned Canon (SUPPOSEDLY) represents the way things (ALL things before current, and in perpetuity) REALLY works. Pre-Aligned, The 13 are Multiversal Singularities (MVSs), but their roster and 90% of their details are unknown. In Aligned, which is The-One-And-True-Canon (supposedly) the 13 are now documented in some degree of completeness, but they aren't MVSs...because there IS NO MULTIVERSE, that was crap and lies. So when we document a part of TF canon that is officially "crap and lies" (everything pre-Aligned), we can either choose to assume that the 13 are either the same dudes as the One-True-Canon 13 (which demonstrably they are in all cases where we have comparable data points....excepting Logos), OR we can thick-headedly decide that because a "crap and lies" concept like MVS-hood is an important enough concept that the Aligned-13 MUST be different dudes because they exist in a world (One-True-Canon) where MVSing is logically impossible. I see no reason to assume that the Pre-Aligned 13 are not retroactively-intended to be the same guys as The Aligned-13. Since, from Hasbro's perspective, there is only one set of 13, period. It's the same sort of situation that Uhaul-Robot and his other cartoon flashback-buddies names and titles of glory.

::::TLDR Version: 13 (MVSs) exisit in a "truth" where MVSs are the default truth. 13 (Aligned)exist in a "truth" where they don't need to be MVSs, but Hasbro says that these are *THE REAL* ("truer truth") 13. Therefore 13 (MVSs) because they are, by the LOGIC OF THEIR SHEER CONCEPT, the one-and-only 13 must, unless explicitly contradicted (which with the exception of Logos Prime, they don't, and since the fiction is over, they won't) equal 13 (Aligned) --[[User:Destrongerlupus|Destrongerlupus]] 10:08, 20 June 2013 (EDT)

:Though, just to play Devil's Advocate, I suppose one could argue that Logos Prime represents at least one (micro, perhaps) continuity wherein at least one of the Aligned 13 =/= the 13 everywhere else. Which we could either decide means that the logic I laid out above is broken, or else that we can document variances as variances (up to and including member roster), while still assuming the rest holds true, functionally at least. --[[User:Destrongerlupus|Destrongerlupus]] 15:35, 19 June 2013 (EDT)

Something just grates on me that we're about to get the most complete notion of the Thirteen we've ''ever'' had, but because of Hasbro being continually indecisive and ultimately pulling the hamfisted assertion of "different multiverses" we can't really complete this article. It bugs me. I know it's ''technically'' correct, but I hate the feel of it. For the longest time we were on this crazy scavenger hunt for lore on the Thirteen and now we have to say they weren't ''the same'' Thirteen.--[[User:Rosicrucian|Rosicrucian]][[User Talk:Rosicrucian|Talk]] 20:37, 19 June 2013 (EDT)
:I definitely don't disagree that it's maddening. We were "supposed" to learn all about them in that IDW series mentioned-then-abandoned, which one has to think was one of the most influential things through absence to be, insofar of its inability to have any effect on the Aligned Thirteen or the current IDW backstory. -[[User:LV|LV]] 20:56, 19 June 2013 (EDT)
::It's grating, because it's crazy. Think about it this way, we're taling about the TF GODS here. Whether you're talking the Millenialist Mono-Deity, or ancient Pagan pantheons, whenever you get to "god level" in story telling you end up with a million versions of the same "god" told a million different ways. This is the nature of a living evolving storytelling culture, it's one of things I most love about Transformers, it's a modern mythic system in fast-forward speed evolution. There are like 15 different versions of Aphrodite/Venus, for instance, in many cases basic facts vary from version to version (place and method of origin, etc.), but no one disputes that they're all the same goddess. Even though you'll see some reference materials seperate out Venus and Aphrodite to keep their Roman and Greek histories etc. straight, there's ALWAYS an explicit reference that the two have over the centuries become conflated and interchangeable, and any shorter reference will treat them under a single entry. Because we have NEXT TO NOTHING on 13 (Multiverse) and will soon have nearly EVERYTHING on 13 (Aligned) it's stupid to split them. Are we going to make a Unicron (Multiverse) and Unicron (Aligned) and a Primus (Multiverse) and Primus (Aligned) split as well? If we split the 13, we gotta split the daddies as well. There's either a conceptual/logical bridge between the "Multiverse" and "Aligned" or there isn't. We can't have it both ways.--[[User:Destrongerlupus|Destrongerlupus]] 10:29, 20 June 2013 (EDT)
:I'm putting my reply down here, because the nesting thing going on above is a mess. In reply to Destronger: The quote specifically says "what '''''was true'''''" in the non-Aligned settings, so I don't see how you can interpret that as "we are saying the non-Aligned settings are mistellings of Aligned. Furthermore...non-Aligned fiction is ''still being produced by Hasbro'', which puts the lie to the idea that Hasbro is doing some kind of George Lucas "now we have the resources to tell the story we always meant to" thing.
:The facts are:
#In order to keep everything canon in past settings, Hasbro had to sest up a huge multiverse system with the Thirteen as multiversal singularities.
#When asked if Aligned was part of that system, Hasbro pretty clearly communicated that no, Aligned within its internal canon is not part of the multiversal system (even if the setup of the multiversal system would seem to internally demand that it is!). As far as I know, the Aligned stuff hasn't even got a multiversal stream name, so there's no reason to think they are meant to mesh in any way.
:Basically, Hasbro is trying to treat them as separately as they would treat Animated and My Little Pony, so we should as well. Not to mention the contradictions that pop up with stuff like the "Seven Primes", "Logos Prime", etc.[[User:KrytenKoro|KrytenKoro]] 13:11, 20 June 2013 (EDT)
::Exactly "What WAS true" = "Those things are no-longer true" I think we're getting into the fallacy of giving Hasbro too much credit for CARING about the specific mechanics of "continuity" and specifically inter-relations BETWEEN continuities. But I'll set all that aside and again ask the question that captures my point even more simply: Do we split Unicron and Primus into (Aligned)/(Multiversal) entries? How about the planets like Cybertron, Junk, Velocitron? Do we split those? The 13 fall into the same bucket as all those examples, big-picture macro-concepts that stay "true and consistant enough" regardless of continuity, while also having little enough to be said about them specifically, that they all get to live at a single entry. If we NEED to be pedantic about it and have a split-fiction section Where we say Multiverse: The 13 are Singularities and exisit in multiverses simultaneously Aligned: They do stuff explicitly in the novels and we see them in a flash-back, then FINE, that's cool. But they SO don't need to be split as a category. --[[User:Destrongerlupus|Destrongerlupus]] 16:08, 20 June 2013 (EDT)
:::The sheer volume of noise you're putting out here is discouraging to conversation, but here are a handful of points: Yes, Unicron should probably have his own Aligned page. No, we don't need to split planets, because we never have. The Thirteen are characters and characters get different pages for different continuities. For the purposes of this split, "Aligned" and "Everything else" are two different continuities. What you seem to regard as a convincing argument to keep them merged works only if everyone already agrees that Hasbro meant something only you think they meant. -[[User:LV|LV]] 16:54, 20 June 2013 (EDT)
::::I also support splitting Unicron into an Aligned entry, but Primus...would be dang tiny. Just, like, DANG.[[User:KrytenKoro|KrytenKoro]] 18:12, 20 June 2013 (EDT)
::::I apologize if you find my involvement to be more "noise" than "signal", I'll bow to group consensus whatever direction it swings in. Splitting Unicron is my personal litmus test for splitting the 13, I personally think doing so is daft and removing clarity rather than adding to information when a simple split-fiction section would do, but as the group wills. I'll go back to quietly fixing grammar and adding pictures of obscure goodies.--[[User:Destrongerlupus|Destrongerlupus]] 19:12, 20 June 2013 (EDT)
:::::It's not the signal-to-noise ratio, it's just the masses and masses of text. Even if it's all made of valid talking points, it's hard to deal with in this kind of medium. If you were offended, I apologize. I wasn't trying to be hostile. I have no idea how separating Unicron's actions in a cartoon unrelated to all other fiction "removes clarity", though - but to be frank, Unicron concerns me a lot less than the Thirteen. Unicron is, in both pre- and Aligned incarnations, an evil god dude. The Thirteen don't even seem to be composed of the same individuals - even Nexus Prime is made up of different guys. -[[User:LV|LV]] 19:33, 20 June 2013 (EDT)
::::::Weird side thought on Nexus Prime: What if he is the sort of inverse of the Movie Constructicons/Devastator? Instead of being many individuals who can merge into different versions of Devastator, he is one guy who can split into several individuals in multiple ways? Just something that bounced through the pachinko machine I use as a brain when I read what you wrote. --[[User:Khajidha|Khajidha]] 23:35, 20 June 2013 (EDT)
:::::::No real offense taken. For better or worse my brain has been molded to think and express this way (literary analysis), and I can get how this medium makes it hard to process. Anyway, I totally see the argument of the 13 being different guys, if that's the case they totally need a split, but are they? Other than Logos, who's a vaguely defined maybe from Takara's side of the house, who else varies, that we know of? Megatronus/Fallen, Nexus, Vector, they've all been fully-confirmed. Is there anyone else on the Multiverse-list that's NOT on the Aligned-list? We've got problems in the OTHER direction, A3 being all SG'd up, LeigeMaximo maybe being hard to reckon. But I don't think those rough-fit issues would invalidate the membership rolls. BTW Khajidha- that's a BRILLIANT notion. I think it'l be fanon in my brain from here forward :) --[[User:Destrongerlupus|Destrongerlupus]] 09:02, 21 June 2013 (EDT)
"''Exactly "What WAS true" = "Those things are no-longer true" I think we're getting into the fallacy of giving Hasbro too much credit for CARING about the specific mechanics of "continuity" and specifically inter-relations BETWEEN continuities.''" 
No, we really are not. Aaron and Rik, the two guys largely responsible for the Aligned universe deal, were very much concerned about the continuity matter because they do know what fans are like. Not bragging, but I know this from personal correspondence and interaction with them through occasional paid work for the two for the [[Binder of Revelation]]. Aligned was explicitly meant to be a separate entity ''with no bleed-back into what came before''. What was true for what came before ''remained'' true for what came before and for whatever ongoing fictions within that framework would come (IDW, FunPub, movies), but would have no bearing on what came later in Aligned beyond "potential inspirational starting point for a premise". "G1" Wheeljack isn't a hardassed sword-swinging Wrecker now, Bumblebee still talks, etc etc. --[[User:M Sipher|M Sipher]] 14:55, 21 June 2013 (EDT)
::Okay, it sounds like the answer to this is "yes", but just to check: do you know from that correspondence whether this separation also applies to the divine Unicron and Primus, meaning that they should be split as well?[[User:KrytenKoro|KrytenKoro]] 15:03, 21 June 2013 (EDT)
:: Close enough to the horse's mouth for me. Pending KK's questons about the divinities being asnwered, I'll not argue any further.--[[User:Destrongerlupus|Destrongerlupus]] 15:39, 21 June 2013 (EDT)

Talk:Thirteen

2013-06-21T13:03:53Z

Destrongerlupus: /* Current placement of "Conceptual History" as of December 2nd, 2011 */

Talk:Thirteen

2013-06-21T13:02:51Z

Destrongerlupus: /* The Aligned Thirteen */

{{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)

===The Aligned Thirteen===
I have serious philosophical problems with continuing to add Alignedverse stuff here when we were essentially told that "what was true in previous universes isn't necessarily true" there. The present incarnation of the Thirteen is clearly intended to be a "perfect" ground-up version of the story that doesn't have to be jury-rigged from previous events. More crucially, there are obvious contradictions with existing entities, particularly Alpha Trion - the top of this ''very talk page'' emphasizes that there can be no "SG" version of the old Thirteen, because they are multiversal singularities, and yet we have an indisputably SG Alpha Trion in the old multiverse. Conclusion: Alpha Trion was not a member of the Thirteen in the old multiverse. Hand-waving the ridiculous chronology of the multiversal entities from the old multiverse can account for the difference in Nexus Prime's history, the same way we can assume the Fallen betrays Primus over and over and over again in every new reality, but it shouldn't need to. 
I know we greatly value our old multiversal entities on this wiki, and for the most part so do I - but the Alignedverse should have been drawn out as separate with regards to the Thirteen as well as, probably, Unicron as soon as we learned what a fundamental character Alpha Trion (not A3) was to the new reality. It's a big contentious undertaking and so I've kind of avoided starting the fight, but it needs to be said, and so I've said it. -[[User:LV|LV]] 14:34, 6 June 2013 (EDT)
:I vote for splitting into Thirteen (multiverse) and Thirteen (Aligned), or whatever the title would be. Along with Vector Prime, Liege Maximo, Prima, etc. being split up as well. --[[User:KilMichaelMcC|KilMichaelMcC]] 15:06, 6 June 2013 (EDT)
:Not that I carry a lot of juice around here, but I'd VERY much oppose splitting the articles. To my reading of Hasbro's explicit and cryptic statements since the whole multiversal singularities concept got rolling, especially as regards the 13, "Aligned" ESPECIALLY as regards the 13, represents Hasbro's official reveal of all the "we'll reveal it all later" stuff they've been saying for years.

:I'd even go one further, and suggest that, especially considering the HOF bios, some of the stuff from TF Legends, etc., I think Aligned (from Hasbro's non-wiki-friendly perspective) PROBABLY represents an official "upgrade" of EVERY major TF character to "multiversal singuilarity" status. I take Hasbro's statements RE: Aligned not as "This is a new clean copy of the TF Universe from the ground up" but rather as "Aligned represents THE clean copy of the TF Universe, of which all previous iterations were garbled and muddy photocopies"

:Which is not to say I'm suggesting that we start trerating all characters as singularities, quite the contrary. I believe Hasbro has rolled us back to their late 90's vision of "Transformers as Mythology" wherein there is "one ultimate truth" (probably unrevealed), which is represented by an infinite number versions all of which are allowed to count so long as they pass Archer's famous "squint test."

:SOOOO, if I were king of the wiki, this is what I'd do: Mentally note that Hasbro intends Aligned to be (for all intents and purposes) "Ultimate Truth." We promptly and effectively ignore that as "Authorial Intent" and document Aligned like any other continuity. MEANWHILE, any characters/concepts/etc. that Aligned paints a clear portrait of which have a meaningful (but poorly defined) analog in previous continuities, we retcon the squint-test in a general way to those previously poorly defined guys. Conviniently, and I'd wager by design more or less, 99% of what we have so far that qualifies as a "Well definined in Aligned, but present and murky/mysterious in prior continuities" are ALSO entities previously identified as singularities or their kin.

:Therefore where continuity specifics don't contradict (which we just document and ignore under the current system anyay), we assume that whatever is presented as true in Aligned for "singularities" holds true for them in non-Aligned universes. Eg. Minimus Prime is one of the 13 in G1 (though never explicitly named), and we can deduce he's probably (through whatever mysterious means) the creator of the G1 Microns (Micromaster/Micron = synonym in G1, Minicon/Micron = synonym in UT...but if that's a leap of logic too far by our standards, I get it). Since he's never mentioned by name in any G1 material, we can assume it's true, since we know he's a singularity-type-dude and that Hasbro means for the Aligned 13 to be the real-deal honest-to-betsy versions.

:Even if "multiversal singularity" as originally and explictly defined has become spread a bit thin, I think it's fair to say that the concept is still VERY useful as a functional category (for taxonomy, not neccessarily as a wiki-category), and the core concept very much works.

:By contrast SPLITTING 13 (Aligned) and 13 (EVERYTHING ELSE) does nothing other than return everybody who's not Fallen/Nexus/A3/Veccy to "name and details unknown" status outside of Aligned. Which is less than constructive.--[[User:Destrongerlupus|Destrongerlupus]] 15:21, 19 June 2013 (EDT)

::Your entire premise seems constructed on the idea that Hasbro intends for Aligned to retroactively apply to all previous continuities; there is nothing to lead us to believe that. The fact that the Thirteen never got any meaningful use before the old multiverse was dumped and replaced by Aligned doesn't mean we should falsely equate the two Thirteens when a) they conflict even in the tiny amount we know about the multiversal Thirteen and b) we have been explicitly told that things that were true before the Alignedverse aren't necessarily true now. -[[User:LV|LV]] 18:02, 19 June 2013 (EDT)
:::To back up Graham, Hasbro were very much explicitly against making Aligned part of the prior Multiverse. The Club wasn't allowed to roll it into the whole Axiom Nexus thing, and yes, the concept of the Thirteen in Aligned, and other universal hypermatters, were declared separate and distinct from their prior Multiverse's concepts. --[[User:M Sipher|M Sipher]] 20:15, 19 June 2013 (EDT)
::::Y'all are both missing my entire point (kind of making it FOR me in fact), but I was being long winded so, I'll try to be more brief here. As you say Hasbro has very explicitly said that "things that were true before the Alignedverse aren't necessarily true now." You all seem to be reading that as "Pre-Aligned and Aligned don't mix." I'm reading that as "All previous continuity was lies and falsehoods, that jazz never happened, Aligned is what's REAL." That's a thorny situation, but I'd bet my left knee that to the degree that Uncle PotatoHead cares about "canon" in general, THAT's what they mean. My understanding of how the wiki deals with all manner of retconning is that when a retcon doesn't explicitly screw up known-facts we acknowledge it, and when it DOES screw things up we either ignore or note it.

::::Sooooo....Pre-Aligned: Multiversal Singularities, notably the 13, were a thing, and that concept helped grease the wheels of Pre-Aligned fiction. OFICIALLY (by my interpretation), Hasbro says that with the start of Aligned all prior fiction is null-and-void, exisiting perhaps as a "squint test passing" version of something that might or might-not have happened. Since we have no intention of re-writing everything Pre-Aligned to say "This is crap and lies written by morons who didn't know the truth, please see 'Aligned Fiction' for real stuff", we find ourself in this position: Pre-Aligned Canon works the way we were told it worked when it still "counted." Aligned Canon (SUPPOSEDLY) represents the way things (ALL things before current, and in perpetuity) REALLY works. Pre-Aligned, The 13 are Multiversal Singularities (MVSs), but their roster and 90% of their details are unknown. In Aligned, which is The-One-And-True-Canon (supposedly) the 13 are now documented in some degree of completeness, but they aren't MVSs...because there IS NO MULTIVERSE, that was crap and lies. So when we document a part of TF canon that is officially "crap and lies" (everything pre-Aligned), we can either choose to assume that the 13 are either the same dudes as the One-True-Canon 13 (which demonstrably they are in all cases where we have comparable data points....excepting Logos), OR we can thick-headedly decide that because a "crap and lies" concept like MVS-hood is an important enough concept that the Aligned-13 MUST be different dudes because they exist in a world (One-True-Canon) where MVSing is logically impossible. I see no reason to assume that the Pre-Aligned 13 are not retroactively-intended to be the same guys as The Aligned-13. Since, from Hasbro's perspective, there is only one set of 13, period. It's the same sort of situation that Uhaul-Robot and his other cartoon flashback-buddies names and titles of glory.

::::TLDR Version: 13 (MVSs) exisit in a "truth" where MVSs are the default truth. 13 (Aligned)exist in a "truth" where they don't need to be MVSs, but Hasbro says that these are *THE REAL* ("truer truth") 13. Therefore 13 (MVSs) because they are, by the LOGIC OF THEIR SHEER CONCEPT, the one-and-only 13 must, unless explicitly contradicted (which with the exception of Logos Prime, they don't, and since the fiction is over, they won't) equal 13 (Aligned) --[[User:Destrongerlupus|Destrongerlupus]] 10:08, 20 June 2013 (EDT)

:Though, just to play Devil's Advocate, I suppose one could argue that Logos Prime represents at least one (micro, perhaps) continuity wherein at least one of the Aligned 13 =/= the 13 everywhere else. Which we could either decide means that the logic I laid out above is broken, or else that we can document variances as variances (up to and including member roster), while still assuming the rest holds true, functionally at least. --[[User:Destrongerlupus|Destrongerlupus]] 15:35, 19 June 2013 (EDT)

Something just grates on me that we're about to get the most complete notion of the Thirteen we've ''ever'' had, but because of Hasbro being continually indecisive and ultimately pulling the hamfisted assertion of "different multiverses" we can't really complete this article. It bugs me. I know it's ''technically'' correct, but I hate the feel of it. For the longest time we were on this crazy scavenger hunt for lore on the Thirteen and now we have to say they weren't ''the same'' Thirteen.--[[User:Rosicrucian|Rosicrucian]][[User Talk:Rosicrucian|Talk]] 20:37, 19 June 2013 (EDT)
:I definitely don't disagree that it's maddening. We were "supposed" to learn all about them in that IDW series mentioned-then-abandoned, which one has to think was one of the most influential things through absence to be, insofar of its inability to have any effect on the Aligned Thirteen or the current IDW backstory. -[[User:LV|LV]] 20:56, 19 June 2013 (EDT)
::It's grating, because it's crazy. Think about it this way, we're taling about the TF GODS here. Whether you're talking the Millenialist Mono-Deity, or ancient Pagan pantheons, whenever you get to "god level" in story telling you end up with a million versions of the same "god" told a million different ways. This is the nature of a living evolving storytelling culture, it's one of things I most love about Transformers, it's a modern mythic system in fast-forward speed evolution. There are like 15 different versions of Aphrodite/Venus, for instance, in many cases basic facts vary from version to version (place and method of origin, etc.), but no one disputes that they're all the same goddess. Even though you'll see some reference materials seperate out Venus and Aphrodite to keep their Roman and Greek histories etc. straight, there's ALWAYS an explicit reference that the two have over the centuries become conflated and interchangeable, and any shorter reference will treat them under a single entry. Because we have NEXT TO NOTHING on 13 (Multiverse) and will soon have nearly EVERYTHING on 13 (Aligned) it's stupid to split them. Are we going to make a Unicron (Multiverse) and Unicron (Aligned) and a Primus (Multiverse) and Primus (Aligned) split as well? If we split the 13, we gotta split the daddies as well. There's either a conceptual/logical bridge between the "Multiverse" and "Aligned" or there isn't. We can't have it both ways.--[[User:Destrongerlupus|Destrongerlupus]] 10:29, 20 June 2013 (EDT)
:I'm putting my reply down here, because the nesting thing going on above is a mess. In reply to Destronger: The quote specifically says "what '''''was true'''''" in the non-Aligned settings, so I don't see how you can interpret that as "we are saying the non-Aligned settings are mistellings of Aligned. Furthermore...non-Aligned fiction is ''still being produced by Hasbro'', which puts the lie to the idea that Hasbro is doing some kind of George Lucas "now we have the resources to tell the story we always meant to" thing.
:The facts are:
#In order to keep everything canon in past settings, Hasbro had to sest up a huge multiverse system with the Thirteen as multiversal singularities.
#When asked if Aligned was part of that system, Hasbro pretty clearly communicated that no, Aligned within its internal canon is not part of the multiversal system (even if the setup of the multiversal system would seem to internally demand that it is!). As far as I know, the Aligned stuff hasn't even got a multiversal stream name, so there's no reason to think they are meant to mesh in any way.
:Basically, Hasbro is trying to treat them as separately as they would treat Animated and My Little Pony, so we should as well. Not to mention the contradictions that pop up with stuff like the "Seven Primes", "Logos Prime", etc.[[User:KrytenKoro|KrytenKoro]] 13:11, 20 June 2013 (EDT)
::Exactly "What WAS true" = "Those things are no-longer true" I think we're getting into the fallacy of giving Hasbro too much credit for CARING about the specific mechanics of "continuity" and specifically inter-relations BETWEEN continuities. But I'll set all that aside and again ask the question that captures my point even more simply: Do we split Unicron and Primus into (Aligned)/(Multiversal) entries? How about the planets like Cybertron, Junk, Velocitron? Do we split those? The 13 fall into the same bucket as all those examples, big-picture macro-concepts that stay "true and consistant enough" regardless of continuity, while also having little enough to be said about them specifically, that they all get to live at a single entry. If we NEED to be pedantic about it and have a split-fiction section Where we say Multiverse: The 13 are Singularities and exisit in multiverses simultaneously Aligned: They do stuff explicitly in the novels and we see them in a flash-back, then FINE, that's cool. But they SO don't need to be split as a category. --[[User:Destrongerlupus|Destrongerlupus]] 16:08, 20 June 2013 (EDT)
:::The sheer volume of noise you're putting out here is discouraging to conversation, but here are a handful of points: Yes, Unicron should probably have his own Aligned page. No, we don't need to split planets, because we never have. The Thirteen are characters and characters get different pages for different continuities. For the purposes of this split, "Aligned" and "Everything else" are two different continuities. What you seem to regard as a convincing argument to keep them merged works only if everyone already agrees that Hasbro meant something only you think they meant. -[[User:LV|LV]] 16:54, 20 June 2013 (EDT)
::::I also support splitting Unicron into an Aligned entry, but Primus...would be dang tiny. Just, like, DANG.[[User:KrytenKoro|KrytenKoro]] 18:12, 20 June 2013 (EDT)
::::I apologize if you find my involvement to be more "noise" than "signal", I'll bow to group consensus whatever direction it swings in. Splitting Unicron is my personal litmus test for splitting the 13, I personally think doing so is daft and removing clarity rather than adding to information when a simple split-fiction section would do, but as the group wills. I'll go back to quietly fixing grammar and adding pictures of obscure goodies.--[[User:Destrongerlupus|Destrongerlupus]] 19:12, 20 June 2013 (EDT)
:::::It's not the signal-to-noise ratio, it's just the masses and masses of text. Even if it's all made of valid talking points, it's hard to deal with in this kind of medium. If you were offended, I apologize. I wasn't trying to be hostile. I have no idea how separating Unicron's actions in a cartoon unrelated to all other fiction "removes clarity", though - but to be frank, Unicron concerns me a lot less than the Thirteen. Unicron is, in both pre- and Aligned incarnations, an evil god dude. The Thirteen don't even seem to be composed of the same individuals - even Nexus Prime is made up of different guys. -[[User:LV|LV]] 19:33, 20 June 2013 (EDT)
::::::Weird side thought on Nexus Prime: What if he is the sort of inverse of the Movie Constructicons/Devastator? Instead of being many individuals who can merge into different versions of Devastator, he is one guy who can split into several individuals in multiple ways? Just something that bounced through the pachinko machine I use as a brain when I read what you wrote. --[[User:Khajidha|Khajidha]] 23:35, 20 June 2013 (EDT)
::::::No real offense taken. For better or worse my brain has been molded to think and express this way (literary analysis), and I can get how this medium makes it hard to process. Anyway, I totally see the argument of the 13 being different guys, if that's the case they totally need a split, but are they? Other than Logos, who's a vaguely defined maybe from Takara's side of the house, who else varies, that we know of? Megatronus/Fallen, Nexus, Vector, they've all been fully-confirmed. Is there anyone else on the Multiverse-list that's NOT on the Aligned-list? We've got problems in the OTHER direction, A3 being all SG'd up, LeigeMaximo maybe being hard to reckon. But I don't think those rough-fit issues would invalidate the membership rolls. BTW Khajidha- that's a BRILLIANT notion. I think it'l be fanon in my brain from here forward :) --[[User:Destrongerlupus|Destrongerlupus]] 09:02, 21 June 2013 (EDT)

Talk:Thirteen

2013-06-20T23:12:48Z

Destrongerlupus: /* The Aligned Thirteen */

Talk:Thirteen

2013-06-20T20:08:51Z

Destrongerlupus: /* Current placement of "Conceptual History" as of December 2nd, 2011 */

Talk:Thirteen

2013-06-20T14:29:42Z

Destrongerlupus: /* The Aligned Thirteen */

Destrongerlupus:

{{disambig3|Universe}}
{{nav-universe2008}}

'''''Transformers Universe''''' is an online Flash cartoon for [[Hasbro]]'s web site, in support of the [[Transformers: Universe (2008 franchise)|toyline of the same name]]. The first episode aired in November 2008.

The first episode features a hodgepodge of [[Character model|character designs and models]] from across the [[Generation 1 continuity family|Generation 1 spectrum]], including toys from the ''[[Transformers: Classics|Classics]]'' and ''[[Transformers: Alternators| Alternators]]'' lines alongside vintage ''[[Generation 1 (franchise)|Generation 1]]'' character models. The story is a simplified, generic retelling of the [[Transformer]]s' arrival on [[Earth]], similar in essence to such early stories as [[The Transformers (issue)|the first Marvel comic]] and "[[More than Meets the Eye, Part 1]]".

Hasbro [[Hasbro_Q%26A/December_2009:_Answers|has said]] that no more episodes will be made.

{{chapters|title=''Universe'' episodes:|content=
*[[Action Blast 1]],
*[[Fight for Energon]]
}}

==External links==
* [http://www.hasbro.com/transformers/universe/ Hasbro's ''Transformers Universe'' front page]

[[Category:Media]]
[[Category:Universe (2008)| Universe (cartoon)]]
[[Category:Universe episodes| ]]

2013-03-06T14:24:49Z

Destrongerlupus: /* Arms Micron Stunticon Symbol */

__TOC__

There's such an AWESOME buried assumption in a section called 'Known Faction Symbols.' This whole idea that there are UNKNOWN faction symbols too. The idea that there is a BODY to this story beyond what's been written, the idea that it has a form BEFORE it's written... is facinating. -[[User:Derik|Derik]] 15:40, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't feel the Transtech faction symbols belong here. The line never happened. The events after BM have been well established- Transtech was not it. TFU stupidity aside- they are not all Autobots and Decepticons now.

And I have to ask- there was an Arachnoid faction-symbol?

Yea there was a screencap in Lone Maximal's faction symble thread b4 the allspark went down. [[User:X-BoB58|X-BoB58]] 15:27, 4 April 2006 (PDT)

I think it's fine to include them, just with an info note that they're unused.

Speaking of rare symbols I really want the 5 Predacon symbols from IDW Beast Wars to be up here too, but should they go under BW PRedacon or be their own thing?

Also there should be pics of both the regular Con symbol and the three-pointed Cartoon version.

Oh and we should look through DW/IDW art to see if there are any other unnamed symbols there on buildings or anything. [[User:ZacWilliam|ZacWilliam]] 22:28, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Do we want to include pics of the diffrent variations of the faction cymbols that appeared on the toy packageing? I have the symbols from the top of the old Tech Spec archive saved on my PC and found images for the Blendtron and Commando symbols. I don't have the Cybertron symbols though.--[[User:FortMax|FortMax]] 23:11, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

I'd like both, frankly. My source for the G2 Autobot is distressingly low-resolution (I consider anythign under 400px wide low reolution) and I'm not entiely sure my blendtron synbol is 100% right. (there 1 or two edges I couldnt' tell if they were suppsoed to be rounded or squared off.)-[[User:Derik|Derik]] 01:09, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

The G2 Decepticon symbol looks nothing whatsoever like Clench besides sharing that diamond-shaped forehead crest, and it's missing arguably the most distinguishing feature of Clench's face - the triangular (point-up) mouthplate. In my opinion, the G2 symbol is clearly a stylized version of the G1 Decepticon symbol. Similarly, there is essentially no similarity between the G2 Autobot symbol and Pyro - the G2 Autobot symbol couldn't much more clearly be Optimus Prime.

Also, why is the CR Combatron insignia under "Beast Era"? `[[User:LV|LV]] 17:50, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I'd need to go back to my G2 issues to check, but I question the validity of suggesting that the G2 Decepticon and Cybertronian symbols are any different. (The only distinction shown here is color, anyway) I also question the simplified versions of the symbols used in the cartoon as "symbols" in their own right, but it seems that I've already been outvoted on that count. The only thing I ''would'' ask for is some source text, especially for the more obscure symbols. If they're going to be here, we need to know where they come from.--[[User:G.B. Blackrock|G.B. Blackrock]] 18:52, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and I totally disagree with the note that the G1 Decepticon symbol is based on Soundwave. This is a myth that has perpetuated for years, but has no basis in fact.--[[User:G.B. Blackrock|G.B. Blackrock]] 18:56, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
: Well, technically, it's based on the Decepticon symbol looking just like Soundwave's toy head. But the note is gone for the moment. --[[User:ItsWalky|ItsWalky]] 20:28, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
::Walky, I know you've got a good eye. Maybe you're seeing something I don't. But that's just it. To me, Soundwave's toy's head looks NOTHING like the Decepticon symbol. I've seen folks say this for years, but I'm just not seeing it....--[[User:G.B. Blackrock|G.B. Blackrock]] 22:42, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
:::http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v497/itswalky/soundwavedecepticonsymbol.jpg
:::There's some obvious correlation here. But nothing I can say with absolute certainty, so the note is down until further notice. But, damn, the Decepticon symbol does look like it was based on an abstraction of Soundwave's noggin. The crest, the horns, the shape of the face, everything. I think Soundwave's cartoon face is distracting you. --[[User:ItsWalky|ItsWalky]] 23:01, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
::::No, I'm thinking toy-face. (Thanks for the side-by-side, incidentally). Still, I don't think I'd say the Decepticon symbol is "based on" Soundwave, any more than I'd say that there's a generic similarity of shape. But we're mincing minutia at this point. Thanks for indulging me.--[[User:G.B. Blackrock|G.B. Blackrock]] 23:55, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
:::::I believe Floro Dery mentioned in an interview that the faction symbols were based on abstractions of faces done by another artist. I also put it to you that the Autobot insignia is probably an abstraction of Prowl's toy face. Unfortunately we have no CONCRETE evidence for the sources of the insignias -- other than Dery's comments. --[[User:Jhiaxus|Jhiaxus]] 11:24, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

There is no "Seacon space pirate" sigil. A comical skull-and-crossbones on the sail does not a sigil make. The toy packaging gives them the same purple insect-head Predacon sigil every other badguy in the series gets. --[[User:M Sipher|M Sipher]] 20:42, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Hey, someoen put the Blendtron symbol under Unicron in G1. When was the Blendtron symbol used outside of Neo? -[[User:Derik|Derik]] 02:42, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

E-hobby Overcharge [[User:X-BoB58|X-BoB58]] 02:50, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
:But didn't we decide to default to the line of origin unless there was a commanding reason to use another? Also, we tend not to link things multiple times in the same article, so I see no reason why the Blendtron symbol should show up twice here. Methinks someone's been more than a tad overzealous....--[[User:G.B. Blackrock|G.B. Blackrock]] 13:43, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

==Shattered Glass Nightbeat's Symbol==
If we have a section for the Shattered Glass faction symbols, shouldn't Nightbeat's be there, too? I know he's an (evil) Autobot, but he has that unique Autobot logo with the dagger on his hood.

==Article title==

I recently moved this article to correct the second capitalized word. However, I am unsure as to whether to move it again and remove the plural. Most article names are singular, even for something like [[Constructicon (G1)|Constructicon]]. However, one of the points of this article is to describe and show many faction symbols. This sort of implies a plural title to me. So... I'm conflicted. Does anybody have an opinion? --[[User:Steve-o|Steve-o]] 22:34, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I think that if this were an article describing the general signifigance of a faction symbol, that might be appropriate. But this is a list of Faction Symbols. The list is inherenly plural, there's like 30 of 'em. 'Faction Symbol,' describing the role and importance of saction symbols in general might be a seperate article- this is a list. -[[User:Derik|Derik]] 00:39, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

==The 5 Predacon symbols==
I want to add the 5 symbols from IDW Beast Wars, but I have a concern. There is no cannonical evidence that they are actually faction symbols. We never see anyone useing them. Right now, the only thing we know about them is that they were used as wall decoration.

Or do we just assume they ''are'' faction symbols? --[[User:Crockalley|Crockalley]] 15:42, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

:Add them. If we decide they go somewhere else (and I think they probably do, likely the Predacon faction page, or maybe the Predacon sub-group, I dunno...) we'll move them.
:Reminder, you can find the rest of... uh.... Ramhorn's partially obscurred symbol in the pencil-sketch previews to Beast Wars #1 that appeared in Infiltration. -[[User:Derik|Derik]] 19:11, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
::Headstrong. Ramhorn is the Autobot rhino cassette. --[[User:KilMichaelMcC|KilMichaelMcC]] 19:59, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

:::The exception that prooves the rule. -[[User:Derik|Derik]] 20:13, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
::::....what? --[[User:KilMichaelMcC|KilMichaelMcC]] 01:58, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

==The 5 Predacon symbols - Whoopsie...wrong file names guys==
Two of these emblems were switched. Razorclaw and Rampage's emblems were assigned to the wrong name. I've fixed this in the actual gallery of the emblems with an edit, but the names of the images are still swapped.[[User:Sidecutter|Sidecutter]]
:Why the heck would Rampage's emblem sport a mane and Razorclaw's not sport a mane? The comic they appear in even show Razorclaw's maned symbol as being the most prominently displayed. --[[User:Detour|Detour]] 15:31, 19 September 2010 (EDT)
::If you actualy look at the emblems being displayed, that was exactly my point, but someone has made it incorrect again. Razorclaw's orange, maned symbol that matches his beast head is listed with *Rampage's* name. Rampage's red, non-maned symbol, which matches his beast head, is listed with *Razorclaw's* name. The symbols also have the wrong file names, with Razroclaw's symbol named "Rampage Symbol.png" and Rampage's symbol named "Razorclaw Symbol.png". Here is how it was displayed before I fixed it the first time, and this time:
::Now as far as I know (I may simply not know how), I can't change the file names. Therefore, I can't fix it that way. But if you look at the page now that I've corrected the gallery again, you'll see that even though the filenames appear "wrong" when you look at the list to edit it, the pictures are actually correct now.[[User:Sidecutter|Sidecutter]] 16:09, 26 September 2010 (EDT)
:::It looks to me that the red one is the guy with a mane. The yellow one doesn't look like it has a mane. --[[User:ItsWalky|ItsWalky]] 16:19, 26 September 2010 (EDT)
::::I don't see how you can see it that way. The shapes of the faces are wrong for the supposed character they represent. The color of each one is also matched to the character it should be (orange/yellow for Razorclaw's beast head, red for Rampage's). Compare each emblem to the toy on TFU.info and it's very clear that the filenames on these are wrong. http://www.tfu.info/1986/Decepticon/Razorclaw/razorclaw.htm http://www.tfu.info/1986/Decepticon/Rampage/rampage.htm [[User:Sidecutter|Sidecutter]] 16:23, 26 September 2010 (EDT)
::::I've also just gone through the trade to see the originals. The red one shown there might be more feasible as Razorclaw, if still the wrong color. However, if that is the case, the rendition we have here is a very bad one, because the shapes of the symbol parts and the proportions of each part are WAY off from the comic. It's a much narrower symbol here. [[User:Sidecutter|Sidecutter]] 16:44, 26 September 2010 (EDT)
:::::I've definitely gotta go with Sidecutter here, the orange one is definitely the one with a mane. -- [[User:Semysane|Semysane]] 16:51, 26 September 2010 (EDT)
::::::I'm with Walky, the yellow one has cheek tufts NOT a mane. Thus it is a tiger. --[[User:Khajidha|Khajidha]] 16:52, 26 September 2010 (EDT)
:::::::Yes, also with Walky. The red one is the one with a mane, I don't know how you can look at it any other way. - [[User:Chris McFeely|Chris McFeely]] 16:54, 26 September 2010 (EDT)
::::::::But Rampage doesn't even HAVE cheek tufts. Also, his beast-mode head is red. -- [[User:Semysane|Semysane]] 16:56, 26 September 2010 (EDT)
:::::::::What does the color have to do with it? Divebomb isn't purple. --[[User:Khajidha|Khajidha]] 16:57, 26 September 2010 (EDT)
::::::::::Doesn't change the fact that Rampage doesn't have cheek tufts. -- [[User:Semysane|Semysane]] 17:05, 26 September 2010 (EDT)
:::::::::::None of them look exactly like the symbols. They are stylized versions of the animals, not the toys. --[[User:Khajidha|Khajidha]] 17:14, 26 September 2010 (EDT)
::::::::::::Razorclaw looks nearly EXACTLY like the orange symbol. Seriously, have a look at it and his beast-mode head. I honestly don't see how it could be anyone else. -- [[User:Semysane|Semysane]] 17:20, 26 September 2010 (EDT)
:::::::::::::Really? The orange one doesn't say "lion" to me. I think the main problem is the red logo doesn't really look like a lion or a tiger. I'm not sure what that's supposed to be. --[[User:Abates|abates]] 19:09, 26 September 2010 (EDT)
::::::::::::::I see what you're saying now about the orange one looking like Razorclaw - but that's because you're looking at the two points at the top of the head as if they're the corners of the toy's mane, when they're ''ears''. It's not supposed to look like the toy, it's supposed to look like the ''animal''. The red one's sporting an all-around mane, not one broken up into mechanical toyetic points and chunks. - [[User:Chris McFeely|Chris McFeely]] 19:25, 26 September 2010 (EDT)
:::::::::::::::Don't tell me what I'm looking at the ears as. At no point did I think they were anything other than ears. And the red one has nothing even remotely resembling a mane. -- [[User:Semysane|Semysane]] 03:03, 28 September 2010 (EDT)
I'd have to dig out the issue in question, but I'm not sure if I remember them ''being'' in color.--[[User:Rosicrucian|Rosicrucian]][[User Talk:Rosicrucian|Talk]] 17:09, 26 September 2010 (EDT)
:They are in color. I didn't pay much attention to the colors of the other three, but the two being debated are in the colors shown here (or a close variant, allowing for lighting, etc).[[User:Sidecutter|Sidecutter]] 18:15, 26 September 2010 (EDT)

==Miscellaneous issues==
===Robots in Diguise Commando===
When was that term used? What's the difference between a RiD Commando and a RiD Decepticon?

::I'm assuing this is a placeholder spot for the Car Robots Destronger symbol, which was a green, upside-down G2 Autobot sigil. - [[User:Chris McFeely|Chris McFeely]] 10:46, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

===Bot/Con Symbols in RiD/UT sections?===
Should the Autobot and Decepticon (and Predacon in RiD) symbols also be listed in the Robots in Disguise amd Unicron Trilogy sections? It might be misleading if only unique symbols are listed in those sections. "Are Minicons and Powerlinx the only factions in the Unicron Trilogy?"
===Organization===
The G1 section seems to be vaguely organized chronologically, but Beast Wars doesn't make sense to me. Since certain chronological listings might be debatable (Ancient Autobot and Ancient Transformer: who comes first, etc), I propose to make each section alphabetical. 
Generation 1 
Autobot 
Autobot (Ancient) 
Autobot (The War Within) 
Decepticon 
etc.

Also, why does G2 get a seperate sction, but Beast Machines does not?

===''Factions''?===
There is no basis for calling the five IDW Beast Wars symbols "factions", and the Energon Powerlinx symbols are not factions. But I want to keep a page with all these symbols. Rename article to just "Symbols"? Or maybe that would open it up too much. Just a rambling thought.

Don't want to make any changes without talking about it. Thanks for listening. --[[User:Crockalley|Crockalley]] 01:03, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
--[[User:Crockalley|Crockalley]] 01:03, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

:I think it's fine titled "faction symbols" but also inlcuding symbols that aren't strictly of "factions," with appropriate notations about whether a symbol is a variant of a faction symbol or just something faction symbol-esque that's close enough for inclusion, etc. --[[User:KilMichaelMcC|KilMichaelMcC]] 01:20, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

::They might move if we get enough other signage and symbols. (We have, for instance, two seperate Cybertronian medical symbols, one Autobot and one Decepticon.)
::You mgith argue that if we have a page liek thism we maybe should have a much-clearer 'factions' page that, as Crockcrikey suggests, list which factions appear in which series, makign this page just abouth the SYMBOLS. As it's it's kinda dual-purpose, providing quick bio's about the faction in addition to the symbols and variants themselves. -[[User:Derik|Derik]] 01:48, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
::In that case, where should things like, say, Sideways's split-down-the-middle insignia from his packaging and the Maximal/Vehicon blend found on the Beast Changer toy go, if anywhere at all? On the other hand, if it stays here and keeps gathering up symbols that aren't strictly "faction" symbols, somebody ought to add the planet symbols from Cybertron/Galaxy force--[[User:Nemesis Primal|Nemesis Primal]] 22:27, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

== Um, guys, you forgot something... ==

Not to be a nudge, but the normal G1 Decepticon symbol isn't actually pictured in the article anywhere except in the pic that has it inserted in the cobra insignia. Also, a pic of the "three-pointed" cartoon version might help in showing exactly where the difference lies. --[[User:Nemesis Primal|Nemesis Primal]] 22:21, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Anyone going to throw in Dreamwave's alternate Unicron faction symbol? I remember it being used for the MTMTE profiles for Nemesis Prime and maybe Sideways, although I don't have it on hand. I feel that it's required.--[[User:MCRG|MCRG]] 07:46, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

==Team Ironhide==
Dunno if we want to include this, since it's just an abstraction of Energon Ironhide's head, but there's a good shot of it [http://www.fantofan.jp/news/video/superlink456.JPG here]. Plus, [http://www.fantofan.jp/news/video/superlink4510.JPG here] and [http://www.fantofan.jp/news/video/superlink444.JPG here]. --[[User:Monzo|Monzo]] 11:48, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

==Planet symbols...==
I'm... not really sure about these as "faction symbols". I dunno. --[[User:M Sipher|M Sipher]] 15:27, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

:See the discussion above ("'''''Factions''?'''") for more input on the inclusion of non-faction symbols. --[[User:Crockalley|Crockalley]] 16:27, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

::I think the consensus was- "Wait until we have anough non-faction symbols here to justify splittign them off into their own page." We're getting close, but that'll necessitate a long, unpleasant discussion about what is and isn't a faction symbol. (For instance, I think the IDW Quint symbol is the US Quint faction symbol- just like we have American and Japanese Unicron-allied symbols.) -[[User:Derik|Derik]] 17:32, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

:::IDW Quint symbol? I hope you don't mind me asking where that's shown, out of curiousity. -[[User:Tindalos|Tindalos]] 19:43, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

== Hmm... ==

[[Image:Optimus symbol.png|100px]] [[Image:Maximal symbol.png|100px]]

...probably just my imagination. --[[User:Andrusi|Andrusi]] 16:45, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

== G1 "Cartoon" vs "Comic" symbols ==
OK, time for an opinion poll: Should there be pix of both the "Cartoon" and "Comic" versions of the G1 Bot & Con symbols? I would say so, and several of you expressed the same opinion in the above discussions. Earlier today I added the cartoon Bot symbol and the comic Con symbol thereby completing the "pairs", but not soon after, the comic versions were removed. I have since replaced them, not to rebuff that editor, but based on the reasoning that if we can have five different colored Powerlinx symbols (?!), why would we '''not''' have both distinct variations of the two '''''main''''' symbols. Thoughts, anyone? [[User:Evil-yuusha|Evil-yuusha]] 03:25, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

:Well, your cartoon Decepticon symbol doesn't look like the cartoon Decepticon symbol, for one. I'm guessing that was part of the cause for the reversion. -[[User:Derik|Derik]] 04:44, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

::Indeed. There are different Powerlinx symbols depicted because those are all legitimately distinct symbols which were intended to be legitimately distinct symbols, and they all *mean different things*. The Autobot/Decepticon symbols in the cartoon/comic/toyline are all the same symbol but rendered differently due to media format. We are NOT going to have separate entries for every single mis-render of the same symbol design. That's absurd.
::As Derik pointed out, what you had uploaded wasn't even the "cartoon versions" of those symbols! Those are just the fancy painted versions thereof that were on toy packages, some Marvel Comics covers, and, of course, the toys. I reworked all of that because it was ''inaccurate.'' --[[User:ItsWalky|ItsWalky]] 06:40, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

:::It ''might'' be reasonable to include the cartoon version of the Decepticon symbol, since it had the whole triple-point deal going. But as far as I know there's no equivalent variation in the Autobot symbol. And, as stated, the painted Decepticon symbol is '''NOT''' the cartoon's variant Decepticon symbol. --[[User:Andrusi|Andrusi]] 14:18, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

::::Well thank you for pointing out how "absurd" my reasoning is Walky, its certainly more informative than your previous Post Summary of "Argh". I think some clarification may be needed, as there seems to be confusion (very possibly on my part).
::::This is one of the two images I posted:
::::[[Image:symbol_autobot_dx_edit.jpg|40px]]Is this what you all would deem "cartoon" or "comic"? Or if neither, why?
::::[[Image:symbol_decept_reg.png|35px]] This is the other image I posted. Cartoon? Comic? Neither?
::::Seeing as how I posted one version of the Bot symbol and the OTHER version of the Con symbol (the two that were missing at the time), how can I be wrong in both cases?

::::And just for the record, when I re-posted what I perceive to be the "comic" versions, I replaced [[Image:Autobot symbol.png|40px]] (which was what was previously posted), with [[Image:Symbol_autobot_reg.png|40px]], simply because I thought it looked nicer. [[User:Evil-yuusha|Evil-yuusha]] 15:26, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

::::: That first Autobot symbol only appeared on Hasbro packaging from '84 to '86, Japanese packaging, cartoon scene bumpers, and some comic covers. The Decepticon symbol in the cartoon generally had a 3rd spike on the center top piece due to the beveling on the "packaging" symbol being misinterpreted. We're not going to have a picture of every interpertation of every symbol, lest we have a pic of the changes the packaging symbol when through in the G1 line, the different color borders in G2, the slightly different shapes from RID, Armada, Energon, Cybertron, Classics, and the movie. Diffrent styles does not equal a new faction symbol. --[[User:FortMax|FortMax]] 16:21, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

:::::Also, that white-border Autobot sigil looks blurry. --[[User:FortMax|FortMax]] 16:23, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

::::::Blurry, eh? I thought it was just my contacts. =) I agree that variation does not a new symbol make, but to me it seemed significant to show the two '''distinctly''' different "variations" of these two symbols. (And I'm not talking about "third point crest cartoon" version, or what have you.) The 3-D, glossy, transition-color "deluxe-looking" (if you will) version appearing on packaging, toon bumpers, etc to my knowledge (and i'm sure someone will correct me if im wrong) was never used on an actual '''figure''', nor did characters in the comics and/or cartoon bear sigils with this appearance. It more or less had media-only usage, correct? In contrast, the 2-D, matte, solid-color "plain-looking" version was the type used on the toys, as well as typically being seen on animated/drawn characters.

::::::Was there ever melding of these two styles? A 3-D glossy symbol with solid colors? or a 2-D matte symbol that transitioned in color? If there was, then I humbly retract my previous ramblings and apologize to the community at large (especially Walky, who seems keen on shooting down whatever i do anyway. And yes, I am aware of the differences between the powerlink colors, but I think my point has validity nonetheless). In any event i do admit to being confused as to exaclty what the "cartoon version" of the Con symbol was in reference to (thank you FortMax). =P

:::::::But if I am correct in saying that there is a '''''measure of deliniation''''' between these two styles, and not just a simple case of "variation" (which is essentially what the "three point crest" is, and you guys seem to think that's worthy of mention), then at the very least I think they should be shown as a footnote of some type to the page, perhaps following the Unused symbols. [[User:Evil-yuusha|Evil-yuusha]] 18:06, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

::::::All of the G1 merchandise that had a symbol not taken from boxart used the logo symbols. The one exception is the marvel US comics, but that was due to the low-tech printing methods used. Plus, whatever the border shaps or solidness of the color, it's still recognizable as the Autobot symbol. The only time we would need a cartoon version on this page is when said sigil only appears in the cartoon. Plus, the only fictional apperences of the package style sigils (that I know of) are in scene bumpers, commercial bumpers, and titles, none of which actually happen in-universe, and the solid colored symbol appeared on the toys before the cartoon or comics were released.

:An example of the cartoon Decepticon symbol might be a good idea though. --[[User:FortMax|FortMax]] 20:08, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

== TWW Predacon and LSC symbols ==

Did the TWW Predacons (Starscream's group) or the Lightning Strike Coalition (Grimlocks group) have their own faction symbols? --[[User:FortMax|FortMax]] 20:12, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
: Not that I'm aware of. And they both continue to wear their respective Con/Bot logos on themselves. --[[User:ItsWalky|ItsWalky]] 00:50, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
::Although I'm pretty sure they've started being the standard symbols instead of the TWW ones by then. -[[User:LV|LV]] 01:00, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

== Ancient Transformer Symbol ==

Ok, whoever called shannanigans, explain your objection... I admit It's been a long time since I've looked at some DW issues but the Anceint unified faction bit seems to jive with what I remember being said. Anyone who's looked at things recently clarrify? --[[User:ZacWilliam|ZacWilliam]] 22:07, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
:The ancient faction symbol appeared on the Vector Sigma room, the Archives (IIRC) and the golden Disk room on Paradron. It's ''ancient'', and it has nothing to do with Shockwave. Shockwave welded a blank plate over his faction symbol- he didn't create a new hybrid symbol. There ''was'' no Hybrid symbol for Shockwav'es reign on Cybertron.
:So in short, the nature of my objection is... it's wrong. -[[User:Derik|Derik]] 22:17, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

::So, uh... fix it? Why call shenanigans instead? --[[User:Steve-o|Steve-o]] 02:10, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
:::'cuz I didn't want to be the one to fix it, being next-deep in other edits at the time. -[[User:Derik|Derik]] 02:32, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

== Change page title to "Insignia"? ==

This page hasn't really ever been limited to faction symbols, so I think a move is in order. Anyone disagree? [[User:Chip|Chip]] 02:37, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
:Disagree, because how would I ever find it then? -[[User:Derik|Derik]] 02:48, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
:: DEAR GOD, CHANGE IT NOW. --[[User:M Sipher|M Sipher]] 02:54, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

::: :~( -[[User:Derik|Derik]] 02:56, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

:: It would unfortunately redirect. [[User:Chip|Chip]] 03:03, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

==Ancient Decepticon and BWII Seacons==

"Ancient Decepticon" has been here a long time with no symbol. Does an ancient Decepticon symbol exist? Also, yea or nay on BWII Seacons symbol? (Unless someone can find a better image of [http://transformers.wikia.com/wiki/Image:Seacons_bw.jpg that flag], it's moot anyway.) --[[User:Crockalley|Crockalley]] 20:38, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
:I think someone had a seacon skull up at one point- or at least there was a discussion about its variations...
:I've removed ancient decepticon- AFAIK, that's a relic of an unofficial reprolabel set that decided Shockwave's funky symbol was the counterpart of the ancient Autobot symbol- in defiance of all context. -[[User:Derik|Derik]] 20:46, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
===That picture isn't even the right symbol===
From the BWII movie
http://img519.imageshack.us/img519/9069/spacepirateseaconsignalao1.jpg - 85.195.123.24 20:50, 22 May 2007

:::Ooh, that's '''much''' clearer than the VCD I have. Is there an new not-centosaur encode floating around? -[[User:Derik|Derik]] 20:53, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
::::That's an excellent image. Now what's this about variations? P.S. 85, don't forget to sign your posts with four tildes ~ And why not just get a user name. --[[User:Crockalley|Crockalley]] 01:33, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

==Shockwave insignia==
Can someone put this up? I'm pretty sure it was reused semi-recently, either in a DW/IDW book or as one of Overcharge's labels... right? --[[User:Thylacine 2000|Thylacine 2000]] 20:46, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
:You're probably thinking of the Reprolabels set. It hasn't shown up anywhere else official, that I've heard of. --[[User:KilMichaelMcC|KilMichaelMcC]] 21:15, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
::Hey, now it HAS showed up! TakaraTomy's [http://www.takaratomy.co.jp/products/TF/bible/index.html World of the Transformers], Episode 4 has given it a name. It's the "Cybertron Guard" insignia. --[[User:KilMichaelMcC|KilMichaelMcC]] 16:39, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

:::I KNOW! I just noticed that! I uploaded it once a long time ago, but it was deleted. I can re-upload it this evening, if someone else can't get to it before then. Inversely proportional: my excitement about this symbol - my social life --[[User:Crockalley|Crockalley]] 16:54, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
::::[[Image:shocksymb.jpg]] --[[User:Thylacine 2000|Thylacine 2000]] 16:59, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

== Megatron's symbol? ==

I don't think this is specifically associated with Megatron. It's also on [[Xeon|Emirate Xeon]]'s forehead in [[Transformers: The War Within|The War Within]].--[[User:Rosicrucian|Rosicrucian]] 16:55, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
:Also, the "Ratbat Symbol" depicts insignia seen on ''many'' Transformers associated with the Senate in Origin. In the first issue, all the ship crew for the Senator's vessel have it on their foreheads.--[[User:Rosicrucian|Rosicrucian]] 16:58, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

::You'll get no argument from me. I had a feeling my descriptives weren't 100% accurate. So, if you know stuff that I don't about these symbols, please add it. --[[User:Crockalley|Crockalley]] 17:10, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

[[Image:Emirate Xeon symbol.png|100px]][[Image:Megatron Origin Symbol.png|100px]]

Really I'd still venture that they're the same symbol, the difference being that Figueroa tends to be a bit more precise than Milne. Now, what I'm about to say is pure ''speculation'' and thus probably doesn't deserve to be in the article itself, but I'd wager it's a regional insignia that has to do with Kokular or [[Kaon]], as Emirates are regional governors. Alternately, I suppose Megatron's gladiatorial medallion might be an alteration or perversion of the Kokular/Kaon symbol, showing its continuing evolution into the Decepticon insignia. But I'll let others put their two cents in.--[[User:Rosicrucian|Rosicrucian]] 18:18, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

:From page to page, the Megatron: Origin symbol changes a tad, but certain elements of Xeon's symbol never manifest in Megatron's: the separate crest, the nose/slice down the middle, the cheeks, and Xeon's horns go down, Megatron's go up. --[[User:Crockalley|Crockalley]] 19:13, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
::Well, looks like we got some clarification in Origin 3. The insignia is a team designation, and it's on a chain because team rosters are not fixed. Megatron later has the Decepticon insignia on a chain, which to me says that the prior insignia was for Clench's team which Megatron took over.--[[User:Rosicrucian|Rosicrucian]] 20:48, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

== Cybertron Security Forces ==

New insignia for them in Origin #3, if you've seen it. Displayed on the flags over the coffins and on the headstone.

Man, this series is just like ''delicious candy'' regarding new insignia.--[[User:Rosicrucian|Rosicrucian]] 20:43, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

:Yeah, I love it. It's like insignia Christmas this week! --[[User:Crockalley|Crockalley]] 22:03, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
::[[Image:Security symbol Megatron Origin.png|100px]] 
::Well, here it is. Before it's added to the article, I wanted to be sure of what it should be called. Is "Cybertron Security Forces" what they're officially called the comic? --[[User:Crockalley|Crockalley]] 22:53, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
:::Issue #3 is saying "Autobot Security" but I'll have to get home before I can compare it to the prior two and see if they're called that throughout.--[[User:Rosicrucian|Rosicrucian]] 23:02, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
Whose funeral? I feel like the yellow should be the same yellow as Decimus's symbol. (Or rather, Decimus's symbol should be the same yellow as this.)

Also, I think the page is getting populated enough that we should start some long-term thinking about reorganization. Either by creating a faction symbol page in addition to the insignia page, or switching to a combo list/gallery format lie that seen in the [[holomatter]] article. No need for quick decisions, I'm just throwing it out there. -[[User:Derik|Derik]] 23:03, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
:[[Fastback (G1)|Fastback]] and [[Bumper (G1)|Bumper]]'s funeral. They received an official state funeral presided over by [[Sentinel Prime (G1)|Sentinel Prime]], as described in [[Megatron Origin issue 3|the summary I recently wrote]].--[[User:Rosicrucian|Rosicrucian]] 23:06, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
::Oh, I didn't realize it was out yet. -[[User:Derik|Derik]] 00:38, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
:RE: yellow. Comparing the colors, Decimus' is more of a gold in the comic, and the funeral flags on the coffins are more yellow. (I'm assuming the flags are the "real" color of the symbol, as opposed to the monochromatic plaque [http://markerguru.deviantart.com/art/megatron03-sample-06-64189148]) --[[User:Crockalley|Crockalley]] 00:32, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Alright, I forgot to log in before doing it, but I double-checked all three issues and it is referred to in two separate issues as "Security Services HQ" and "Autobot Security Headquarters." I've split the difference in their insignia entry on the page, and am now moving to correct the reference in my issue synopsis.--[[User:Rosicrucian|Rosicrucian]] 01:56, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

== Reorg ==

I've done a slight reorg of the sections and split G1 up by history/subcontinuity. Hope that helps somewhat.--[[User:Rosicrucian|Rosicrucian]] 23:34, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
:I'd say the page is starting to finally come into its own regarding ease of access and information density. What do you guys think? Is the gallery format helping?--[[User:Rosicrucian|Rosicrucian]] 19:02, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
::Yes. I think the content maybe needs some rewriting to fit it better... but that'll correct itself in time. This format is 100% better. -[[User:Derik|Derik]] 19:13, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

== Redirects Please? ==

Don't know how to do redirects myself. Could someone else create redirects from [[Symbol]] and [[Badge]] to this article? --[[User:ZacWilliam|ZacWilliam]] 21:49, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

: Done. Redirects are easy. Type #REDIRECT then space, then the double-bracket-link to the page you want to redirect to. Or just click [http://transformers.wikia.com/index.php?title=Symbol&action=edit here] and see what it looks like. --[[User:Crockalley|Crockalley]] 22:02, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

== Animated insignia. ==

First, we can't use them if they're that small.

Second, what we've seen of the toys indicates the insignia aren't new at all, so what you may be seeing in the teaser art/videos can be attributed to artistic style rather than changes to the symbols.--[[User:Rosicrucian|Rosicrucian]] 22:57, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

== Cobybot insignia ==

What do you guys think? I mean sure, it's just an Autobot symbol with two wrenches, but it's still probably worth adding, right? [[User:Cyberlink420|Cyberlink420]] 16:21, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

== The Decepticon sigil's colour ==

In some of the shows the Decepticon sigil is clearly blue. Yet is purple on the toys from those shows. Does anyone know why?

== Animated - Team Chaar ==

Should the [http://tfwiki.net/wiki/Image:Blackoutanimated.jpg Team Chaar symbol] be here?
Is it even a separate symbol, or just Blackout's custom (a relic from the Great War maybe?)? -- [[User:Silver|Silvery]] 07:23, 30 August 2009 (EDT)
:Nobody else from Team Chaar seems to have that symbol, so it's likely that it's exclusive to Blackout. -[[User:Mazenoise|Mazenoise]] 07:54, 30 August 2009 (EDT)

=="Shields"?==
So some of the licensed material (i.e., the [[Candy Mix]] refers to the insignia as "shields." Are there any other materials that give an official-type name to the faction logos? [[User:Hooper X|Hooper_X]] 12:32, 1 November 2009 (EST)

==Machine Wars==
The MW Decepticon insignia is noticeably different from G1, with very rounded sad-looking eyes and fuzzy indistinct outer margins. It looks like somebody at Hasbro circa 1996 tried to re-create the G1 logos from very poor or possibly even bootlegged source material.
Two questions:
 -Are there comparable differences between the G1 and MW Autobots? 
-Are these differences significant enough to warrant inclusion here? 
--[[User:Thylacine 2000|Thylacine 2000]] 22:37, 20 April 2010 (EDT)

== Energon Unicron ==

The Unicron insignia in Energon section is not only appeared in the Energon cartoon as a special sequence, but literally on TakaraTomy's official Armada(Micron Legend) site and the toy's Japanese package as well.
Shouldn't it be considered as the insignia for Trilogy, at least of TakaraTomy version?

== Orange Unicron insignia dissapearance ==

<s>I noticed the Herald of Unicron insignia is erroneously shown as the red blendtron insignia. Is the original orange version lost? That seems to be the most likely possibility as I cannot find it anywhere. How can such a big mistake go unnoticed for so long? Have you all forgotten how to use photoshop to recolor the red one orange?</s> Ignore all of that. I fixed it already. --[[User:LokitheGrammarNazi|LokitheGrammarNazi]] 14:50, 27 September 2010 (EDT)

== Tarantulas Insignia ==

http://tfwiki.net/w2/images2/8/8b/OptimalSituation_Tarantulas_insignia.jpg

Should we include this?
[[User:DinoFreakUSA|DinoFreakUSA]] 16:57, 2 November 2010 (EDT)

== Movie Symbols problem ==
Wasn't sure where else to put this, but this seems an appropriate enough place. I don't know if it's just on my end, or if I missed something important, but the faction symbols on all Movie/ROTF character pages seem to have become identical to the G1 equivalents. I first noticed it on the [[Decepticon]] page when I noticed that the same symbol appears twice. -- [[User:Semysane|Semysane]] 05:06, 4 December 2010 (EST)

== Original designer? ==

Who designed the original Autobot and Decepticon insignia? I mean in the real world. With all the behind-the-scenes material I've seen, I never heard a word about it.
:I'm sure [[Bob Budiansky]] must know. Was it ever said in an interview with him?--[[User:MistaTee|MistaTee]] 04:17, 7 January 2011 (EST)

==Titan Magazines question==
The [[Decepticon Heartland]] page shows a building with a symbol that looks like G1 Shockwave's Cybertron Guard symbol. Does it stand for anything in the Titan comics, or is it just an Easter egg? [[User:Geewunling|Geewunling]] 01:26, 24 May 2011 (EDT)

== Rename Prime section Aligned? ==

There's only one symbol in that heading, and it appears to be mainly from Exodus (and some online game or something) and has never appeared on Prime, so it's sort of confusing that the section it's in is called Prime. If Aligned isn't a good name for the section, maybe Exodus? I don't really care what it's called, so long as we can agree it's not really Prime, despite being from the same continuity family or whatever.--[[Special:Contributions/76.226.116.97|76.226.116.97]] 21:27, 28 April 2012 (EDT)
:If you do, please move the Rescue Bots symbol there. - [[User:Starfield|Starfield]] 00:36, 29 April 2012 (EDT)
:Agree on move. -Derik

== G2 fiction section ==

Unless it was in the GI Joe comic, what is currently listed in the G2 fiction section didn't happen. What I mean is, it wasn't part of the story that the Autobots got together and changed their insignia to look like Optimus Prime. The new insignias where just there. - [[User:Starfield|Starfield]] 22:35, 25 December 2012 (EST)
:Well, how would you describe "their insignia suddenly looked like Optimus Prime rather than the G1 'Bot symbol". Errors & omissions notwithstanding, that's on the page, ergo it's part of the story between G1 #80/etc and G2 #1. - [[User:SanityOrMadness|SanityOrMadness]] 22:49, 25 December 2012 (EST)
::I sympathize, but what we can't do is imply that if someone looks up the G2 comics they will find the page where the Autobots and Decepticons revise their insignias. How about something like, "'''both the Autobots and Decepticons used new insignias, which they have apparently adopted some time after the battle at Klo. For unexplained reasons, the Decepticons' new symbol was identical in design with the Cybertronian Empire.'''"
::P.S. Looking through the comics again, it appears they (accidentally or intentionally) avoided some continuity issues by not giving Megatron, Starscream, and Fort Max any identifiable insignias. Neat. - [[User:Starfield|Starfield]] 00:05, 26 December 2012 (EST)

== Arms Micron Stunticon Symbol ==

As near as I can tell, the Arms Micron Stunticon symbol that came on Wildrider's sticker sheet is unique, derived from the Animated BotCon logo, but with the spiffy addition of MotorMaster into the design.

I REALLY like this one, so I took a stab at recreating it, not 100% dead on, but I think I got close enough for horseshoes and hand grenades, can I add it to the page?

[[File:ArmsMicronStunticon.jpg|400px]]--[[User:Destrongerlupus|Destrongerlupus]] 18:21, 5 March 2013 (EST)
: I really like that you've recreated this. It's awesome. However, I don't think this entity you've reconstructed is really an insignia. More of a logo. The insignia portion would be limited to the Decepticon symbol with the checkered square around it. Once a bunch of words or letters are added, that's not an insignia anymore. We definitely need to put this artwork somewhere, but I don't think this page is the right location. --[[User:ItsWalky|ItsWalky]] 19:11, 5 March 2013 (EST)
::That's certainly sensible, might I propose Arms Micron WildRider's toy entry, or maybe in a note section on his character page? (So far) it seems to be unique to him, that is probably where it deserves mentioning.--[[User:Destrongerlupus|Destrongerlupus]] 09:24, 6 March 2013 (EST)