MediaWiki - User contributions [en]

MediaWiki talk:Community Portal

2025-01-19T02:58:45Z

MikeOsix: /* Checkpoint? (01/18/2025) */

__NEWSECTIONLINK__

This is the place for discussion of topics that affect the entire wiki. For less wide-reaching subjects, either use articles' individual talk pages or [https://discord.com/invite/N99Bygq our Discord server.]

Some topics that would ordinarily be here have merited their own pages:

{{chapters|title=Specific Discussion Subjects|align=left|content=
<div class="list-header">'''Moving From Wikia:'''</div>
* [[Transformers Wiki talk:Community Portal/Arriving|Arriving]]
* [[Transformers Wiki talk:Community Portal/Leaving|Leaving]]
* [[Transformers Wiki:Community Portal/Complaints|Complaints]]
<br/><div class="list-header">'''New Ad Policy:'''</div>
* [[Transformers Wiki:Ads|Ads]]
<br/><div class="list-header">'''Bookworm Database-Crash:'''</div>
* [[Transformers Wiki talk:Community Portal/Damage Control Central|Damage Control Central]]
* [[Project:Bookworm Crash]]
* [[Transformers Wiki talk:Community Portal/Leaving2|Leaving Take 2]]
<br/><div class="list-header">'''Server Move:'''</div>
* [[Transformers Wiki talk:Community Portal/Arriving2|Arriving Take 2]]
<br/><div class="list-header">'''Relicensing:'''</div>
* [[Transformers Wiki talk:Community Portal/Relicensing|Relicensing]]
<br/><div class="list-header">'''Dealing With Vandalism:'''</div>
* [[Transformers Wiki talk:Community Portal/Vandalism|Vandalism]]
<br/><div class="list-header">'''GoBots Sister Wiki:'''</div>
* [[Transformers Wiki talk:Community Portal/GoBots|Discussion on the place of GoBots in this wiki]]
<br/> <div class="list-header">'''Wiki Technical Information:'''</div>
* [[Transformers Wiki:Tech|A Not So Brief Summary of the Horrible Things That McFly and Co. Have Done To Keep This Wiki From Melting Down]]
}}<br/>

{{:{{FULLPAGENAMEE}}/Archive}}


== Press release or logo for 30,000 articles? ==
Is it worth putting something together as we get very very close? Maybe something like:
* 3 from Thrilling 30 logo
* 0 from the 40th logo
* 0 from the Vector Sigma "Featured" logo
* 0 from the cosmic-streaking O in the TFTM opener
* 0 from GO!

Just a suggestion.... --[[User:Thylacine 2000|Thylacine 2000]] ([[User talk:Thylacine 2000|talk]]) 13:45, 10 November 2023 (EST)
:If we wanted to go down that route, maybe tie into some of the contemporary material? Say, the "O"s from [[Energon Universe]] or [[Transformers: Legacy#Legacy: Evolution|Evolution]]? (Though the latter isn't exactly straight-on...) --[[User:Broadside|Broadside]] ([[User talk:Broadside|talk]]) 14:38, 10 November 2023 (EST)
::Sure! I lean towards the Energon Universe choice. --[[User:Thylacine 2000|Thylacine 2000]] ([[User talk:Thylacine 2000|talk]]) 15:48, 10 November 2023 (EST)
:Apologies, I've corrected the count on the main page as it was inaccurate, so we're not as close as it looked like we were. --[[User:Abates|abates]] ([[User talk:Abates|talk]]) 16:20, 10 November 2023 (EST)
::That just means we have more time to decide and, if so, pull things together. :) -- [[User:Cyberlink420|Cyberlink420]] ([[User talk:Cyberlink420|talk]]) 16:51, 10 November 2023 (EST)
:::Feels like we just leapt up 40 new articles in the last 2-3 days. Is it worth putting a graphic together? --[[User:Thylacine 2000|Thylacine 2000]] ([[User talk:Thylacine 2000|talk]]) 22:47, 18 January 2024 (EST)

=="Multi-pack" vs "gift set" and suchlike==
Incoming semantics, but... as I've been going through the toy entries, been trying to standardize/streamline a lot of stuff, and I think maybe a set of consistent terms/definitions for "a bunch of separate toys packed together" is in order. So lemme throw this out here for discussion/future reference...
*'''Multi-pack''' — A pack of toys where the contents (or at least most/some/any of them) are exclusive to this release, not sold in other packaging. Most multi-toy releases nowadays would fall under this umbrella by default.
*'''Gift set''' — A pack of toys where all of the contents are/were concurrently (or close enough) sold individually as well, without changes, in the same market. Like all the various G1 combiner sets.
The latter brings up the question of if we want to label all the Takara "VS" packs and the various UT-era "VALUE PACK!" sets under that umbrella, which I'm ambivalent-to-marginally-in-favor-of over. Especially as Takara's been putting out new "VS" packs where the toys are new decos not available elsewhere... also we kinda made up the "VS pack" term anyway, as memory serves, so. --[[User:M Sipher|M Sipher]] ([[User talk:M Sipher|talk]]) 20:15, 8 January 2024 (EST)
:Hasbro has used the word "[[Giftset]]" to refer to unique variants not available separately. I'm inclined to think we shouldn't directly contradict that. --[[User:Thylacine 2000|Thylacine 2000]] ([[User talk:Thylacine 2000|talk]]) 21:21, 8 January 2024 (EST)
::and damn but does that article need updating. --[[User:Thylacine 2000|Thylacine 2000]] ([[User talk:Thylacine 2000|talk]]) 21:22, 8 January 2024 (EST)
:::I'm inclined to think that Hasbro uses lots of terms in ways that are not exactly conducive to organizing a wiki. --[[User:M Sipher|M Sipher]] ([[User talk:M Sipher|talk]]) 21:29, 8 January 2024 (EST)

==More bullet point insignia?==
Okay so... I recall there were some other possible faction symbol bullet points we could maybe use. I ran across a few with this batch of toy pics we might consider adding. I'll list them here, see if people can think of more. I feel like there might be a couple more two-faction matchups out there.
* Rescue Bots
* The various BotBots squads
* My First Transformers

I'm not un-convinced that we should have the bespoke insignia for stuff like the Disney Label, since they do use them on the packaging. So uh... there. --[[User:M Sipher|M Sipher]] ([[User talk:M Sipher|talk]]) 01:51, 13 January 2024 (EST)
:Also, while looking at the list of all the bullets on the template page... maybe we should see if we can split the list up a smidge? Like, put all the mutli-faction icons in one section, a section just for BotBots since there's gonna be quite a few of them? Alphabetizing them might also be in order. (I have exactly zero idea how those templates are coded, so uh, lemme know if that's doable.) --[[User:M Sipher|M Sipher]] ([[User talk:M Sipher|talk]]) 04:42, 13 January 2024 (EST)
::There's also the [[Star Wars Transformers]]... though I'm not sure if using ''Star Wars'' insignia falls too much out of this wiki's scope, although we do use at least use them on the actual characters' pages (see [[Darth Vader]]). [[User:Turborun|Turborun]] ([[User talk:Turborun|talk]]) 10:34, 13 January 2024 (EST)
:::I don't think we'd use SW insignia because, near as I can tell, the toy packaging doesn't mark the toys that way. --[[User:M Sipher|M Sipher]] ([[User talk:M Sipher|talk]]) 05:27, 14 January 2024 (EST)

== Idea for reducing the size of toy sections by compacting unchanged toy entries ==

I've come up with an idea that I think would make toy sections on character pages a little better and more intuitive. Instead of having a long list of entries for multiple releases of the exact same toy completely unchanged, we could just compact them all in a single entry, describing how the toy was available both individually and unchanged in a bunch of multipacks. This could be especially helpful with toy sections that are way too long, such as both the Movie Optimus Prime and Bumblebee toy pages that have been subject to a lot of discussion already.

[[User:Fritz/Optimus Prime (Movie)/toys|I used the 2007 Legends Class section of the Movie Optimus Prime toy page to make a quick example out of it.]] The entries would be reduced from four to two toys, since 3/4 of them are the same toy anyway, and a lot of white space would be removed. As for the images of the multipacks, I don't think we would be losing much in removing them since the wiki has never prioritized images of packagings for anything really and, as I know is written somewhere in the "rules", the wiki isn't supposed to be used as an image hosting website in the first place.

So, any thoughts? --[[User:Fritz|Fritz]] ([[User talk:Fritz|talk]]) 20:18, 20 January 2024 (EST)
: We used to do this and it was actually kind of worse. There's also complications when unchanged toys end up being sold under different franchise headers, and when you add in all the other bullet point data a toy/set might have, you could end up with a lonnnnng list of bullet points before you get to the actual writeup, plus describing the multi-packs' contents... you're not really saving space while also kinda hurting the demi-chronological flow of the information. And deleting the multi-pack package imagery feels very wrong. It's one of those cases where there's no real ideal situation, but there's a least-bad one.
:That said, it probably wouldn't be a bad idea to make sure the first entry mentions these "repacks" alongside the redecoes and links to the relevant items. --[[User:M Sipher|M Sipher]] ([[User talk:M Sipher|talk]]) 21:34, 21 January 2024 (EST)
::Good points, as usual. Now that you mentioned it, I think I do have a vague memory of this being done in the past. I was going to suggest the repacks from different toylines should remain separate, though. My mentality was that maybe we could have a way to highlight the "main" releases (original and redecoes/retools) from the "minor" ones (unchanged repacks) to make it easier to identify in a glance how many actually-different toys were released within a toyline, but I wouldn't want it to cause ''more'' confusion than ''less''. Anyway thanks for taking the time to evaluate the idea. --[[User:Fritz|Fritz]] ([[User talk:Fritz|talk]]) 05:54, 22 January 2024 (EST)

==Repurposings, continuity transplants, and using Template:Main/Template:See to improve navigability==
I've gone back to the drawing board to come up with a way to signal to readers where closely-related pages exist, as I don't think [[Help:Disambiguation|disambiguation]] pages are enough and have found [[Template:OtherVersions]] to be unideal. [[Transformers Wiki talk:Community Portal/Archive70#Proposal re: G1 pages|Previously]], I'd suggested merging a bunch of pages for so-called "[[Continuity family|continuity]] transplants", but other users convinced me this would be a poor solution. One alternative suggestion, from [[User:Broadside]], was to use [[Template:Main]] to put key links to a character's appearances in other continuity families directly in the fiction section—[[Transformers Wiki talk:Community Portal/Archive70#Handling of "former GoBots" and "former Diaclone" characters on the wiki|reactions at the time]] were neutral-positive. You can see mockups for [[User:Broadside/Sandbox:Cy-Kill|Cy-Kill]] and [[User:Broadside/Sandbox:Bug Bite|Bug Bite]]. This strikes me as the best of both worlds, because it keeps the consistent schema (which helps for page length and organisation) but also puts a link to the information in the place where your typical reader is expecting to find it (on the page for the highest-profile first incarnation of the character).

With the same philosophy in mind, I've also designed two new templates. The first, [[Template:Toyappeared]], is intended for use in toy write-ups as a way of linking to fiction write-ups and character pages. It covers [[repurposing]]s, "continuity transplants", notable instances of [[Show-accuracy|toy-accuracy]], in-fiction [[Reformatting|powerups]], [[Redeco#"Virtual" redecos|"virtual" redecos]], you name it. Toy write-ups are increasingly being duplicated across multiple character pages, which creates maintenance overhead, as both instances must be manually kept in sync. My suggestion is to use [[Template:See]] to link to the full information regarding a toy on the original page, with the repurposed instance giving only brief information of what the toy is and ''why'' it was repurposed or whatever. The second of my new templates has a much more specific intended use case: [[Template:Bwucharacter]] provides an easy way of explaining how/why a character was reinterpreted for their ''Uprising'' appearance, as ''Uprising'' accounts for most of the situations I view as being problematic.

I realise I'm proposing like five things at once here, so [[User:The Wadapan/sandbox/repurposing|my sandbox]] has [[User:The Wadapan/sandbox/repurposing#Full example|a full example]] demonstrating how it all works together, along with tons of individual examples of the templates' usage and a more thorough explanation of what I'm trying to address with them. Take a look, and let me know which aspects you like, which parts you don't like, or any ideas you have to add! —[[User:The Wadapan|The Wadapan]] ([[User talk:The Wadapan|talk]]) 06:24, 12 February 2024 (EST)
:I can vouch for these templates! [[User:ShootingStar7X|ShootingStar7X]] ([[User talk:ShootingStar7X|talk]]) 15:38, 26 February 2024 (EST)
: I'm seeing a lot of problems with the implementation of some of this, and a lot of future headaches. The ones rolled out put what look like stub headers in a fiction section with just a small normal missable note up top; and in Override's case in specific, multiple stubs with completely redundant information. What this is ''going'' to do is get new people thinking that these are missing information that needs to be filled, then we gotta revert it and tell them no all that goes elsewhere, which is utterly unintuitive and will just lead to arguments and headaches all around.
: As for toys, in the instances of BWU-type stuff where it's a one-toy Mini-Con or whatever, I feel like NOT having the actual toy info for them on the BWU page, as with the Mini-Con Snow Cat toy currently, is not doing the reader any favors. Quite the opposite. Why are we making them jump to a different page for information that has no reason to not be right there? I don't like making readers jump through hoops needlessly, and that's all this feels like. And it's not like the toy sections of most of these are gonna see major changes, so lack of cross-updating is very, very, very unlikely to be an issue.
: I really don't think these require new templates and a bunch of new-editor landmines. At most, there's a decent argument to be made for re-positioning the "you look familiar" template that already exists, maybe below the main character writeup (above feels like a bad layout choice, pushing all kinds of stuff down.) --[[User:M Sipher|M Sipher]] ([[User talk:M Sipher|talk]]) 02:11, 28 February 2024 (EST)

== Listings and accessories ==

When I was making the description for cannonball based on the Walmart listing, there was mention of a Gatling gun and hammer not shown in the stock images,and left them out.

If I run into this type of situation again, what do I do?[[User:Poliwag06|Poliwag06]] ([[User talk:Poliwag06|talk]]) 10:56, 7 March 2024 (EST)

== A few suggestions ==

Gallery pages should only include images that aren't easily accessed by going to the main page, to avoid cluttering. I guess this is not an issue now since the current gallery pages are fairly short.

There should be more dedication in listing alt-modes of characters. Maybe there should be a header or something. For example, if the Dreamwave version of [[Sunstorm (G1)#Dreamwave Generation One continuity|Sunstorm]] transforms into an F-16 jet, it should be listed in the beginning with a header for the sake of easy access to the said information.--[[User:Primestar3|Primestar3]] ([[User talk:Primestar3|talk]]) 13:59, 17 March 2024 (EDT)

== Will we get an article on The Masked Singer? ==

Will there be an article on TFWiki about The Masked Singer, specifically their recent "Transformers Night" episode (https://the-masked-singer.fandom.com/wiki/Transformers_Night)? --[[User:John Pannozzi|John Pannozzi]] ([[User talk:John Pannozzi|talk]]) 20:01, 12 April 2024 (EDT)

: Assuming it's a licensed appearance (I can't check the credits myself :C ), I can't think why it wouldn't be [[User:AkibaSilver|AkibaSilver]] ([[User talk:AkibaSilver|talk]]) 21:15, 12 April 2024 (EDT)

:: It was indeed licensed. --[[User:John Pannozzi|John Pannozzi]] ([[User talk:John Pannozzi|talk]]) 22:30, 12 April 2024 (EDT)
:::Yes, as an official Hasbro-sanctioned piece of TF media, the episode does meet our requirements for inclusion. It just needs someone to write it up. -- [[User:Cyberlink420|Cyberlink420]] ([[User talk:Cyberlink420|talk]]) 23:22, 12 April 2024 (EDT)

== Franchise articles ==
So I was looking at the franchise pages to try and get an idea of what the standard is supposed to be for how they are written. Should all of them be updated to be more like the [[Beast Wars: Transformers (franchise)]] article? What was making me wonder this was that on the [[Transformers: Energon (franchise)]] article it had a section for "Homages" and one for "New characters" which I don't think any other franchise article has. --[[User:1levichurch|1levichurch]] ([[User talk:1levichurch||talk]]) 22:57, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

== AI upscaled images ==
With fresh offsite talks about the matter, I put forth we add an official policy against posting AI upscaled images of any kind to the wiki, owing to their subpar performance in "enhancing" the quality of images. [[User:McBaggins|McBaggins]] ([[User talk:McBaggins|talk]]) 23:52, 1 May 2024 (EDT)
:Agreed. It's literally faking information and presenting it as official. (Also often noticeably terrible.) Sometimes the best quality available of something sucks, but we simply have to deal. [[User:Saix|Saix]] ([[User talk:Saix|talk]]) 23:57, 1 May 2024 (EDT)
::100 percent agreed. It's called "artificial" for a reason. Plenty of details would be lost out through the upscaling, and several times errors on the wiki somehow became official through Hastak using the wiki for references (the whole [[Circular reporting]] thing). If we start allowing AI upscaled images, then we're likely to have things lost to the annals of time. Potato quality is better than lost quality[[User:Singularity|Singularity]] ([[User talk:Singularity|talk]]) 00:11, 2 May 2024 (EDT)
: Sure. --[[User:M Sipher|M Sipher]] ([[User talk:M Sipher|talk]]) 00:43, 2 May 2024 (EDT)

== Ending addition of high-end statues ==
This is something I doubt other people have noticed, but I'm putting down a tent-peg on it: After having built the entries for dozens of high-end collectable TF statues in the last 2-3 years, from firms like Diamond Select, Imaginarium, Azure Sea, XM Studios, etc., and then seeing most of them either officially cancelled or never spoken of again with no reported purchases, I am going to stop adding such items here. If someone else feels like cataloguing them, great.

It really may not be possible for us to keep up with toy-like non-transforming merchandise (figurines and statues) the way we used to. There are at least two ''released'' series of G1 core cast micro-figurines with micro-comics and magnifying glasses, which would have been the rage of the fandom in 2005, that nobody ever got around to adding, and it feels like too much of a chore for me to start. --[[User:Thylacine 2000|Thylacine 2000]] ([[User talk:Thylacine 2000|talk]]) 10:35, 3 May 2024 (EDT)
: It's an unfortunate but very real thing that once you enter the world of licensed merch, we're ''gonna'' have big gaps. It's... a lot, on top of the "a lot" that is the regular TF toyline and fictional output today. I've said that the work involved in keeping up with all of TF's merch ought to be a full-time paying job, and I genuinely mean it. --[[User:M Sipher|M Sipher]] ([[User talk:M Sipher|talk]]) 16:39, 3 May 2024 (EDT)

== Transformers Roleplaying Game releases on the front page and sidebar ==

The [[Transformers Roleplaying Game]] is getting pretty frequent releases of both sourcebooks and pre-written adventures, and it occurs to me that it might be a good idea to have it on the "current releases" section of the front page and/or the navigation sidebar. How would people feel about that? --[[User:Broadside|Broadside]] ([[User talk:Broadside|talk]]) 15:49, 4 May 2024 (EDT)
: I think that makes a lot of sense, as long as we have people keeping up with the new releases to document them. -- [[User:Cyberlink420|Cyberlink420]] ([[User talk:Cyberlink420|talk]]) 15:51, 4 May 2024 (EDT)

==How we handle weapons' toy/merch sections==
Okay, so like... I'm not really convinced that what we've been doing is the best way to handle the weapon pages' toys/merch sections. Honestly, they end up looking... really shoddy. There's just tiny scraps of info, vast wads of whitespace, few to no links, the images are tons of different sizes. <br>
I'm thinking that instead of all this... maybe this is a place where a gallery is in order, just a chronological procession. Have the captions just say what lines/toys the weapons came with and link to the toys directly on the character page. It's not like there's much to say about any of these, why not let the toy listing on the character page say it? Why make people scroll through screens of mostly-emptiness, which I feel they're increasingly unlikely to do? I may do a sandbox if I'm feeling up to it. --[[User:M Sipher|M Sipher]] ([[User talk:M Sipher|talk]]) 22:24, 6 May 2024 (EDT)
:[[User:M Sipher/Sandbox:WeaponPageToysSection]] - So... this, basically. --[[User:M Sipher|M Sipher]] ([[User talk:M Sipher|talk]]) 22:39, 6 May 2024 (EDT)
:I'd be on board with that. --[[User:Broadside|Broadside]] ([[User talk:Broadside|talk]]) 22:34, 6 May 2024 (EDT)
:I like it. It would be far more compact than our current approach for, say, [[Fusion cannon#Toys]], while still getting the point across. --[[User:Thylacine 2000|Thylacine 2000]] ([[User talk:Thylacine 2000|talk]]) 11:13, 10 May 2024 (EDT)

==Proposal for Unproduced or Unreleased Template==
I don't think the Apocrypha template is particularly useful. It was created specifically for Alignment, but most of the things in it don't fit that criteria. Something like Unproduced or Unreleased Transformer media would be more self explanatory. [[User:WillR113|WillR113]] ([[User talk:WillR113|talk]]) 07:05, 11 May 2024 (EDT)

== Use of pictures from ebay, fan sites, etc ==

Is it appropriate to use pictures of toys from ebay, fan reviews, video review screenshots and the like? Under fair use and with source credit? Sometimes rarer items we don't have good pictures of on the wiki show up in these places. In particular I found a ebay seller with good images of EZ collection toys and and old Japanese review blog with images of Takara variants of HFTD/Autobot Alliance toys so that got me wondering. —[[User:BluJayWarrior|BluJayWarrior]] ([[User talk:BluJayWarrior|talk]]) 10:10, 12 May 2024 (EDT)
:Images from eBay and other fan sites have been and can continue to be used, giving the fullest source credit feasible. I don't think we've ever needed to rely on video review screenshots and would always prefer to have a "normal" still image instead whenever possible. --[[User:Thylacine 2000|Thylacine 2000]] ([[User talk:Thylacine 2000|talk]]) 11:02, 16 May 2024 (EDT)

== ''Fight! Super Robot Lifeform Transformers'' “再構成版” エピソード視聴ガイド "Re-Configuration Version" aka "Re-Constructed Version" Episode Viewing Guide ==

We really need to document the "canon" Japanese viewing order for ''Fight! Super Robot Lifeform Transformers'' & ''Fight! Super Robot Lifeform Transformers 2010'' originally included with the ''Pioneer'' Laserdisc booklets & later apparently revised by [[Hirofumi Ichikawa]] (市川裕文) for the DVD BOX SET 2 Instruction Booklet as it would help clean-up the chronology on many wiki pages here. From what I've been able to gather this particular viewing order differs from both the US/Japan production orders, the US-Airing order and the Japanese-Airing order. So what exactly is the order of the episodes of these two series according to these documents? Does anyone own them and able to list the specific order in which the episodes appear in those LD/DVD "Instruction Booklets" word-for-word? As it stands, we've only mentioned that a "narrative viewing order" exists but do not have it listed anywhere. For further clarification, it is not the order in which the episodes appear on the Japanese DVDs. [[User:Astrobotix|Astrobotix]] ([[User talk:Astrobotix|talk]]) 01:09, 15 May 2024 (EDT)
:While this information would be valuable and is worth documenting, it's unlikely to result in us making any major changes to the way our information is structured. -- [[User:Cyberlink420|Cyberlink420]] ([[User talk:Cyberlink420|talk]]) 17:31, 16 May 2024 (EDT)
:Okay, having seen the booklets in question, it just lists the episodes in production order, continuity errors and all. So...absolutely no change, then. -- [[User:Cyberlink420|Cyberlink420]] ([[User talk:Cyberlink420|talk]]) 20:44, 17 May 2024 (EDT)

== Documenting MSRP? ==

Would it be worth documenting MSRP prices (in usd at least)? For the regular retail classes that's for the most part covered by the [[size class]] page, but we don't keep track of them for more specialty items like Masterpieces, multipacks, exclusives, one-off releases not in a normal size class, special lines like Missing Link, etc. It's something I find personally interesting and would've liked to know for older figures and someone in the future might want to know about today's releases. It can also offer some neat bits of info like how Premium Finish releases were generally one price point up compared to the figure's size or how the upcoming United Cliffjumper multipack is a whole $30 off what the individual figures would cost --[[User:BluJayWarrior|BluJayWarrior]] ([[User talk:BluJayWarrior|talk]]) 14:20, 21 May 2024 (EDT)
:I think this would be very interesting, particularly when you scroll down pages for G1 toys that got multiple reissues like the Seekers, Insecticons, and tape players. It's just that - like the Designer Notes and the proper insignias on each and every toy - it would take forever to add and would probably wind up being one super-dedicated person having to do most of the work. --[[User:Thylacine 2000|Thylacine 2000]] ([[User talk:Thylacine 2000|talk]]) 14:28, 21 May 2024 (EDT)
::I might try to do what I can, going back to recatalogue everything would definitely be a chore. But at the very least I strongly believe it's something we can and should implement for future toy entries. I've started a [[User:BluJayWarrior/Sandbox|MSRP Sandbox]] to try out a few formats, any feedback is appreciated. --[[User:BluJayWarrior|BluJayWarrior]] ([[User talk:BluJayWarrior|talk]]) 05:18, 23 May 2024 (EDT)
::Cleaned up the sandbox page. Anyone have anything to say about the format? Might try applying Style 1 to a few pages this weekend if no one makes any objections. [[User:BluJayWarrior|BluJayWarrior]] ([[User talk:BluJayWarrior|talk]]) 12:58, 24 May 2024 (EDT)
:::Of those options I like Style 1 the best. As you already noted, the [[size class]] pages covers basically all normal U.S. retail from BW through Legacy, missing things like Platinum and MP. To find contemporary G1 prices, here are some good resources:
:::https://web.archive.org/web/20181125082555/https://pleasesavemerobots.com/vstp/vstptf84.html
:::https://web.archive.org/web/20191114081109/http://pleasesavemerobots.com/vstp/vstptf85.html
:::https://web.archive.org/web/20191114091052/http://pleasesavemerobots.com/vstp/vstptf86.html
:::https://web.archive.org/web/20191114090836/http://pleasesavemerobots.com/vstp/vstptf87.html
:::https://web.archive.org/web/20191114084922/http://pleasesavemerobots.com/vstp/vstptf88.html
:::https://web.archive.org/web/20191114081716/http://pleasesavemerobots.com/vstp/vstptf89.html
:::https://web.archive.org/web/20191114085830/http://pleasesavemerobots.com/vstp/vstptf90.html
:::https://www.tfw2005.com/boards/threads/g1-original-retail-price-listing.1167895/
:::I tried looking for G2 MSRP but couldn't find anything as obvious. --[[User:Thylacine 2000|Thylacine 2000]] ([[User talk:Thylacine 2000|talk]]) 13:24, 24 May 2024 (EDT)
::::Thanks for the sources, gonna have to sort through that later. Planning to start with new ROTB characters since they're smaller pages and prices can still be found. I've decided to add prices for retail classes for reader convenience; not everyone will know to go to the size class page for them and its not linked often enough to make it reasonable they would. [[User:BluJayWarrior|BluJayWarrior]] ([[User talk:BluJayWarrior|talk]]) 14:22, 24 May 2024 (EDT)

: I'd been working on a project like this a long time ago, had originally proposed adding this to the wiki, but then kinda stopped... mostly because near as I could tell, the MSRP in the 80s was something retailers could just make the hell up. The price ranges for any given toy were kinda all over the damn place, and the MSRP was something some retailers used to go "no really we're cheaper SEE?" then make up some price they supposedly "discounted" down from... you know, the thing that got Kay-Bee in legal-type troubles. I was increasingly unsure how to handle that wild price variance concisely on the wiki. In fact...
::https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1PBE2i9vLE6fkr933GQbXosA1cxIqB3CkOSnzW0BMdwc/edit#gid=448439989
: Take a look-see. There's at least three different MSRP values for the standard Headmasters, never mind actual sticker prices. Like, I ''want'' to provide this kind of context, I really do, and it's pretty easy once we get to the unified price points of BW on... but for G1 and G2? Woof. That's going to take a bit of mulling. "Average" price maybe, but there's gonna be some Prices Georg here and there throwing shit off. --[[User:M Sipher|M Sipher]] ([[User talk:M Sipher|talk]]) 16:35, 24 May 2024 (EDT)
::RE: The sandbox... I'm gonna have to vote against Style 1, because, as noted, price info is very likely going to get... cluttered, and the longer that parenthetical is, the worse it is. I'd REALLY like to keep that to just "size class/type (if not obvious) and release year". And don't forget Takara-release prices, which can be more flexible even within a size class... but at least those have been ''extensively'' documented. I think we need to talk about bit more about everything we'd need to cover and ''how'' before we go implementing anything, and get a few more people in on the discussion. (Sorry for all the add-ons, lightly scattered today.) --[[User:M Sipher|M Sipher]] ([[User talk:M Sipher|talk]]) 18:18, 24 May 2024 (EDT)
:::Fair enough on the old stuff since that gets convoluted, but the newer stuff is comparatively easier to do and I'd rather start sooner before some MSRP prices get harder to find (ROTB Autobots Unite subline prices seem to have disappeared already). Added the ROTB Airazor page I was gonna start with to the sandbox so you can see how the page might look as a whole. Since you object to Style 1 I added a Style 2 version too. --[[User:BluJayWarrior|BluJayWarrior]] ([[User talk:BluJayWarrior|talk]]) 18:38, 24 May 2024 (EDT)
:::: Assemble the data, sure, but I am going to say do ''not'' actually apply any of this to live articles. Again, there's barely been any time or discussion on a project that is... vast in scope, and we simply do not jump on stuff like this right away, because that means things will get not considered and then we have to re-do hundreds to thousands of pages... and we absolutely do ''not'' do it when there's a giant obvious gap (the first decade of the franchise) that still needs to be considered, as how we handle ''that'' will affect how we handle all the others, because we try and keep things consistent.
:::: Like, just off the top of my head, there's non-US-or-Japan markets to consider for just about everything normal-retail. Which makes me think we may want to look into a collapsible template, like with the toy designers and voice actors, to handle the other markets without overloading the bullet point sections, some of which are already a bit husky. There's the fact that Walmart and Target just dropped the prices on TF Deluxes in the US... but apparently, Hasbro didn't change their "MSRP"/cost at all. In fact a quick jump to Hasbro Pulse shows they're still charging $25 for a ''Legacy/Studio'' Deluxe, while I can pop to the local Target/Walmart and buy 'em at $20, so we gotta consider ranges just like with G1/G2. And again... ''I'm moderately convinced that "MSRP" in the USA was bullshit all along,'' so I don't know that it's the term we even want to use in the first place. Maybe "Retail price" would be better. --[[User:M Sipher|M Sipher]] ([[User talk:M Sipher|talk]]) 00:17, 25 May 2024 (EDT)
:::::I think just documenting the MSRP, if we know it, is enough. No need to go down the rabbit hole of tracking down what individual retailers sell them at when they disregard the MSRP (which as, after all, only a suggested price). In my opinion, at least, it's little different from listing the cover prices of books - the only difference is that Hasbro doesn't print their suggested price directly on the box.
:::::Totally hear you on waiting to the pull the trigger until it's been properly discussed, though. Also, I prefer BluJay's Style 2 as well. -- [[User:Dark T Zeratul|Dark T Zeratul]] ([[User talk:Dark T Zeratul|talk]]) 03:46, 25 May 2024 (EDT)
:::::: Um, the problem is, again... I really don't think we HAVE any actual MSRPs outside of Takara's. What's been cataloged here are just "prices they were sold at", which isn't ''specifically'' a Manufacturer's Suggested Retail Price, the specific price suggested specifically by the manufacturer. Those we'd need a source for, and as I've pointed out, the handful of stated "MSRP"s we've seen for Hasbro stuff... well, someone was lying, likely multiple someones. For BW on we have a pretty strong ''inference'' of MSRP, but, well. And even that's not reliable... I just remembered that Walmart and Target were charging markedly different prices for the ''EarthSpark'' Tacticons, like, a $2 diff.
:::::: What I'm saying is, we might want to just not call it "MSRP" because of that (also, frankly I question how many people even recognize that acronym). And because of the wide variance in prices for older stuff, no, we don't need to list every price at every retailer (there were a billion retailers in the 80s... man, remember when actual competition in the market was a thing?), but we really OUGHT to account for the variance somehow, because it can be wide and ''full''. "''Original price''" might be best, since that's what we're actually reporting here, with something like "$2.99 - $4.99 (US) / ¥500 (Japan) <expand>". I'd rather do a range than a single-price "average" on old stuff, especially when we have so MUCH data on what these were sold at across the nation that we can see the trends and when a particularly high or low price is an outlier adn should not have been counted. "Modern" stuff we can certainly ignore, say, Kohl's's higher prices and just do the average probable-MSRP-if-those-actually-exist prices most places (all two of them) charge. --[[User:M Sipher|M Sipher]] ([[User talk:M Sipher|talk]]) 17:10, 25 May 2024 (EDT)
::::Alright, I'll make a [[User:BluJayWarrior/MSRP Catalog|separate sub page]] to catalog prices for now while that gets sorted out
::::As Dark T said, I think prioritizing initial Hasbro MSRP is best as it is the "intended" price (this is what [https://brickset.com Brickset] does for Lego). It's a point of consistency since historically different retailers tend have slight variations on the price anyway (Target/Walmart sometimes being slightly lower, Kohls/BBTS being higher, general lag on reflecting the msrp price increases a few years ago, etc) and I don't think that whole range needs to be noted. Admittedly the current Target/Walmart prices drops are pretty unusual (a whole $5?!) but unless it becomes something more widespread I personally wouldn't consider it as a data point. Might be worth making a note of somewhere if anything, though I'm not sure where --[[User:BluJayWarrior|BluJayWarrior]] ([[User talk:BluJayWarrior|talk]]) 04:26, 25 May 2024 (EDT)

==Micronauts, etc.==
Why are we suddenly gaining detailed issue write-ups for so much of Micronauts, which contains no TF elements at all? Isn't that the point of the IDW Hasbroverse wiki? --[[User:Thylacine 2000|Thylacine 2000]] ([[User talk:Thylacine 2000|talk]]) 13:14, 1 August 2024 (EDT)
:Oh and look, now whole issues of M.A.S.K. written 7 years ago with no TF content whatsoever are being pasted from the Hasbroverse wiki. Is the other site going offline or something? --[[User:Thylacine 2000|Thylacine 2000]] ([[User talk:Thylacine 2000|talk]]) 14:26, 1 August 2024 (EDT)
::I don't think it was really our intention to formally unveil the project until we were further along, but some of us have been doing a fair bit of work towards creating a [https://gijoe.miraheze.org/wiki/Main_Page sister wiki for ''G.I. Joe''] where the [https://gijoe.miraheze.org/wiki/Comics#IDW_Publishing_3 out-of-scope IDW Joe coverage] has already been re-homed. The Joe crew hasn't made any calls about what do with non-Joe stuff to be clear (we're sort of preoccupied, there's so much Joe you guys) but I'm guessing the idea here is to align the rest with our [[Transformers Wiki talk:Community Portal/Archive71#Energon Universe coverage|current approach]] to [[Energon Universe|Skybound's shared universe]] and sundown the IDW one? --[[User:AzimuthAcolyte|AzimuthAcolyte]] ([[User talk:AzimuthAcolyte|talk]]) 15:43, 1 August 2024 (EDT)
:::That is more or less the intention, yeah. The Hasbroverse wiki was built at a time where it was perhaps anticipated to be grander than it ended up being, and it wasn't certain how long it was going to run; with the end result being "not very", having this other vestigial site for what is ultimately not a lot of content just doesn't feel practical. The exception, of course, is pre-V5 Joe, which has ''always'' been the sticking point in discussions about moving Hasbroverse content here, both for the amount and for how little it has to do with the IDW Transformers line. Having a dedicated Joe wiki solves that problem and frees up the rest of the Hasbroverse stuff to be reintegrated. Plus, there's still new Joe material being released to this day; arguably having a complete and better curated site for the franchise as a whole that continues to be updated with new releases is more likely to drive traffic and get other people to contribute than it would be linking to a dead wiki for a long-ended comic line that's had the same featured articles for five years because no one cares to add anything to it anymore. -- [[User:Cyberlink420|Cyberlink420]] ([[User talk:Cyberlink420|talk]]) 15:59, 1 August 2024 (EDT)
::::It does look like a rough consensus was reached to do this back in 2021 ([[Transformers_Wiki_talk:Community_Portal/Archive69#Reintegration_of_Hasbroverse_wiki_content|Archive 69]]), it was just never implemented. --[[User:Xaaron|Xaaron]] ([[User talk:Xaaron|talk]]) 16:10, 1 August 2024 (EDT)
::Like half of MASK issues have something from Transformers in them. Picking and choosing which select issues to cover here is hair-splitting and obnoxious for readers. It's immensely better to just have all the information in one, easily-accessible spot and regard Hasbro Universe as a de facto spinoff of Transformers, much like Beastformers and Energon Universe are. [[User:Saix|Saix]] ([[User talk:Saix|talk]]) 17:10, 1 August 2024 (EDT)

==One spoilers==
I propose that information about this movie be withheld until it actually opens in its largest market next weekend. --[[User:Thylacine 2000|Thylacine 2000]] ([[User talk:Thylacine 2000|talk]]) 11:04, 14 September 2024 (EDT)
: Agreed. [[User:Locoman|Locoman]] ([[User talk:Locoman|talk]]) 11:08, 14 September 2024 (EDT)

==Transformers One and the conversation we've all been waiting for==

On September 12th, Lorenzo di Bonaventura [https://comicbook.com/movies/news/is-transformers-one-a-prequel-optimus-prime-origin-story-exclusive/ clarified the relationship] between ''Transformers One'' and the live-action ''Transformers'' films, describing them as "two universes" that will be "separate". For some, this kind of explicit confirmation may come as a relief after years of wishy-washy answers regarding ''Bumblebee'' and ''Rise of the Beasts'', but it also leaves us with questions on how to best handle ''One''-related information going forward. Around 2015, we adopted a unique layout we applied to all the movie characters, where we organized their movie appearances at the top of the page, regardless of chronological order of release (see "[[Optimus Prime (Movie)#Movies]]"). Obviously, this leads to some questions regarding how we should handle our ''One'' coverage going forward.

The way I see it, we have three options:

* '''Keep the page format as is, and keep''' '''''One''''' '''up with the rest of the movies''': For obvious reasons I think this is probably our weakest possible solution; it's pretty clear at this point that our current solution for classifying the films is not really sustainable, and mashing them all together under a single loosely-affiliated umbrella is already confusing and frustrating people who aren't intimately acquainted with the mechanics of the wiki.

* '''Reorganize movie character pages so that we acknowledge the live-action films and''' '''''One''''' '''as separate continuities within one continuity family, similar to how our G1 pages cover Sunbow, Marvel, JG1, IDW, etc.''': Historically speaking, this is probably the safest option, but from what I understand there is very little "connective tissue"—visually, character-wise, plot-beats—between the live-action films and ''One'' beyond the inertia of "they were both made by Paramount". As some people have discussed in the past, this could lead to a full or partial reformat of our movie character coverage to more clearly reflect the ambiguous "prequel" status of ''Bumblebee'' and ''Rise of the Beasts'', but this may be a conversation for another time.

* '''Separate''' '''''One''''' '''as an entirely new continuity family and split out the relevant information so we have pages for "Optimus Prime (One)", "Megatron (One)", etc.''' Probably the most radical proposal, but this is honestly where I'm at right now: from what I understand the movie is a pretty radical departure from everything that's gone before, with entirely new interpretations of old ''Transformers'' lore—I'd classify it as the start of a new "franchise" in the same way that we distinguish ''Earthspark'' and ''Cyberverse'' despite them both clearly drawing on the same well of post-Aligned lore, and these days "new franchise" is generally synonymous with "new continuity family" for the ease of wiki bookkeeping.

We would appreciate hearing your thoughts on the matter! '''As the film is not out yet in all regions please refrain from posting spoilers here'''. [[User:Locoman|Locoman]] ([[User talk:Locoman|talk]]) 08:56, 15 September 2024 (EDT)

:I could see option 3 being the way we go, but what holds me back from that is that beyond just Paramount, Spielberg and Bay are still executive producers on the film. [[User:Escargon|Escargon]] ([[User talk:Escargon|talk]]) 09:39, 15 September 2024 (EDT)

::I think we should put them on the Earthspark Continuity pages to satisfy no-one /j - but yeah, the film is drawing from the same vaguely Binder Of Revelation backstory as everything else for the last 10 years, and unless they have been hiding The Fallen twisting D-16 to evil or the twist that the Creators were the Quintessons all along, One feels pretty decoupled from the rest of the movies. The big issue I see with splitting out fully is that people wondering why we do not do the same for Bumblebee/ROTB, but that more easily passes a "vibe check" as being "Movie-adjacent" and belonging on the same page as the Bay 5-dom than One so far. Agree that trying to put them directly alongside the other movies as a prequel feels both unwieldy and confusing. [[User:AkibaSilver|AkibaSilver]] ([[User talk:AkibaSilver|talk]]) 09:41, 15 September 2024 (EDT)

:I vote for '''option 3''', I think creating separate pages is the way to go. [[User:MrRald|MrRald]] ([[User talk:MrRald|talk]]) 09:54, 15 September 2024 (EDT)
::I vote for '''option 2'''. To me the movie is different enough to be a separate universe but not an entirely different continuity. Josh Cooley himself on April 18 when asked whether the film is a fresh start, a prequel to the live-action films, or its own thing, replied with: "yes to all of the above" https://comicbook.com/movies/news/transformers-one-director-confirms-new-movies-canon-status. (And having seen the movie I can confirm those connections to the live-action series do exist). [[User:Grievous Prime|Grievous Prime]] ([[User talk:Grievous Prime|talk]]) 10:05, 15 September 2024 (EDT)

:I vote for '''option 3'''. One has always felt very different to the previous live action movies so I feel it should get its own dedicated pages. As for BB and ROTB, there is "connective tissue" to the Bayverse movies so I feel they can stay on the pre-existing movie pages. [[User:PublicCrown|PublicCrown]] ([[User talk:PublicCrown|talk]]) 10:25, 15 September 2024 (EDT)
:Having viewed the film at an advance screening, I think there are easily enough references and homages to previous films that '''option two''' makes the most sense. - [[User:Archforce|Archforce]] ([[User talk:Archforce|talk]]) 10:45, 15 September 2024 (EDT)

::I'm favorable for the '''3rd option''', it is still produced under Paramount & there are some producers attached to the project that were on previous movies, but my stance is that we should judge based on the final product & having seen the movie, it doesn't try to be in line to what came before (there are some similarities in design & names, but it stops there since every popular TF stories has influence over the next ones), helped by the new team of writers & creatives. If we can treat each new cartoon as its own entity (even tho in recent years they are streamlined in some areas), I think we can do the same for the recent movies that have more contradictory elements to the Bayverse –[[User:MahXyme|MahXyme/MahXymal]] ([[User talk:MahXyme|talk]]) 10:49, 15 September 2024 (EDT)
:'''<nowiki>#3</nowiki>''' is the cleanest option to me. [[User:Saix|Saix]] ([[User talk:Saix|talk]]) 11:32, 15 September 2024 (EDT)

:I think from a practical perspective, '''#3''' is the only real option. Looking at the loose guidelines for a new family on our [[continuity family]] page:
:*"a fresh continuity" — Yep, even Lorenzo's acknowledged this. Even if we questioned that, there's stuff like the AllSpark being absent (with the Matrix pretty much taking exactly the role the AllSpark would have), Megatronus being a good guy, and Sentinel's role being entirely irreconcilable with Dark of the Moon.
:*"within a separate franchise" — Yep. New franchise, and the marketing hasn't done anything to allude to the live-action films specifically.
:*"significantly different in cast, theme, style, etc." — This is the big sticking point for me. One makes no attempt to align with the visual style or characterisations of the live-action films. The sole real connective point is B-127 (name from ''Bumblebee'', he has the big cheeks and antenna of the movie guy, and his talking a lot is clearly a meta-gag about him losing his voice), but even he's characterised completely differently, as the "comedy crazy guy" who's a peer to Optimus and co instead of the cool-but-rude big brother figure from Bay/Bee/Beasts.
:I'm sympathetic to the Paramount/Bay/Spielberg/Di Bonaventura connective tissue, but my big rebuttal there is that we don't consider ''EarthSpark'' to be Aligned because Nicole Dubuc is the showrunner. Ultimately, if we hadn't had pre-release producer statements (now contradicted) calling it a prequel to the other movies, there's absolutely no way this would be in question — we'd already have it as a separate continuity family. And from a wiki organisation standpoint I don't think there's any way to, say, write up Sentinel Prime's opening paragraph in a way that adequately covers both the DOTM and One characters without genericising it to the point of uselessness. --[[User:Broadside|Broadside]] ([[User talk:Broadside|talk]]) 12:33, 15 September 2024 (EDT)
::Yeah, I think '''#3''' is straightforward and likely the approach we'd take if we were presented with the film, as a story, with zero context on the studio releasing it or EPs involved or whatever. I also think there's a high likelihood that the next live-action film will have Elita appear and be like "hey Optimus remember when we were in Transformers One?" and we'll all groan and have to reconsider, but until then, I think the real-world context is basically the only thing separating One from just being the next Broadly Aligned-y New Thing like Cyberverse and EarthSpark before it, which we consistently split out for organisation reasons. [[User:Jalaguy|Jalaguy]] ([[User talk:Jalaguy|talk]]) 13:45, 15 September 2024 (EDT)
:Toss me in for '''Option 3''' of an entirely new continuity given how ''different'' the story details has been laid out when compared to the original 2007 film-verse and then later what's set by ''Bumblebee''. --[[User:Lonegamer78|Lonegamer78]] ([[User talk:Lonegamer78|talk]]) 14:38, 15 September 2024 (EDT)
:Voting for '''option #2'''. While we would still have the outlier of TF:TAM 86 being a theatrically released movie in the G1 continuity family, I see no reason why "movie continuity family" would not only include transmedia spinoffs from feature films (''Reign of Starscream'', toy redeco Tech Specs, etc. etc.) but also feature films which are belonging different timelines and story universes. This would also free us from having to reconcile Movie 'Bee's history -- did he come to Earth in the 1940s or the 1980s? -- and put to bed *that* long running argument about whether the Bay-directed films were the same universe as BB and RotB or not -- now they don't have to be! [[User:Banpei the Mini-Con|Banpei the Mini-Con]] ([[User talk:Banpei the Mini-Con|talk]]) 14:58, 15 September 2024 (EDT)
:Having seen the movie, I think '''#3''' is our cleanest option. Between the Lorenzo interview and, without going into spoilers, the numerous discrepencies there are, I don't think we can get away with suiting it out ala G1. The time may come when we do that for Bumblebee onwards but as far as One goes, I say we treat it as a new continuity. [[User:Ezim93|Ezim93]] ([[User talk:Ezim93|talk]]) 19:53, 15 September 2024 (EDT)
:'''#3'''. #2 was close for me, but TFOne (having seen the movie) is so artistically different from the live action movies, it feels pointless to keep it on the same page like G1/IDW. Ironically, we could give Bayverse/BB&ROTB the G1/IDW treatment. [[User:Boingus|--Boingus]] ([[User talk:Boingus|talk]]) 23:23, 15 September 2024 (EDT)
:I think 3 is where I'm leaning after seeing the film. Keeping this as "movie continuity" simply because it was released theatrically doesn't make sense to me. We wouldn't do that with a new comic or show because it was the same medium, why do it for a movie just because of that? Yes There is some CNA here to the live action films, but it could be argued it has just as much pulled from G1. One is it's own thing in the end. Trying to fit it into the live action movie box just doesn't feel right in this case.--[[User:ParadoxFactor|ParadoxFactor]] ([[User talk:ParadoxFactor|talk]]) 05:47, 16 September 2024 (EDT)
:I vote for '''Option 3''' for all the reasons previously mentioned as well as size concerns. --[[User:Khajidha|Khajidha]] ([[User talk:Khajidha|talk]]) 09:29, 16 September 2024 (EDT)
:'''Option 3''', I believe the movie was clearly made with a new continuity in mind.-[[User:TitaniumToughGuy|TitaniumToughGuy]] ([[User talk:TitaniumToughGuy|talk]]) 09:38, 16 September 2024 (EDT)
===CHECKPOINT (2024/09/16)===
*Votes for Option 1: 1 (96megatron)
*Votes for Option 2: 3 (GrievousPrime, Archforce, Banpei the Mini-Con)
*Votes for Option 3: 15 (Locoman, AkibaSilver, MrRald, PublicCrown, MahXyme, Saix, Broadside, Jalaguy, Lonegamer, Ezim93, Boingus, ParadoxFactor, Khajidha, TitaniumToughGuy, CyberLink420)
As it stands, current consensus is pretty overwhelmingly in favor of Option 3 by a ratio of 5:1. I know it's only been a day, but barring a sudden swell of support for #2, it might be prudent to start switching everything over. -- [[User:Cyberlink420|Cyberlink420]] ([[User talk:Cyberlink420|talk]]) 10:20, 16 September 2024 (EDT)
: I'm reluctant to make actual changes until the movie hits wide release and the general public can make informed input. Give it a few more days. --[[User:Broadside|Broadside]] ([[User talk:Broadside|talk]]) 10:40, 16 September 2024 (EDT)
::::This. Let people... SEE the movie before we make important decisions. --[[User:ItsWalky|ItsWalky]] ([[User talk:ItsWalky|talk]]) 19:49, 16 September 2024 (EDT)
::::Right. We can wait a few days for more than a small handful of people to see this and base their decision on, you know, '''''the actual movie''''' rather than whatever someone who had something to do with it says ''this'' week, which historically has waffled between "vague" and "contradictory". Hell, even ''now'' some of them are still being all "well maybe it is and maybe it isn't" and frankly I have no faith they won't ride that ambiguity for a long time like they've done since ''Bumblebee''. --[[User:M Sipher|M Sipher]] ([[User talk:M Sipher|talk]]) 20:49, 16 September 2024 (EDT)
::I've said ever since Keegan Michael Key tweeted as much that One should be treated as a separate continuity. '''Option 3''' for sure. {{unsigned|jmcdavid}}
:'''Option 3'''. I've seen the movie and other users have covered why that seems like the best choice. It feels as different from the previous movies as Prime is from Animated, or Earthspark from Sunbow (which, despite directly homaging/referencing Sunbow, Earthspark is considered separate from). [[User:Ashendawn|Ashendawn]] ([[User talk:Ashendawn|talk]]) 18:01, 16 September 2024 (EDT)
::I vote '''Option 2'''. There seems to be a large focus on whether or not the film fits in continuity with the prior films, but considering how little they fit with each other that feels irrelevant to me. The creators have been rather unclear whether this film should be considered separate from the ongoing live-action series in terms of production, just in terms of universe. If we had a sense this was the springboard for an entirely separate animated film series I'd say Option 3, but it feels unwarranted at this time. [[User:Indridcold13|Indridcold13]] ([[User talk:Indridcold13|talk]]) 20:29, 16 September 2024 (EDT)
:I'm voting '''Option 3'''; much of my reasons are the same as others have stated above, and I do apologise for opening this bags of worms on the ''One'' talk page. It's not that I don't understand why some people are opposed to creating a new set if pages, but for argument's sake, if ''One'' gets one or more sequels, it would likely draw further away from the established live-action films and become its own continuity/franchise (though that's more of a what-if right now). Overall, I personally think that separating live-action films and animated ones into their own continuities is a reasonable option, and I believe that ''One'' has proven itself a different entity. [[User:Prime Temple|Prime Temple]] ([[User talk:Prime Temple|talk]]) 06:26, 17 September 2024 (EDT)

::Also '''Option 3''' . In tone, content, continuity, style, story, just feels too different to me from the Michael Bay and other films, really only having the method of release in common. It feels more separate from the other movies than even Cyberverse from G1, and that’s happily separate. —[[User:MissDaria|MissDaria]] ([[User talk:MissDaria|talk]]) 10:05, 17 September 2024 (EDT)
:Screen Rant: I vote for '''Option 1''' This came out from ScreenRant today. Is Transformers One considered a prequel to the recent movies of Bumblebee and Rise of the Beast or the original live-action film starting in 2007? Or is it something completely, entirely new? ... Lorenzo di Bonaventura: "It obviously exists beforehand. I think we figured it out. It was like 300 million years before the first Michael Bay movie, so if that's a prequel, that's a prequel. But we're really following the lore about where it starts, and so we really just think about it as the beginning of the story. The origin, yes, but literally the beginning of the thing that we've all come to appreciate." https://screenrant.com/transformers-one-lorenzo-di-bonaventura-and-josh-cooley-interview/ [[User:96megatron|96megatron]] ([[User talk:96megatron|talk]]) 10:56, 17 September 2024 (EDT)
::Voting for '''Option 2'''. If adding stuff like Aligned backstory influence disqualifies One from being movie, then there could be an argument for splitting IDW characters off from the G1 pages because of things like the absence of the traditional "Ark crashes on Earth, everyone wakes up 4 million years later" backstory, and no amount of Owning The Bayverse (which I can't help but feel some of the desire to split One off is fueled by) is worth opening that can of worms. [[User:BattleBlade|BattleBlade]] ([[User talk:BattleBlade|talk]]) 12:31, 17 September 2024 (EDT)
:Voting '''Option 3''', y'all gotta stop taking Lorenzo's word as gospel especially over the actual creatives behind these movies. [[User:Jman98|Jman98]] ([[User talk:Jman98|talk]]) 14:25, 17 September 2024 (EDT)
:Voting '''Option 3''', Lorenzo has made multiple contradictory statements in the past, some having been outright proven wrong. He doesn't seem like he's involved enough in the productions in order to make concrete statements about their continuity, nor is he a representative of Hasbro. [[User:TheDarkMage10218|TheDarkMage10218]] ([[User talk:TheDarkMage10218|talk]]) 19:30, 17 September 2024 (CST)
:: While I would agree that splitting it out makes the most sense as I currently see it, lets also not pretend the wiki is under some thrall to the evil boogeyman known as "the fandoms view of Lorenzo" and ignore that multiple creatives for all the movies people like to argue are definitely not Bayverse for realsies have made contradictory statements about whether or not the films are all supposed to be prequels / sequels, and its because [https://x.com/SJ_Broadside/status/1836084548020338988 they are not ubernerds who care about whether this movie perfectly follows the backstory of one from nearly 2 decades ago]. Just personally, I am seeing this like the High Moon Games advertising themselves as a G1 prequel back in the day - for people not like us, all of Transformers falls into the same vague umbrella, so sure, it can be a "prequel" to the rest of the movies, in the same way Optimus Prime is Optimus Prime is Optimus Prime to Hasbro, no matter whether he be G1, Movie, Animated, or Armada. [[User:AkibaSilver|AkibaSilver]] ([[User talk:AkibaSilver|talk]]) 04:34, 18 September 2024 (EDT)
:::Haven't seen the movie yet, but I strongly agree with that comment. This wiki has never been governed by author intent, and particularly regarding the live-action movies there are too many authors giving too much contradictory intent about contradictory material. ''We'' made up the concept of a "continuity family," that concept ''we made up'' is now old enough for a driver's license, we will have to continue making our own judgments about which stories mesh with what. --[[User:Thylacine 2000|Thylacine 2000]] ([[User talk:Thylacine 2000|talk]]) 08:45, 18 September 2024 (EDT)
:::: All this, and as to that last point: "continuity family" ''has literally '''NEVER''' meant "all fits into one actual internal timeline"''. There's a reason we used the word "family". We treat the totally-irreconcilable-timelines-having G1 cartoon and G1 comic as part of the same "family" (and BW as well), because of an ''external'' concept of them being "related" to each other by dint of the how and who and why of their creations. And this has held true as we moved forward, the above-mentioned High Moon statements being a very good example. The sheer squirreliness of multiple creatives -and the films themselves- over the past half-decade or so over "continuity" (and let's just dismiss out of hand what a ''voice actor'' thinks, okay), doesn't exactly make me think that the future won't see more squirreliness in whatever comes next. "The existing character pages are too big already" is a more convincing argument for a full-on split, and we got subpages/suites for that problem. --[[User:M Sipher|M Sipher]] ([[User talk:M Sipher|talk]]) 17:17, 18 September 2024 (EDT)
::::: You all make great points; I amend my reasoning for my choice of Option 3: One deviates stylistically and tonally from the live-action movies, and it isn't even live-action to begin with. [[User:TheDarkMage10218|TheDarkMage10218]] ([[User talk:TheDarkMage10218|talk]]) 22:37, 18 September 2024 (EDT)
:Having seen the movie, I believe '''Option 3''' is the best. It is irreconcilable with the Bay films on several levels (more so than ROTB/Bumblebee). It is extremely aesthetically and tonally different from them as well. I feel that grouping One with the rest of the live-action films simply because they share the same release venue would be akin to grouping Prime and G1. [[User:Paladin Denn|Paladin Denn]] ([[User talk:Paladin Denn|talk]]) 15:22, 18 September 2024 (EDT)

:Just got out of the advanced screening, I think '''Option 3''' would be the best option. There's a few details that clash with the prior films in many regards. It has an overall different feel. --[[User:GordonShumway8690|GordonShumway8690]] ([[User talk:GordonShumway8690|talk]]) 22:10, 18 September 2024 (EDT)

:Just saw the movie, and I vote '''Option 3'''. This movie ''cannot'' be in the same continuity as the other films, so Option 3 would be our safest bet. [[User:Decepticon Stryker|Decepticon Stryker]] ([[User talk:Decepticon Stryker|talk]]) 01:06, 19 September 2024 (EDT)

:Another vote by a movie watcher for '''Option 3.''' Several events in the third act counter what has happened in Bay's films. For the ease of the wiki having it stay separated is the best way to prevent headaches and finger pointing by having it all on the same page. [[User:Singularity|Singularity]] ([[User talk:Singularity|talk]]) 12:21, 19 September 2024 (EDT)
:Does my vote count when I watch it tomorrow? [[User:JasenomousTF|JasenomousTF]] ([[User talk:JasenomousTF|talk]]) 17:27, 19 September 2024 (EDT)

:Saw the film yesterday, only delayed a response because I didn't think I could come up with any unique arguments. But a vote is a vote, and mine is '''Option 3'''. [[User:Bobpiecheese|Bobpiecheese]] ([[User talk:Bobpiecheese|talk]]) 19:32, 19 September 2024 (EDT)

:Count me among the other votes for '''Option 3'''. After seeing the movie, there really is no possible way to finagle it into the pre-existing Movie continuity, even in an Aligned Continuity "works-if-you-squint" manner. It's absolutely its own thing by the definitions the Wiki uses to separate continuities from one another. [[User:SlimerJoel|SlimerJoel]] ([[User talk:SlimerJoel|talk]]) 19:42, 19 September 2024 (EDT)

Just got back from seeing the movie, giving a vote for '''Option 3'''. The film is significantly different in tone, lore, designs, characterization, and story beats from bayverse. Arguably closer to aligned or idw1 [[User:Arren1234|Arren]] ([[User talk:Arren1234|talk]]) 21:31, 19 September 2024 (EDT)

:Having just seen the film, it is thoroughly '''Option 3'''. There isn't a single link in play between this and the live action films, not even in design or animation language. Hell, you could make a vastly stronger argument for it being a prequel to the Aligned continuity than the films. Just from an ease of use angle, I also don't think people who are coming in for Transformers One info are going to want to dig through years of irrelevant existing live action film content in the first place. [[User:MCRG|MCRG]] ([[User talk:MCRG|talk]]) 02:16, 20 September 2024 (EDT)

:Just seen the film. Definitely '''Option 3'''. I was just thinking it would be easier too for newcomers looking for info to not have to encounter a mainpic and write-up that describes a totally different person up top. [[User:Nu-Priest|Nu-Priest]] ([[User talk:Nu-Priest|talk]]) 09:10, 20 September 2024 (EDT)

Coming out of the movie, I was '''Option 2'''. Definitely separate from the live action films, but I think it would be convenient to have all the films (that aren’t extended episodes of a pre-existing cartoon) all under the same umbrella. I do understand the arguments that it’s really different in tone and content from the other films, but so is 2005 IDW to G1. Maybe do a suite page that includes everything One related? Like, Optimus Prime (Movie) Main/Games/Toys/One? [[User:Cylasbreakdown|Cylasbreakdown]] ([[User talk:Cylasbreakdown|talk]]) 20:34, 20 September 2024 (EDT)
:Suiting is only done in instances where a single subject, such as a specific piece of media or a toy section, gets ''so'' big that it starts to overwhelm the page, something that absolutely does not apply to ''One'' yet. -- [[User:Cyberlink420|Cyberlink420]] ([[User talk:Cyberlink420|talk]]) 20:39, 20 September 2024 (EDT)
::Correct me if I’m wrong, but was Shattered Glass Unicron really overwhelming the rest of the page on its own? Or RID2001 Universe Optimus Prime? I figured they were just really distinct and separate from all the ether appearances. Unless there’s something I’m not completely understanding about the suiteing rules (which I admit is entirely possible), I think that hypothetically making a One suite for all the big main characters and their toys would be convenient. [[User:Cylasbreakdown|Cylasbreakdown]] ([[User talk:Cylasbreakdown|talk]]) 11:12, 21 September 2024 (EDT)
:::Shattered Glass Unicron and the female, yellow 2003 Universe RID2001 Optimus Prime pages also have arguments of merging them with the larger articles they were originally spun off from. [[User:Shockwave2018|Shockwave2018]] ([[User talk:Shockwave2018|talk]]) 21:07, 23 September 2024 (GMT-3)

'''Option 3'''. After having watched the movie, it's substantially different so as to be disconnected from the live action movies, and I don't like the precedence it sets to lump every movie together from here on out, especially if this one's success inspires future free-standing Transformers movies down the line. I understand it with the live-action movies, because the line was very blurry, but it's pretty obvious that this one is separate. [[User:Thunderwolf|Thunderwolf]] ([[User talk:Thunderwolf|talk]]) 21:10, 20 September 2024 (EDT)

'''Option 3'''. I just got back from watching the movie, and it's the option that makes the most sense. There's just too much to connect it to the previous films, and while I do see where Option 2 is coming from I don't even think there's enough in common for it to be in the same continuity family (and I don't think its a good idea to throw every single movie that we're unsure about into the the 2007 family imo). Also taking into account the contradictory statements regarding the movie from producers and higher-ups, I think the simplest and most user-friendly option is to put everything into one new continuity family. If something changes so be it, but based on what we have 3 is the best choice. [[User:Hyperious|Hyperious]] ([[User talk:Hyperious|talk]]) 18:19, 21 September 2024 (EDT)

:Might as well throw my vote for '''Option 3''' in too. Even if we keep having this conversation over every new movie they release, it's already very clear that the best ''for wiki purposes'' is to split One from the rest. -- [[User:Fritz|Fritz]] ([[User talk:Fritz|talk]]) 20:23, 21 September 2024 (EDT)
I haven't seen the movie yet, so I don't quite feel right casting a vote here, but I do have one question: to those in favor of option 2, what do you feel makes Transformers One in the same family as the live-action movies, that didn't make Earthspark in the same family as Cyberverse? -- [[User:Dark T Zeratul|Dark T Zeratul]] ([[User talk:Dark T Zeratul|talk]]) 03:39, 24 September 2024 (EDT)
: The fact that Cyberverse and Earthspark are sold as entirely separate franchises, whereas this is just the new movie. [[User:Indridcold13|Indridcold13]] ([[User talk:Indridcold13|talk]]) 07:19, 24 September 2024 (EDT)
::''All'' of the Paramount TF movies have had their own separate franchises. Heck, even the 2010 Movieverse toyline between ROTF and DOTM was its own franchise and it didn't even have a movie. --[[User:Sabrblade|Sabrblade]] ([[User talk:Sabrblade|talk]]) 18:51, 24 September 2024 (EDT)

We've clearly long since moved forward with this but just for posterity now that I've finally made it out to the theater, '''Option 3''' does indeed strike me as the right call. --[[User:AzimuthAcolyte|AzimuthAcolyte]] ([[User talk:AzimuthAcolyte|talk]]) 18:24, 29 September 2024 (EDT)
:I second what Azimuth said, now. -- [[User:Dark T Zeratul|Dark T Zeratul]] ([[User talk:Dark T Zeratul|talk]]) 18:29, 2 October 2024 (EDT)

== Privacy Policy ==

It occurred to me recently that the Privacy Policy has not been adopted though it has been over fifteen years since it was originally written. I wrote a couple of things in its talk page but ultimately got no response. I then contacted abates on what to do next, he told me I could write up a new intro in the talk page. I did, and it hasn't had a response. The policy is linked to at the bottom of every page on the wiki, so if we could get some activity on its talk page, I'd appreciate it. [[User:Hilfam|Hilfam]] ([[User talk:Hilfam|talk]]) 20:41, 6 November 2024 (EST)

==The Thirteen and the other conversation we've been waiting for==

Over the last few years, the Thirteen have played a major role in multiple ''Transformers'' stories. However, this prominence—combined with Hasbro's increasingly loose approach their in-universe lore—has also led to increasingly divergent portrayals of the group and its individual members.

Around 2015, we took the step of consolidating all the different incarnations of the Thirteen on one page for each, with the rationale that the characters were former [[multiversal singularity|multiversal singularities]], and mostly shared similar backstories and personalities between incarnations. However, even at the time, this was not a completely ideal comporomise. Most notably, the various [[Alpha Trion (disambiguation)|Alpha Trion]]s were not consolidated into one, partly due to length and partly because the existence of his [[Alpha Trion (SG)|murderously insane evil counterpart]] represented a massive contradiction to the entire notion.

However, over the years, multiple authors have drastically reinterpreted the Thirteen and their story. The role of "Thirteenth Prime" has been filled by multiple contradictory characters—[[Optimus Prime (WFC)|Optimus Prime]], [[Zeta Prime (One)|Zeta Prime]], [[Sentinel Prime (G1)|Sentinel Prime]]—and individual depictions of the Primes themselves have grown increasingly divergent. "Shattered Glass" Alpha Trion is no longer the outlier, but rather an increasing trend: for instance, ''Transformers One'' features a completely heroic Megatronus who never becomes The Fallen, a Liege Maximo that looks nothing like Loki, and an incarnation of Nexus Prime that does not seem to be a combiner. With these data points in mind—and the potential for even further divergence in the coming years—I and several other editors feel that it may be time to reorganize our Thirteen coverage, splitting them out into individual [[continuity family]]-based incarnations the way we would for stock characters like [[Optimus Prime (disambiguation)|Optimus Prime]], [[Bumblebee (disambiguation)|Bumblebee]], etc.

However, if we do adopt this approach, some further problems would need to be solved.

* '''How do we handle toys?''' With a few exceptions like ''Revenge of the Fallen'' The Fallen, the toys of the Thirteen are clearly meant to be somewhat continuity-agnostic. ''Age of the Primes'' Solus Prime is about as faithful to her depiction in ''The Covenant of Primus'' as it is to ''One'' or any of the IDW comics in which she appears. Even if we count them as "repurposes" across multiple pages, the format of the wiki means they'd have to be based ''somewhere''...

* '''FunPub stuff''': The Vector Prime of "Ask Vector Prime" is clearly meant to be a version of the same Vector Prime who appeared in the ''Cybertron'' cartoon, but at the same time makes reference to off-camera events, such as a time when he and the Thirteen lived in Ancient Greece—would we make a separate "FunPub" page for the Thirteen, or try and work these events onto Unicron Trilogy pages when necessary? Other similar problems exist: "[[Coalescence]]" is a story that features a movie universe Fallen jumping into the world of ''Shattered Glass'', and AVP established that "The Evil One" of GoBots fame, is another alternate-universe incarnation of The Fallen/Megatronus.

Feedback on this proposal is appreciated! [[User:Locoman|Locoman]] ([[User talk:Locoman|talk]]) 11:50, 7 December 2024 (EST)
:From my point of view, I think as it stands right now my thoughts on the Thirteenth Prime stuff is that I absolutely understand the concerns, but for me personally it kind of falls into the same view as like, IDW Primus being Rung, which I think our current model handles fairly well. For the other Primes, I'm tempted to say that like...as it stands, there's about as much divergence there as like, Unicron as he's depicted in The Last Knight (not really shown to be aggressive beyond being called Cybertron's enemy), and as it stands right now, I don't think that's enough to say there should be a full-on split, but I do think it's worth thinking about future-proofing. And I suppose my main concern right now about pushing ahead too soon is in the event there's some fiction accompanying the Age of the Primes stuff; certainly, the fact that we're getting a toy of the Fallen with the Megatronus name but with the original Dreamwave design does make me hesitant that there might be some further consolidation of disparate elements; and I remember that last time we did this in the early 2010s was that we figured the idea of the Aligned Primes not having any connections to the others was going to be the standard going forward, which turned out not to be the case, and I figure it might be worth considering if something like that happens again. But! I am open to ideas of how to implement this if we do go for it; I think the suite options we have for Primus and Unicron work perfectly fine if we go for something like that. Just figure it's worth considering the stuff I've brought up here first. [[User:Escargon|Escargon]] ([[User talk:Escargon|talk]]) 12:35, 7 December 2024 (EST)
::Right now, I'm leaning toward the camp of not splitting them out for all the reasons you've given. I look at our current situation and, while not perfect, I feel that things can be tidied up simply with some "Conceptual history" sections for the pages that need them. The aforementioned Vector Prime is a particular case not just for everything stated about him above, but because [[Vector Prime: In the Beginning|his very first Fub Pub appearance]] written by [[Forest Lee]] leans so heavily far into the multiversal aspect of the character that it doesn't treat him like he is a native to the Cybertron cartoon universe but rather to the whole multiverse itself. Similarly, Nexus Prime was also continuity-agnostic by his very nature from the ground up. The safest solution for splitting him out would be to classify his Fun Pub incarnation under "(Timelines)" (the previous "(Classics)" tag we had him under was bleh), but that's typically a last-resort tag we have tried to avoid in the past.
::Regarding The Fallen, while he does tend to be evil in a majority of his depictions, and has had a few outlier cases where he either didn't go bad at all (TF One) or was the victim of other's manipulations (Covenant), it's implied that the majority of those evil versions weren't always evil from the start, and only went bad later. The TF One version of Megatronus never turned to the dark side, but one could argue that he was murdered before he ever would have gotten the chance to. ;-)
::Regarding the Thirteenth Prime and various conflicting the depictions, we solved that issue by simply creating the "[[Thirteenth Prime]]" article to explain everything there.
::You mention the situation with Alpha Trion, and I get it. The biggest reasons for simply not merging all of his pages together were that A) he was never originally meant to be one of the Thirteen since the original Dreamwave-based lore for the Thirteen had them all die before A3 was even born, and B) his Shattered Glass self. I used to be a proponent for keeping all of his versions separate because of A, but in the time since then we've had more and more depictions of him as a 13er who were all still pretty much the same as his traditional pre-Aligned depictions. If we were to merge all of his versions together, a "Conceptual history" section for him could explain the whole "Sometimes he's a 13er, sometimes he's not" situation.
::BUT, there still remains his SG version, which I wouldn't feel comfortable putting on the same page as his other versions. Reaching back to the [https://tfwiki.net/wiki/Talk:Transformers:_Shattered_Glass_(franchise)#Separate_Continuity.3F original discussion] about how to handle the SG characters, I find myself still agreeing with those like Steve-o who pointed out how awkward "'''Continuity X''': Bumblebee loves humans and does lots of funny and cute stuff to help save the universe. '''Continuity Y''': Bumblebee loves humans and does lots of different but still funny and cute stuff to help save the universe. '''Shattered Glass''': Bumblebee is hardcore evil and wants to kill you for no particular reason. '''Continuity Z''': Bumblebee loves humans and does yet another set of funny and cute stuff to help save the universe." reads as a page. But, there is one thing we have nowadays that we did not have back when that original discussion was held and makes me wonder how differently the conversation might have gone if they had existed back then: Subpages. Looking at our [[Primus]] and [[Unicron]] articles, I find it to be a very fair and workable compromise that their respective SG versions are placed not on their respective main pages but as subpages for each. Doing the same for SG Alpha Trion were we to merge all of the non-SG A3's together could be a valid solution too, in my eyes. Unlike others, I don't see subpages as an annoying evil that much be dealt with and eliminated, but as a handy tool to work around tricky situations like this.
::Had they even existed back then, it's very possible that ALL SG characters may have ended up on subpages for their positive polarity counterparts instead of separate pages entirely. And since then, SG has grown to expand not just beyond the original Fun Pub SG G1 continuity but to other non-G1 SG continuities, like for the Movies, Animated, and Cybertron, forcing us to create such unsightly tags as "(SG Movie)", "(SG Animated)", and "(SG Cybertron)", when subpages could have prevented that with "(Movie)/Shattered Glass" or "(Animated)/Shattered Glass" and so on.
::But, I'm getting off topic. Backing up to the Thirteen, I'm for keeping the Thirteen together. In addition to what all I've said above, the Age of the Primes toys seem to be treating them as the standard or definitive versions of the Thirteen that apply for every version/universe/continuity, pulling from all across the board rather than sticking to a single depicted version of them. Prima has his Aligned body but the Sunbow Powerful Robot's head. The Fallen is just the Dreamwave design but with Aligned Megatronus's weapons from the books and RID 2015 cartoon. Micronus is likely to be based on his RID 2015 design which was itself based on the Aligned design. The statue group artwork makes Amalgamous looks more like his TF One design than his Aligned design. Vector Prime is just straight-up Cybertron Vector Prime. And Star Convoy was never one of the Thirteen in any version before now. Yet, all these disparately-sourced designs are being treated as if they all belong to the same group no matter what continuity they come from. So keeping them together as they are would just make it easier for us to not have to split hairs over which versions of which 13ers these are supposed to be when the answer would simply be "all of the above" (and we wouldn't have to put multiple entries of the same toy on, like, six or seven different characters' pages that would have to maintained equally across all of those pages). This model makes this particular version of the group feel inherently multiversal, with each member either originating from a different universe as each other, or being a multiversal hybrids comprised of different aspects of different versions of them from across the dimensions, as if Hasbro is trying to say that the AOTP versions represent *every* version of the Thirteen (minus Star Optimus, of course, since we know he's not a member in every version of this group). --[[User:Sabrblade|Sabrblade]] ([[User talk:Sabrblade|talk]]) 13:01, 7 December 2024 (EST)
:::As somebody who's pushed for this split for a long time, I'm obviously all for it. I feel we can easily determine where the toys go based on their main inspirations (Fallen is G1 Dreamwave, Micronus is Aligned RID, etc) are or just make the links go to the G1 pages (since G1 is effectively the wastebasket taxon of this franchise anyway). For the FunPub stuff, we can either do it Sideways style or just do it like we do for Kre-O and ancillary stuff: place them based on the characterization/design used by the work. Multiversal Vector Prime is pretty much just Cybertron Vector Prime (and the TransTech incarnation from the last portion of AVP can be split out).
:::I am pretty much opposed to "subpages" because that is just duplicating the parentheses system we already have just for the sake of pedantry. [[User:Saix|Saix]] ([[User talk:Saix|talk]]) 13:03, 7 December 2024 (EST)
:::Fully agree with both Escargon and Sabrblade, and their reasoning. I am biased against splits pretty much as a matter of cause, but the Thirteen ''in particular'' have for most of their history (including now, in the continuity-agnostic ''Age of the Primes!)'' been defined by their multiversal nature. I just don't think a split would be helpful. —[[User:The Wadapan|wadapan]] ([[User talk:The Wadapan|talk]]) 16:05, 7 December 2024 (EST)
::::So we need to wait five years of more non-multiversal stories to have this discussion again? That doesn't make sense. The COP version of the Thirteen weren't characterized as singularities in the first place, regardless; only FunPub cared about that aspect (and not even with the usual lineup we have now) and they tossed it because they realized it was an unworkable concept in this franchise and it's unlikely to ever get resurrected. It's been nearly a decade since the Shroud (the concept only existed from 2009-2015). You bring up AOTP but toylines clearly don't and never thought about those characters in terms of our organizational schema. [[User:Saix|Saix]] ([[User talk:Saix|talk]]) 17:19, 7 December 2024 (EST)
:I think we can probably leave the most of the old content together, since it might be a mess to split them apart and much of that content is based on the Covenant mythos anyway. I feel new iterations of the Thirteen (post-POTP?) should get their own pages, like ''Earthspark'' Quintus and the ''One'' Primes (particularly Megatronus since he's quite different). Though I suppose that begs the question of what to use in the parentheses for their current pages... —[[User:BluJayWarrior|BluJayWarrior]] ([[User talk:BluJayWarrior|talk]]) 13:10, 7 December 2024 (EST)
::How much of it is actually sticking to the Covenant? IDW1 had them be regular guys and some pre-Covenant stuff (notably Megatronus/Fallen) is more prominent for the character and not really compatible. Other Aligned stuff has also influenced other "continuity families", but we're not merging those articles, so I don't really see why this is different regarding the Thirteen. [[User:Saix|Saix]] ([[User talk:Saix|talk]]) 13:49, 7 December 2024 (EST)
:I’m against splitting pages, mostly because The Thirteen haven’t had enough drastic and unique depictions of them to stop “breaking the rules” for them and give them split pages.
::> The Thirteen haven’t followed the traditional convention of “every character gets a new page for that universe’s depiction”, mostly because of the whole multiversal singularity issue. Now while that concept isn’t used in fiction anymore, ''Age of the Primes'' seems to lean towards having a standard, continuity-agnostic depiction of the Thirteen from which future teams can use as the foundation of their depictions.
::> Escargon and Sabrblade make some good points regarding subpages, particularly with the example of the standard '''“Primus = God”''' and '''Rung (G1)''' incarnations. Rung is a distinct and unique take on the Primus character whose backstory is incompatible with virtually every other Primus incarnation, so placing him on the same page as the Primus of the Marvel Comics, or Cybertron, or the Aligned continuity, wouldn’t seem right.
::> ''The Covenant of Primus'' has been the foundation of every depiction of the Thirteen since it was released. Certain things might be modified, such as the 2005 IDW’s take on them, but even those Primes still follow certain story beats: Megatronus kills Solus, Liege Maximo is a manipulator, Prima’s role as the leader and his conflict with Megatronus, etc. ''One'' offers a depiction of the Thirteen who don’t enter a War of the Primes situation, but because we don’t really get any more information about them besides how they died, I wouldn’t say that they’re distinct enough or important enough to warrant their own pages.
::> Then there’s the fact that a lot of the Primes either have had very small roles or haven’t had any real importance to the franchise in several years: '''Micronus'''’s last big role was a few episodes in ''Robots in Disguise'' and a clever tie-in to the Microspace of the 2005 IDW universe. '''Onyx'''’s only big role was in the ''Covenant'', mostly thanks to '''[[Shockwave (G1)/2005 IDW continuity|this guy]]''' taking his place in another universe. Onyx has a few mentions in ''Cyberverse'', but I don’t think that alone should be the reason for splitting his page up. '''Nexus Prime''' and '''Vector Prime''' haven’t really done anything notable since the Shroud. '''Solus Prime''' has seen some prominence thanks to IDW's Caminus and ''Power of the Primes'', but those depictions again don’t stray too far from the ''Covenant''. '''Amalgamous Prime''' has had virtually no exploration as a character. The most we’ve gotten for him is a much easier-to-look-at design in ''One''.
::> Character-wise, story-wise… they’re all still heavily based on the ''Covenant''. Even '''Quintus Prime'''’s ''Earthspark'' depiction (with his more human-looking face) is based on his “Johnny Appleseed, made the Quintessons” lore established from the ''Covenant''. Now if we had a full group of the Thirteen from a Shattered Glass universe or had some “What-If?” incarnations of the characters that made them very different… splitting pages would make more sense to me.
::> A lot of the Thirteen have also maintained a consistent visual look to them since their introduction: all the Primes introduced in the Covenant have kept their look (Alchemist’s Lenses, Onyx’s face, Solus’ hair and color scheme), and every version of Megatronus seems to have a Decepticon insignia face, flames, and/or both. While ''One'' may have changed some color schemes (Liege Maximo missing his green), I don’t think just having a different color scheme and nothing else different warrants a new page.
::> I like the idea of conceptual history sections for now, and as I said on ''The Fallen''’s talk page, I think the beginning to his page needs a general rewrite from its “frozen in 2009” version. But until drastic new interpretations of those characters are created, if a member of the Thirteen has a single page… we should keep it as a single page --[[User:Daytonjhammon|Daytonjhammon]] ([[User talk:Daytonjhammon|talk]]) 16:33, 7 December 2024 (EST)
: Splitting them would simply be a bigger headache. They're rather like Primus and Unicron where they're "bigger picture" characters (only this time around designed ''very specifically'' to '''''be''''' as such) and it's best to treat them as such, and really, there's not enough material to BOTHER splitting for most of them. --[[User:M Sipher|M Sipher]] ([[User talk:M Sipher|talk]]) 18:29, 7 December 2024 (EST)
::Since it's related to this subject, it should probably also be mentioned here that there have recently been two discussions happening on the talk page for [[The Fallen]]. One about changing that article's mainpic and the other about moving the page's name to Megatronus. As of now, nothing has come out of either discussion, but I feel the results of this a bigger discussion may have an effect on either of those two smaller ones. Speaking as one who is in favor of not splitting out the Thirteen, my thoughts on these two smaller topics are that a good compromise would be to keep the article at its current name since many Megatronuses still become The Fallen, but replace the mainpic with The Fallen's Age of the Primes toy packaging art (as it depicts him in his original first body from Dreamwave but armed with his now-signature weapons from Aligned media, serving as a sort of visual overview for the character's history), along with a rewrite of his intro at the top of the page to be more all-encompassing, and the inclusion of a new "Conceptual history" section to give a proper overview of his different depictions. --[[User:Sabrblade|Sabrblade]] ([[User talk:Sabrblade|talk]]) 19:29, 7 December 2024 (EST)
:::I'm going to second this. I've mulled it over a little bit and while there is an argument to be made for splitting them out, I feel that 12 of the 13 primes really don't warrant it. They just haven't had as much an impact on the story and while it could be future proofing to split them, until we get prominent appearances from them I don't think it's a viable option right now. Megatronus is clearly the exception to this rule. I don't know if there's a clean solution to dealing with him at the moment. Part of me thinks maybe we should suite out the Movie and RiD versions since those are his too big appearences to date. At the bare minimum though I think we should use either his Dreamwave or Age of Primes art as the mainpic. It's his first body and I think it's influenced more designs than his RoTF design has. [[User:Ezim93|Ezim93]] ([[User talk:Ezim93|talk]]) 22:57, 7 December 2024 (EST)
::::Erm, no. Neither his Movie or RiD sections (certainly not the latter) are big enough to warrant subpages for either. --[[User:Sabrblade|Sabrblade]] ([[User talk:Sabrblade|talk]]) 00:57, 8 December 2024 (EST)
:::I'm also of the opinion that a split would be a massive hassle for very little gain, but I do feel we should move The Fallen to Megatronus. -- [[User:Dark T Zeratul|Dark T Zeratul]] ([[User talk:Dark T Zeratul|talk]]) 06:54, 8 December 2024 (EST)
::::To me, renaming the page to Megatronus feels like renaming an Optimus Prime page to Orion Pax. The name was created to tell us what he was called ''before'' he became The Fallen, like how Orion Pax was what Optimus was called before he became Optimus Prime. TF One Megatronus never became The Fallen but he's an anomaly, not a new standard. As of now, the only impact TF One Megatronus has had on the brand is the official reveal video for Age of the Primes describing the very Dreamwave/Aligned-based AOTP version as "the most powerful Prime," while also putting a grim, pronounced emphasis on "The Fallen" when referring to him as "Megatronus... The Fallen". --[[User:Sabrblade|Sabrblade]] ([[User talk:Sabrblade|talk]]) 13:16, 8 December 2024 (EST)
::::: '''Yes''' to changing The Fallen's mainpic back to the DW-style character design, huge-ass '''No''' to changing the page name; the Optimus/Orion comparison is spot-on. (And as to below... yes. The Thirteen are absolutely "set dressing that walks like a man" and best to approach them as such.) --[[User:M Sipher|M Sipher]] ([[User talk:M Sipher|talk]]) 20:11, 8 December 2024 (EST)

:After meditating upon this a while I think I've come to agree with the broad majority above that splitting each member of the Thirteen would hurt more than it would help. The way I see it what we should be striving for here is the approach that involves the least "hallucinating data" within our organizational system, and splitting will require making a lot of different calls on what "counts" to formulate micro-characterizations for dozens of serial continuity transplants, none of which do much individually, while obfuscating the larger context they are gesturing towards. Fundamentally what we may be running up against here is that the closest most of these guys have to a true "home continuity" as we typically think of it is... the brand bible. They are set dressing that walks like a man.

:To go one step further, if we want to talk future-proofing I would advocate formalizing the approach of treating them as a squad of mini-Unicrons/Primuses such that:

::1) My suggestion for the issues currently plaguing the Fallen (and to a lesser degree Trion) would be to make "Conceptual History" sections more or less standard issue across the board for the Thirteen, laying out swerves in characterization and appearance as they happened rather than trying to pry them apart ''or'' smoosh them together.

::2) I think it's worth revisiting merging Alpha Trion for consistency. In the decade+ since Prime cludged him into the lineup, Alpha Trion has consistently appeared as a member of the Thirteen, an insubstantial cameo, or both in pretty much every continuity he's appeared, and looking backwards I cannot help but notice that the fact that there's next to no meaningful daylight between his depictions has been the running gag of his [[Alpha Trion (disambiguation)|disambiguation page]] since day one. If Shattered Glass remains a sticking point the Unicron/Primus style suite split approach is a reasonable compromise.

:I wouldn't say I'm married to any of this and counter-counter-proposals are welcome, but that's my two cents. --[[User:AzimuthAcolyte|AzimuthAcolyte]] ([[User talk:AzimuthAcolyte|talk]]) 14:08, 8 December 2024 (EST)
:I think just put a line at the end of the fallens intro article that says "while mostly a bad guy, there exists at least one universe (link to TF one section) where he's managed to defy all logic and be...good for once).[[User:Poliwag06|Poliwag06]] ([[User talk:Poliwag06|talk]]) 21:53, 8 December 2024 (EST)

I'm for splitting the Thirteen, for the same reasons Saix gave. If that doesn't work, I think the versions of Alpha Trion should be merged. It's the inconsistency that drives me batty. [[User:Boingus|--Boingus]] ([[User talk:Boingus|talk]]) 22:12, 8 December 2024 (EST)

===Checkpoint? (01/18/2025)===
This topic seems to have gotten as much interaction as it's going to get, so to take stock before it falls off the agenda completely:

:*'''Votes for splitting the Thirteen across the board:''' 4 (Locoman, Saix, BlueJayWarrior, Boingus)
:*'''Votes against:''' 8 (Escargon, Sabrblade, Wadapan, Daytonjhammon, M Sipher, Exim93, Dark T Zeratul, AzimuthAcolyte)

That seems like a pretty resounding 2:1 "no," but the discussion also generated some possible compromises/suggestions for future-proofing:

:*'''Votes for more widespread use of "Conceptual History" sections:''' 3 (Sabrblade, Daytonjhammon, AzimuthAcolyte)
:*'''Votes to merge Alpha Trion (with potential SG suite) for consistency:''' 3 (Sabrblade, AzimuthAcolyte, Boingus)

Lastly it generated some cross-bleed from the debates on [[Talk:The Fallen|The Fallen's talk page]] about some updates now that we're 16 years out from his [[live-action film series]] star turn:

1) Moving the page to "Megatronus":
:*'''For:''' 1 (Dark T Zeratul)
:*'''Against:''' 2 (Sabrblade, M Sipher)

2) Swapping back to a Dreamwave-style mainpic:
:*'''For:''' 3 (Sabrblade, Ezim93, M Sipher)

If anyone wants to try to resuscitate the mega-split speak now. If not, thoughts on the compromise proposals?

The Fallen discussion should probably return to his own page. --[[User:AzimuthAcolyte|AzimuthAcolyte]] ([[User talk:AzimuthAcolyte|talk]]) 13:33, 18 January 2025 (EST)
:My stances remain unchanged on all of the above. --[[User:Sabrblade|Sabrblade]] ([[User talk:Sabrblade|talk]]) 13:55, 18 January 2025 (EST)
::I'd be fine with splitting, but if we don't, we ''absolutely'' need to merge the Alpha Trions. There's no good justification for the others being together and him being split.
::As for the Fallen... I feel the need to point out that it's not ''just'' One Megatronus that didn't use the name. EVERY toyline and piece of media in the last decade — RID15, the Prime Wars cartoons, the POTP toy, the offhand mentions in Cyberverse — have used "Megatronus", completely dropping the idea that he stopped being Megatronus and became the Fallen. It's evidently how Hasbro thinks of the character; the Studio Series toy provides plenty of evidence that they ''could'' have just called the AOTP toy "The Fallen" if they'd wanted to. -[[User:Broadside|Broadside]] ([[User talk:Broadside|talk]]) 15:51, 18 January 2025 (EST)
:::I am also pro-merging Alpha Trions with a SG subpage along the lines of what we do for Primus and Unicron. [[User:Escargon|Escargon]] ([[User talk:Escargon|talk]]) 16:11, 18 January 2025 (EST)
::::I disagree that we need to put SG Trion on a separate page. Just have his Shattered Glass section open with "In the mirror universe of Shattered Glass, Alpha Trion was..." --[[User:Broadside|Broadside]] ([[User talk:Broadside|talk]]) 16:58, 18 January 2025 (EST)
::::I'm pro merging Alpha Trion as well and adding conceptual history. Fallen/Megatronus discussion I'm good with taking back to his page. [[User:Ezim93|Ezim93]] ([[User talk:Ezim93|talk]]) 16:20, 18 January 2025 (EST)

:Here's my 5 cents. We are under no obligation to be consistent with how we treat the members of the Thirteen. If it makes sense for the characters, we can have Alpha Trions on separate pages because he has a long rich history of appearances in wide and varied media, including media in which he is not a member of the Thirteen, and we can also have Amalgamous Prime on one page because he doesn't. --[[User:Abates|abates]] ([[User talk:Abates|talk]]) 16:48, 18 January 2025 (EST)
:My votes: No to splitting the 13 articles, yes for conceptual history, no to merging Trion (maybe expanding his disambig a la Sideways'?), no to moving the Fallen, maybe to changing his mainpic (compare to UT or Aligned characteers with major body changes - UT generally sticks with the Armada bodies, but Aligned favours Prime bodies over WFC). [[User:BattleBlade|BattleBlade]] ([[User talk:BattleBlade|talk]]) 18:01, 18 January 2025 (EST)
:I also think that it wouldn´t be appropriate to separate the pages of the thirteen and that the articles about Alpha Trion should be merged, after he become one of the 13 he has been mostly the same across all media. --[[User:MikeOsix|MikeOsix]] ([[User_talk:MikeOsix|talk]]) 20:57, 18 January 2024 (EST)

== Maybe we should consider our stance on leaks... ==

I know they suck, but considering how they happen and most the fandom tends to lap it up (at least on TFW and seibertron),us just kind of vehemently refusing to admit they happen feels a bit wrong now. Maybe we should retroactively start acknowledging when the figures got leaked when they're officially confirmed, instead of just pretending they don't exist, for completionists sake. --[[User:Poliwag06|Poliwag06]] ([[User talk:Poliwag06|talk]]) 19:41, 7 December 2024 (EST)

:Sometimes Hasbro affiliate wiki. No. --[[User:McBaggins|McBaggins]] ([[User talk:McBaggins|talk]]) 20:05, 7 December 2024 (EST)
: Absogoddamnlutely not. This site does not exist to give leakers clout. --[[User:M Sipher|M Sipher]] ([[User talk:M Sipher|talk]]) 20:46, 7 December 2024 (EST)
: That's a legal area best not crossed, so it's a bad idea. --[[User:Lonegamer78|Lonegamer78]] ([[User talk:Lonegamer78|talk]]) 23:49, 7 December 2024 (EST)
:: Understood.[[User:Poliwag06|Poliwag06]] ([[User talk:Poliwag06|talk]]) 23:53, 7 December 2024 (EST)

== International Sightings ==

So, as of late, mentions of "toy appeared in (non-US country) without prior announcement" type lines have been getting purged from the wiki. This makes me wonder: am I allowed to even mention them anymore when a new toy appears somewhere? I'm not really sure why these relatively harmless information lines are getting removed, nor am I really a fan of it, but if I can't mention them anymore I will happily oblige.[[User:Poliwag06|Poliwag06]] ([[User talk:Poliwag06|talk]]) 21:04, 7 January 2025 (EST)
:They're being removed because "toy first showed up at a random store in Asia" is not useful information. That's how toy retail has worked for decades. Hasbro deigning to announce some product doesn't make it the standard. [[User:Saix|Saix]] ([[User talk:Saix|talk]]) 22:57, 7 January 2025 (EST)
::Oh, ok, I'll keep that in mind from now on.[[User:Poliwag06|Poliwag06]] ([[User talk:Poliwag06|talk]]) 23:11, 7 January 2025 (EST)

==First revealed at (some regular online update)==
On a similar note to the international sightings, what do people think of "toy was first revealed in Hasbro Instagram post / Fans First Friday / Pulse livestream of whatever date," etc.? We note this constantly, because it's another fact to include about a just-announced toy nobody owns yet. A year later it looks unimportant. Is this something we like and value, or more of a space-filing habit? --[[User:Thylacine 2000|Thylacine 2000]] ([[User talk:Thylacine 2000|talk]]) 07:34, 8 January 2025 (EST)
:I think it's a lot of blather, but at least it's documenting Hasbro marketing as opposed to random retail appearances. [[User:Saix|Saix]] ([[User talk:Saix|talk]]) 09:25, 8 January 2025 (EST)
: I'm lukewarm at best on 'em. But often these announcements are followed up almost immediately by pre-orders opening up through official channels, and that feels a bit more... noteworthy. --[[User:M Sipher|M Sipher]] ([[User talk:M Sipher|talk]]) 12:31, 8 January 2025 (EST)

MediaWiki talk:Community Portal

2025-01-19T02:58:13Z

MikeOsix: /* Checkpoint? (01/18/2025) */

__NEWSECTIONLINK__

This is the place for discussion of topics that affect the entire wiki. For less wide-reaching subjects, either use articles' individual talk pages or [https://discord.com/invite/N99Bygq our Discord server.]

Some topics that would ordinarily be here have merited their own pages:

{{chapters|title=Specific Discussion Subjects|align=left|content=
<div class="list-header">'''Moving From Wikia:'''</div>
* [[Transformers Wiki talk:Community Portal/Arriving|Arriving]]
* [[Transformers Wiki talk:Community Portal/Leaving|Leaving]]
* [[Transformers Wiki:Community Portal/Complaints|Complaints]]
<br/><div class="list-header">'''New Ad Policy:'''</div>
* [[Transformers Wiki:Ads|Ads]]
<br/><div class="list-header">'''Bookworm Database-Crash:'''</div>
* [[Transformers Wiki talk:Community Portal/Damage Control Central|Damage Control Central]]
* [[Project:Bookworm Crash]]
* [[Transformers Wiki talk:Community Portal/Leaving2|Leaving Take 2]]
<br/><div class="list-header">'''Server Move:'''</div>
* [[Transformers Wiki talk:Community Portal/Arriving2|Arriving Take 2]]
<br/><div class="list-header">'''Relicensing:'''</div>
* [[Transformers Wiki talk:Community Portal/Relicensing|Relicensing]]
<br/><div class="list-header">'''Dealing With Vandalism:'''</div>
* [[Transformers Wiki talk:Community Portal/Vandalism|Vandalism]]
<br/><div class="list-header">'''GoBots Sister Wiki:'''</div>
* [[Transformers Wiki talk:Community Portal/GoBots|Discussion on the place of GoBots in this wiki]]
<br/> <div class="list-header">'''Wiki Technical Information:'''</div>
* [[Transformers Wiki:Tech|A Not So Brief Summary of the Horrible Things That McFly and Co. Have Done To Keep This Wiki From Melting Down]]
}}<br/>

{{:{{FULLPAGENAMEE}}/Archive}}


== Press release or logo for 30,000 articles? ==
Is it worth putting something together as we get very very close? Maybe something like:
* 3 from Thrilling 30 logo
* 0 from the 40th logo
* 0 from the Vector Sigma "Featured" logo
* 0 from the cosmic-streaking O in the TFTM opener
* 0 from GO!

Just a suggestion.... --[[User:Thylacine 2000|Thylacine 2000]] ([[User talk:Thylacine 2000|talk]]) 13:45, 10 November 2023 (EST)
:If we wanted to go down that route, maybe tie into some of the contemporary material? Say, the "O"s from [[Energon Universe]] or [[Transformers: Legacy#Legacy: Evolution|Evolution]]? (Though the latter isn't exactly straight-on...) --[[User:Broadside|Broadside]] ([[User talk:Broadside|talk]]) 14:38, 10 November 2023 (EST)
::Sure! I lean towards the Energon Universe choice. --[[User:Thylacine 2000|Thylacine 2000]] ([[User talk:Thylacine 2000|talk]]) 15:48, 10 November 2023 (EST)
:Apologies, I've corrected the count on the main page as it was inaccurate, so we're not as close as it looked like we were. --[[User:Abates|abates]] ([[User talk:Abates|talk]]) 16:20, 10 November 2023 (EST)
::That just means we have more time to decide and, if so, pull things together. :) -- [[User:Cyberlink420|Cyberlink420]] ([[User talk:Cyberlink420|talk]]) 16:51, 10 November 2023 (EST)
:::Feels like we just leapt up 40 new articles in the last 2-3 days. Is it worth putting a graphic together? --[[User:Thylacine 2000|Thylacine 2000]] ([[User talk:Thylacine 2000|talk]]) 22:47, 18 January 2024 (EST)

=="Multi-pack" vs "gift set" and suchlike==
Incoming semantics, but... as I've been going through the toy entries, been trying to standardize/streamline a lot of stuff, and I think maybe a set of consistent terms/definitions for "a bunch of separate toys packed together" is in order. So lemme throw this out here for discussion/future reference...
*'''Multi-pack''' — A pack of toys where the contents (or at least most/some/any of them) are exclusive to this release, not sold in other packaging. Most multi-toy releases nowadays would fall under this umbrella by default.
*'''Gift set''' — A pack of toys where all of the contents are/were concurrently (or close enough) sold individually as well, without changes, in the same market. Like all the various G1 combiner sets.
The latter brings up the question of if we want to label all the Takara "VS" packs and the various UT-era "VALUE PACK!" sets under that umbrella, which I'm ambivalent-to-marginally-in-favor-of over. Especially as Takara's been putting out new "VS" packs where the toys are new decos not available elsewhere... also we kinda made up the "VS pack" term anyway, as memory serves, so. --[[User:M Sipher|M Sipher]] ([[User talk:M Sipher|talk]]) 20:15, 8 January 2024 (EST)
:Hasbro has used the word "[[Giftset]]" to refer to unique variants not available separately. I'm inclined to think we shouldn't directly contradict that. --[[User:Thylacine 2000|Thylacine 2000]] ([[User talk:Thylacine 2000|talk]]) 21:21, 8 January 2024 (EST)
::and damn but does that article need updating. --[[User:Thylacine 2000|Thylacine 2000]] ([[User talk:Thylacine 2000|talk]]) 21:22, 8 January 2024 (EST)
:::I'm inclined to think that Hasbro uses lots of terms in ways that are not exactly conducive to organizing a wiki. --[[User:M Sipher|M Sipher]] ([[User talk:M Sipher|talk]]) 21:29, 8 January 2024 (EST)

==More bullet point insignia?==
Okay so... I recall there were some other possible faction symbol bullet points we could maybe use. I ran across a few with this batch of toy pics we might consider adding. I'll list them here, see if people can think of more. I feel like there might be a couple more two-faction matchups out there.
* Rescue Bots
* The various BotBots squads
* My First Transformers

I'm not un-convinced that we should have the bespoke insignia for stuff like the Disney Label, since they do use them on the packaging. So uh... there. --[[User:M Sipher|M Sipher]] ([[User talk:M Sipher|talk]]) 01:51, 13 January 2024 (EST)
:Also, while looking at the list of all the bullets on the template page... maybe we should see if we can split the list up a smidge? Like, put all the mutli-faction icons in one section, a section just for BotBots since there's gonna be quite a few of them? Alphabetizing them might also be in order. (I have exactly zero idea how those templates are coded, so uh, lemme know if that's doable.) --[[User:M Sipher|M Sipher]] ([[User talk:M Sipher|talk]]) 04:42, 13 January 2024 (EST)
::There's also the [[Star Wars Transformers]]... though I'm not sure if using ''Star Wars'' insignia falls too much out of this wiki's scope, although we do use at least use them on the actual characters' pages (see [[Darth Vader]]). [[User:Turborun|Turborun]] ([[User talk:Turborun|talk]]) 10:34, 13 January 2024 (EST)
:::I don't think we'd use SW insignia because, near as I can tell, the toy packaging doesn't mark the toys that way. --[[User:M Sipher|M Sipher]] ([[User talk:M Sipher|talk]]) 05:27, 14 January 2024 (EST)

== Idea for reducing the size of toy sections by compacting unchanged toy entries ==

I've come up with an idea that I think would make toy sections on character pages a little better and more intuitive. Instead of having a long list of entries for multiple releases of the exact same toy completely unchanged, we could just compact them all in a single entry, describing how the toy was available both individually and unchanged in a bunch of multipacks. This could be especially helpful with toy sections that are way too long, such as both the Movie Optimus Prime and Bumblebee toy pages that have been subject to a lot of discussion already.

[[User:Fritz/Optimus Prime (Movie)/toys|I used the 2007 Legends Class section of the Movie Optimus Prime toy page to make a quick example out of it.]] The entries would be reduced from four to two toys, since 3/4 of them are the same toy anyway, and a lot of white space would be removed. As for the images of the multipacks, I don't think we would be losing much in removing them since the wiki has never prioritized images of packagings for anything really and, as I know is written somewhere in the "rules", the wiki isn't supposed to be used as an image hosting website in the first place.

So, any thoughts? --[[User:Fritz|Fritz]] ([[User talk:Fritz|talk]]) 20:18, 20 January 2024 (EST)
: We used to do this and it was actually kind of worse. There's also complications when unchanged toys end up being sold under different franchise headers, and when you add in all the other bullet point data a toy/set might have, you could end up with a lonnnnng list of bullet points before you get to the actual writeup, plus describing the multi-packs' contents... you're not really saving space while also kinda hurting the demi-chronological flow of the information. And deleting the multi-pack package imagery feels very wrong. It's one of those cases where there's no real ideal situation, but there's a least-bad one.
:That said, it probably wouldn't be a bad idea to make sure the first entry mentions these "repacks" alongside the redecoes and links to the relevant items. --[[User:M Sipher|M Sipher]] ([[User talk:M Sipher|talk]]) 21:34, 21 January 2024 (EST)
::Good points, as usual. Now that you mentioned it, I think I do have a vague memory of this being done in the past. I was going to suggest the repacks from different toylines should remain separate, though. My mentality was that maybe we could have a way to highlight the "main" releases (original and redecoes/retools) from the "minor" ones (unchanged repacks) to make it easier to identify in a glance how many actually-different toys were released within a toyline, but I wouldn't want it to cause ''more'' confusion than ''less''. Anyway thanks for taking the time to evaluate the idea. --[[User:Fritz|Fritz]] ([[User talk:Fritz|talk]]) 05:54, 22 January 2024 (EST)

==Repurposings, continuity transplants, and using Template:Main/Template:See to improve navigability==
I've gone back to the drawing board to come up with a way to signal to readers where closely-related pages exist, as I don't think [[Help:Disambiguation|disambiguation]] pages are enough and have found [[Template:OtherVersions]] to be unideal. [[Transformers Wiki talk:Community Portal/Archive70#Proposal re: G1 pages|Previously]], I'd suggested merging a bunch of pages for so-called "[[Continuity family|continuity]] transplants", but other users convinced me this would be a poor solution. One alternative suggestion, from [[User:Broadside]], was to use [[Template:Main]] to put key links to a character's appearances in other continuity families directly in the fiction section—[[Transformers Wiki talk:Community Portal/Archive70#Handling of "former GoBots" and "former Diaclone" characters on the wiki|reactions at the time]] were neutral-positive. You can see mockups for [[User:Broadside/Sandbox:Cy-Kill|Cy-Kill]] and [[User:Broadside/Sandbox:Bug Bite|Bug Bite]]. This strikes me as the best of both worlds, because it keeps the consistent schema (which helps for page length and organisation) but also puts a link to the information in the place where your typical reader is expecting to find it (on the page for the highest-profile first incarnation of the character).

With the same philosophy in mind, I've also designed two new templates. The first, [[Template:Toyappeared]], is intended for use in toy write-ups as a way of linking to fiction write-ups and character pages. It covers [[repurposing]]s, "continuity transplants", notable instances of [[Show-accuracy|toy-accuracy]], in-fiction [[Reformatting|powerups]], [[Redeco#"Virtual" redecos|"virtual" redecos]], you name it. Toy write-ups are increasingly being duplicated across multiple character pages, which creates maintenance overhead, as both instances must be manually kept in sync. My suggestion is to use [[Template:See]] to link to the full information regarding a toy on the original page, with the repurposed instance giving only brief information of what the toy is and ''why'' it was repurposed or whatever. The second of my new templates has a much more specific intended use case: [[Template:Bwucharacter]] provides an easy way of explaining how/why a character was reinterpreted for their ''Uprising'' appearance, as ''Uprising'' accounts for most of the situations I view as being problematic.

I realise I'm proposing like five things at once here, so [[User:The Wadapan/sandbox/repurposing|my sandbox]] has [[User:The Wadapan/sandbox/repurposing#Full example|a full example]] demonstrating how it all works together, along with tons of individual examples of the templates' usage and a more thorough explanation of what I'm trying to address with them. Take a look, and let me know which aspects you like, which parts you don't like, or any ideas you have to add! —[[User:The Wadapan|The Wadapan]] ([[User talk:The Wadapan|talk]]) 06:24, 12 February 2024 (EST)
:I can vouch for these templates! [[User:ShootingStar7X|ShootingStar7X]] ([[User talk:ShootingStar7X|talk]]) 15:38, 26 February 2024 (EST)
: I'm seeing a lot of problems with the implementation of some of this, and a lot of future headaches. The ones rolled out put what look like stub headers in a fiction section with just a small normal missable note up top; and in Override's case in specific, multiple stubs with completely redundant information. What this is ''going'' to do is get new people thinking that these are missing information that needs to be filled, then we gotta revert it and tell them no all that goes elsewhere, which is utterly unintuitive and will just lead to arguments and headaches all around.
: As for toys, in the instances of BWU-type stuff where it's a one-toy Mini-Con or whatever, I feel like NOT having the actual toy info for them on the BWU page, as with the Mini-Con Snow Cat toy currently, is not doing the reader any favors. Quite the opposite. Why are we making them jump to a different page for information that has no reason to not be right there? I don't like making readers jump through hoops needlessly, and that's all this feels like. And it's not like the toy sections of most of these are gonna see major changes, so lack of cross-updating is very, very, very unlikely to be an issue.
: I really don't think these require new templates and a bunch of new-editor landmines. At most, there's a decent argument to be made for re-positioning the "you look familiar" template that already exists, maybe below the main character writeup (above feels like a bad layout choice, pushing all kinds of stuff down.) --[[User:M Sipher|M Sipher]] ([[User talk:M Sipher|talk]]) 02:11, 28 February 2024 (EST)

== Listings and accessories ==

When I was making the description for cannonball based on the Walmart listing, there was mention of a Gatling gun and hammer not shown in the stock images,and left them out.

If I run into this type of situation again, what do I do?[[User:Poliwag06|Poliwag06]] ([[User talk:Poliwag06|talk]]) 10:56, 7 March 2024 (EST)

== A few suggestions ==

Gallery pages should only include images that aren't easily accessed by going to the main page, to avoid cluttering. I guess this is not an issue now since the current gallery pages are fairly short.

There should be more dedication in listing alt-modes of characters. Maybe there should be a header or something. For example, if the Dreamwave version of [[Sunstorm (G1)#Dreamwave Generation One continuity|Sunstorm]] transforms into an F-16 jet, it should be listed in the beginning with a header for the sake of easy access to the said information.--[[User:Primestar3|Primestar3]] ([[User talk:Primestar3|talk]]) 13:59, 17 March 2024 (EDT)

== Will we get an article on The Masked Singer? ==

Will there be an article on TFWiki about The Masked Singer, specifically their recent "Transformers Night" episode (https://the-masked-singer.fandom.com/wiki/Transformers_Night)? --[[User:John Pannozzi|John Pannozzi]] ([[User talk:John Pannozzi|talk]]) 20:01, 12 April 2024 (EDT)

: Assuming it's a licensed appearance (I can't check the credits myself :C ), I can't think why it wouldn't be [[User:AkibaSilver|AkibaSilver]] ([[User talk:AkibaSilver|talk]]) 21:15, 12 April 2024 (EDT)

:: It was indeed licensed. --[[User:John Pannozzi|John Pannozzi]] ([[User talk:John Pannozzi|talk]]) 22:30, 12 April 2024 (EDT)
:::Yes, as an official Hasbro-sanctioned piece of TF media, the episode does meet our requirements for inclusion. It just needs someone to write it up. -- [[User:Cyberlink420|Cyberlink420]] ([[User talk:Cyberlink420|talk]]) 23:22, 12 April 2024 (EDT)

== Franchise articles ==
So I was looking at the franchise pages to try and get an idea of what the standard is supposed to be for how they are written. Should all of them be updated to be more like the [[Beast Wars: Transformers (franchise)]] article? What was making me wonder this was that on the [[Transformers: Energon (franchise)]] article it had a section for "Homages" and one for "New characters" which I don't think any other franchise article has. --[[User:1levichurch|1levichurch]] ([[User talk:1levichurch||talk]]) 22:57, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

== AI upscaled images ==
With fresh offsite talks about the matter, I put forth we add an official policy against posting AI upscaled images of any kind to the wiki, owing to their subpar performance in "enhancing" the quality of images. [[User:McBaggins|McBaggins]] ([[User talk:McBaggins|talk]]) 23:52, 1 May 2024 (EDT)
:Agreed. It's literally faking information and presenting it as official. (Also often noticeably terrible.) Sometimes the best quality available of something sucks, but we simply have to deal. [[User:Saix|Saix]] ([[User talk:Saix|talk]]) 23:57, 1 May 2024 (EDT)
::100 percent agreed. It's called "artificial" for a reason. Plenty of details would be lost out through the upscaling, and several times errors on the wiki somehow became official through Hastak using the wiki for references (the whole [[Circular reporting]] thing). If we start allowing AI upscaled images, then we're likely to have things lost to the annals of time. Potato quality is better than lost quality[[User:Singularity|Singularity]] ([[User talk:Singularity|talk]]) 00:11, 2 May 2024 (EDT)
: Sure. --[[User:M Sipher|M Sipher]] ([[User talk:M Sipher|talk]]) 00:43, 2 May 2024 (EDT)

== Ending addition of high-end statues ==
This is something I doubt other people have noticed, but I'm putting down a tent-peg on it: After having built the entries for dozens of high-end collectable TF statues in the last 2-3 years, from firms like Diamond Select, Imaginarium, Azure Sea, XM Studios, etc., and then seeing most of them either officially cancelled or never spoken of again with no reported purchases, I am going to stop adding such items here. If someone else feels like cataloguing them, great.

It really may not be possible for us to keep up with toy-like non-transforming merchandise (figurines and statues) the way we used to. There are at least two ''released'' series of G1 core cast micro-figurines with micro-comics and magnifying glasses, which would have been the rage of the fandom in 2005, that nobody ever got around to adding, and it feels like too much of a chore for me to start. --[[User:Thylacine 2000|Thylacine 2000]] ([[User talk:Thylacine 2000|talk]]) 10:35, 3 May 2024 (EDT)
: It's an unfortunate but very real thing that once you enter the world of licensed merch, we're ''gonna'' have big gaps. It's... a lot, on top of the "a lot" that is the regular TF toyline and fictional output today. I've said that the work involved in keeping up with all of TF's merch ought to be a full-time paying job, and I genuinely mean it. --[[User:M Sipher|M Sipher]] ([[User talk:M Sipher|talk]]) 16:39, 3 May 2024 (EDT)

== Transformers Roleplaying Game releases on the front page and sidebar ==

The [[Transformers Roleplaying Game]] is getting pretty frequent releases of both sourcebooks and pre-written adventures, and it occurs to me that it might be a good idea to have it on the "current releases" section of the front page and/or the navigation sidebar. How would people feel about that? --[[User:Broadside|Broadside]] ([[User talk:Broadside|talk]]) 15:49, 4 May 2024 (EDT)
: I think that makes a lot of sense, as long as we have people keeping up with the new releases to document them. -- [[User:Cyberlink420|Cyberlink420]] ([[User talk:Cyberlink420|talk]]) 15:51, 4 May 2024 (EDT)

==How we handle weapons' toy/merch sections==
Okay, so like... I'm not really convinced that what we've been doing is the best way to handle the weapon pages' toys/merch sections. Honestly, they end up looking... really shoddy. There's just tiny scraps of info, vast wads of whitespace, few to no links, the images are tons of different sizes. <br>
I'm thinking that instead of all this... maybe this is a place where a gallery is in order, just a chronological procession. Have the captions just say what lines/toys the weapons came with and link to the toys directly on the character page. It's not like there's much to say about any of these, why not let the toy listing on the character page say it? Why make people scroll through screens of mostly-emptiness, which I feel they're increasingly unlikely to do? I may do a sandbox if I'm feeling up to it. --[[User:M Sipher|M Sipher]] ([[User talk:M Sipher|talk]]) 22:24, 6 May 2024 (EDT)
:[[User:M Sipher/Sandbox:WeaponPageToysSection]] - So... this, basically. --[[User:M Sipher|M Sipher]] ([[User talk:M Sipher|talk]]) 22:39, 6 May 2024 (EDT)
:I'd be on board with that. --[[User:Broadside|Broadside]] ([[User talk:Broadside|talk]]) 22:34, 6 May 2024 (EDT)
:I like it. It would be far more compact than our current approach for, say, [[Fusion cannon#Toys]], while still getting the point across. --[[User:Thylacine 2000|Thylacine 2000]] ([[User talk:Thylacine 2000|talk]]) 11:13, 10 May 2024 (EDT)

==Proposal for Unproduced or Unreleased Template==
I don't think the Apocrypha template is particularly useful. It was created specifically for Alignment, but most of the things in it don't fit that criteria. Something like Unproduced or Unreleased Transformer media would be more self explanatory. [[User:WillR113|WillR113]] ([[User talk:WillR113|talk]]) 07:05, 11 May 2024 (EDT)

== Use of pictures from ebay, fan sites, etc ==

Is it appropriate to use pictures of toys from ebay, fan reviews, video review screenshots and the like? Under fair use and with source credit? Sometimes rarer items we don't have good pictures of on the wiki show up in these places. In particular I found a ebay seller with good images of EZ collection toys and and old Japanese review blog with images of Takara variants of HFTD/Autobot Alliance toys so that got me wondering. —[[User:BluJayWarrior|BluJayWarrior]] ([[User talk:BluJayWarrior|talk]]) 10:10, 12 May 2024 (EDT)
:Images from eBay and other fan sites have been and can continue to be used, giving the fullest source credit feasible. I don't think we've ever needed to rely on video review screenshots and would always prefer to have a "normal" still image instead whenever possible. --[[User:Thylacine 2000|Thylacine 2000]] ([[User talk:Thylacine 2000|talk]]) 11:02, 16 May 2024 (EDT)

== ''Fight! Super Robot Lifeform Transformers'' “再構成版” エピソード視聴ガイド "Re-Configuration Version" aka "Re-Constructed Version" Episode Viewing Guide ==

We really need to document the "canon" Japanese viewing order for ''Fight! Super Robot Lifeform Transformers'' & ''Fight! Super Robot Lifeform Transformers 2010'' originally included with the ''Pioneer'' Laserdisc booklets & later apparently revised by [[Hirofumi Ichikawa]] (市川裕文) for the DVD BOX SET 2 Instruction Booklet as it would help clean-up the chronology on many wiki pages here. From what I've been able to gather this particular viewing order differs from both the US/Japan production orders, the US-Airing order and the Japanese-Airing order. So what exactly is the order of the episodes of these two series according to these documents? Does anyone own them and able to list the specific order in which the episodes appear in those LD/DVD "Instruction Booklets" word-for-word? As it stands, we've only mentioned that a "narrative viewing order" exists but do not have it listed anywhere. For further clarification, it is not the order in which the episodes appear on the Japanese DVDs. [[User:Astrobotix|Astrobotix]] ([[User talk:Astrobotix|talk]]) 01:09, 15 May 2024 (EDT)
:While this information would be valuable and is worth documenting, it's unlikely to result in us making any major changes to the way our information is structured. -- [[User:Cyberlink420|Cyberlink420]] ([[User talk:Cyberlink420|talk]]) 17:31, 16 May 2024 (EDT)
:Okay, having seen the booklets in question, it just lists the episodes in production order, continuity errors and all. So...absolutely no change, then. -- [[User:Cyberlink420|Cyberlink420]] ([[User talk:Cyberlink420|talk]]) 20:44, 17 May 2024 (EDT)

== Documenting MSRP? ==

Would it be worth documenting MSRP prices (in usd at least)? For the regular retail classes that's for the most part covered by the [[size class]] page, but we don't keep track of them for more specialty items like Masterpieces, multipacks, exclusives, one-off releases not in a normal size class, special lines like Missing Link, etc. It's something I find personally interesting and would've liked to know for older figures and someone in the future might want to know about today's releases. It can also offer some neat bits of info like how Premium Finish releases were generally one price point up compared to the figure's size or how the upcoming United Cliffjumper multipack is a whole $30 off what the individual figures would cost --[[User:BluJayWarrior|BluJayWarrior]] ([[User talk:BluJayWarrior|talk]]) 14:20, 21 May 2024 (EDT)
:I think this would be very interesting, particularly when you scroll down pages for G1 toys that got multiple reissues like the Seekers, Insecticons, and tape players. It's just that - like the Designer Notes and the proper insignias on each and every toy - it would take forever to add and would probably wind up being one super-dedicated person having to do most of the work. --[[User:Thylacine 2000|Thylacine 2000]] ([[User talk:Thylacine 2000|talk]]) 14:28, 21 May 2024 (EDT)
::I might try to do what I can, going back to recatalogue everything would definitely be a chore. But at the very least I strongly believe it's something we can and should implement for future toy entries. I've started a [[User:BluJayWarrior/Sandbox|MSRP Sandbox]] to try out a few formats, any feedback is appreciated. --[[User:BluJayWarrior|BluJayWarrior]] ([[User talk:BluJayWarrior|talk]]) 05:18, 23 May 2024 (EDT)
::Cleaned up the sandbox page. Anyone have anything to say about the format? Might try applying Style 1 to a few pages this weekend if no one makes any objections. [[User:BluJayWarrior|BluJayWarrior]] ([[User talk:BluJayWarrior|talk]]) 12:58, 24 May 2024 (EDT)
:::Of those options I like Style 1 the best. As you already noted, the [[size class]] pages covers basically all normal U.S. retail from BW through Legacy, missing things like Platinum and MP. To find contemporary G1 prices, here are some good resources:
:::https://web.archive.org/web/20181125082555/https://pleasesavemerobots.com/vstp/vstptf84.html
:::https://web.archive.org/web/20191114081109/http://pleasesavemerobots.com/vstp/vstptf85.html
:::https://web.archive.org/web/20191114091052/http://pleasesavemerobots.com/vstp/vstptf86.html
:::https://web.archive.org/web/20191114090836/http://pleasesavemerobots.com/vstp/vstptf87.html
:::https://web.archive.org/web/20191114084922/http://pleasesavemerobots.com/vstp/vstptf88.html
:::https://web.archive.org/web/20191114081716/http://pleasesavemerobots.com/vstp/vstptf89.html
:::https://web.archive.org/web/20191114085830/http://pleasesavemerobots.com/vstp/vstptf90.html
:::https://www.tfw2005.com/boards/threads/g1-original-retail-price-listing.1167895/
:::I tried looking for G2 MSRP but couldn't find anything as obvious. --[[User:Thylacine 2000|Thylacine 2000]] ([[User talk:Thylacine 2000|talk]]) 13:24, 24 May 2024 (EDT)
::::Thanks for the sources, gonna have to sort through that later. Planning to start with new ROTB characters since they're smaller pages and prices can still be found. I've decided to add prices for retail classes for reader convenience; not everyone will know to go to the size class page for them and its not linked often enough to make it reasonable they would. [[User:BluJayWarrior|BluJayWarrior]] ([[User talk:BluJayWarrior|talk]]) 14:22, 24 May 2024 (EDT)

: I'd been working on a project like this a long time ago, had originally proposed adding this to the wiki, but then kinda stopped... mostly because near as I could tell, the MSRP in the 80s was something retailers could just make the hell up. The price ranges for any given toy were kinda all over the damn place, and the MSRP was something some retailers used to go "no really we're cheaper SEE?" then make up some price they supposedly "discounted" down from... you know, the thing that got Kay-Bee in legal-type troubles. I was increasingly unsure how to handle that wild price variance concisely on the wiki. In fact...
::https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1PBE2i9vLE6fkr933GQbXosA1cxIqB3CkOSnzW0BMdwc/edit#gid=448439989
: Take a look-see. There's at least three different MSRP values for the standard Headmasters, never mind actual sticker prices. Like, I ''want'' to provide this kind of context, I really do, and it's pretty easy once we get to the unified price points of BW on... but for G1 and G2? Woof. That's going to take a bit of mulling. "Average" price maybe, but there's gonna be some Prices Georg here and there throwing shit off. --[[User:M Sipher|M Sipher]] ([[User talk:M Sipher|talk]]) 16:35, 24 May 2024 (EDT)
::RE: The sandbox... I'm gonna have to vote against Style 1, because, as noted, price info is very likely going to get... cluttered, and the longer that parenthetical is, the worse it is. I'd REALLY like to keep that to just "size class/type (if not obvious) and release year". And don't forget Takara-release prices, which can be more flexible even within a size class... but at least those have been ''extensively'' documented. I think we need to talk about bit more about everything we'd need to cover and ''how'' before we go implementing anything, and get a few more people in on the discussion. (Sorry for all the add-ons, lightly scattered today.) --[[User:M Sipher|M Sipher]] ([[User talk:M Sipher|talk]]) 18:18, 24 May 2024 (EDT)
:::Fair enough on the old stuff since that gets convoluted, but the newer stuff is comparatively easier to do and I'd rather start sooner before some MSRP prices get harder to find (ROTB Autobots Unite subline prices seem to have disappeared already). Added the ROTB Airazor page I was gonna start with to the sandbox so you can see how the page might look as a whole. Since you object to Style 1 I added a Style 2 version too. --[[User:BluJayWarrior|BluJayWarrior]] ([[User talk:BluJayWarrior|talk]]) 18:38, 24 May 2024 (EDT)
:::: Assemble the data, sure, but I am going to say do ''not'' actually apply any of this to live articles. Again, there's barely been any time or discussion on a project that is... vast in scope, and we simply do not jump on stuff like this right away, because that means things will get not considered and then we have to re-do hundreds to thousands of pages... and we absolutely do ''not'' do it when there's a giant obvious gap (the first decade of the franchise) that still needs to be considered, as how we handle ''that'' will affect how we handle all the others, because we try and keep things consistent.
:::: Like, just off the top of my head, there's non-US-or-Japan markets to consider for just about everything normal-retail. Which makes me think we may want to look into a collapsible template, like with the toy designers and voice actors, to handle the other markets without overloading the bullet point sections, some of which are already a bit husky. There's the fact that Walmart and Target just dropped the prices on TF Deluxes in the US... but apparently, Hasbro didn't change their "MSRP"/cost at all. In fact a quick jump to Hasbro Pulse shows they're still charging $25 for a ''Legacy/Studio'' Deluxe, while I can pop to the local Target/Walmart and buy 'em at $20, so we gotta consider ranges just like with G1/G2. And again... ''I'm moderately convinced that "MSRP" in the USA was bullshit all along,'' so I don't know that it's the term we even want to use in the first place. Maybe "Retail price" would be better. --[[User:M Sipher|M Sipher]] ([[User talk:M Sipher|talk]]) 00:17, 25 May 2024 (EDT)
:::::I think just documenting the MSRP, if we know it, is enough. No need to go down the rabbit hole of tracking down what individual retailers sell them at when they disregard the MSRP (which as, after all, only a suggested price). In my opinion, at least, it's little different from listing the cover prices of books - the only difference is that Hasbro doesn't print their suggested price directly on the box.
:::::Totally hear you on waiting to the pull the trigger until it's been properly discussed, though. Also, I prefer BluJay's Style 2 as well. -- [[User:Dark T Zeratul|Dark T Zeratul]] ([[User talk:Dark T Zeratul|talk]]) 03:46, 25 May 2024 (EDT)
:::::: Um, the problem is, again... I really don't think we HAVE any actual MSRPs outside of Takara's. What's been cataloged here are just "prices they were sold at", which isn't ''specifically'' a Manufacturer's Suggested Retail Price, the specific price suggested specifically by the manufacturer. Those we'd need a source for, and as I've pointed out, the handful of stated "MSRP"s we've seen for Hasbro stuff... well, someone was lying, likely multiple someones. For BW on we have a pretty strong ''inference'' of MSRP, but, well. And even that's not reliable... I just remembered that Walmart and Target were charging markedly different prices for the ''EarthSpark'' Tacticons, like, a $2 diff.
:::::: What I'm saying is, we might want to just not call it "MSRP" because of that (also, frankly I question how many people even recognize that acronym). And because of the wide variance in prices for older stuff, no, we don't need to list every price at every retailer (there were a billion retailers in the 80s... man, remember when actual competition in the market was a thing?), but we really OUGHT to account for the variance somehow, because it can be wide and ''full''. "''Original price''" might be best, since that's what we're actually reporting here, with something like "$2.99 - $4.99 (US) / ¥500 (Japan) <expand>". I'd rather do a range than a single-price "average" on old stuff, especially when we have so MUCH data on what these were sold at across the nation that we can see the trends and when a particularly high or low price is an outlier adn should not have been counted. "Modern" stuff we can certainly ignore, say, Kohl's's higher prices and just do the average probable-MSRP-if-those-actually-exist prices most places (all two of them) charge. --[[User:M Sipher|M Sipher]] ([[User talk:M Sipher|talk]]) 17:10, 25 May 2024 (EDT)
::::Alright, I'll make a [[User:BluJayWarrior/MSRP Catalog|separate sub page]] to catalog prices for now while that gets sorted out
::::As Dark T said, I think prioritizing initial Hasbro MSRP is best as it is the "intended" price (this is what [https://brickset.com Brickset] does for Lego). It's a point of consistency since historically different retailers tend have slight variations on the price anyway (Target/Walmart sometimes being slightly lower, Kohls/BBTS being higher, general lag on reflecting the msrp price increases a few years ago, etc) and I don't think that whole range needs to be noted. Admittedly the current Target/Walmart prices drops are pretty unusual (a whole $5?!) but unless it becomes something more widespread I personally wouldn't consider it as a data point. Might be worth making a note of somewhere if anything, though I'm not sure where --[[User:BluJayWarrior|BluJayWarrior]] ([[User talk:BluJayWarrior|talk]]) 04:26, 25 May 2024 (EDT)

==Micronauts, etc.==
Why are we suddenly gaining detailed issue write-ups for so much of Micronauts, which contains no TF elements at all? Isn't that the point of the IDW Hasbroverse wiki? --[[User:Thylacine 2000|Thylacine 2000]] ([[User talk:Thylacine 2000|talk]]) 13:14, 1 August 2024 (EDT)
:Oh and look, now whole issues of M.A.S.K. written 7 years ago with no TF content whatsoever are being pasted from the Hasbroverse wiki. Is the other site going offline or something? --[[User:Thylacine 2000|Thylacine 2000]] ([[User talk:Thylacine 2000|talk]]) 14:26, 1 August 2024 (EDT)
::I don't think it was really our intention to formally unveil the project until we were further along, but some of us have been doing a fair bit of work towards creating a [https://gijoe.miraheze.org/wiki/Main_Page sister wiki for ''G.I. Joe''] where the [https://gijoe.miraheze.org/wiki/Comics#IDW_Publishing_3 out-of-scope IDW Joe coverage] has already been re-homed. The Joe crew hasn't made any calls about what do with non-Joe stuff to be clear (we're sort of preoccupied, there's so much Joe you guys) but I'm guessing the idea here is to align the rest with our [[Transformers Wiki talk:Community Portal/Archive71#Energon Universe coverage|current approach]] to [[Energon Universe|Skybound's shared universe]] and sundown the IDW one? --[[User:AzimuthAcolyte|AzimuthAcolyte]] ([[User talk:AzimuthAcolyte|talk]]) 15:43, 1 August 2024 (EDT)
:::That is more or less the intention, yeah. The Hasbroverse wiki was built at a time where it was perhaps anticipated to be grander than it ended up being, and it wasn't certain how long it was going to run; with the end result being "not very", having this other vestigial site for what is ultimately not a lot of content just doesn't feel practical. The exception, of course, is pre-V5 Joe, which has ''always'' been the sticking point in discussions about moving Hasbroverse content here, both for the amount and for how little it has to do with the IDW Transformers line. Having a dedicated Joe wiki solves that problem and frees up the rest of the Hasbroverse stuff to be reintegrated. Plus, there's still new Joe material being released to this day; arguably having a complete and better curated site for the franchise as a whole that continues to be updated with new releases is more likely to drive traffic and get other people to contribute than it would be linking to a dead wiki for a long-ended comic line that's had the same featured articles for five years because no one cares to add anything to it anymore. -- [[User:Cyberlink420|Cyberlink420]] ([[User talk:Cyberlink420|talk]]) 15:59, 1 August 2024 (EDT)
::::It does look like a rough consensus was reached to do this back in 2021 ([[Transformers_Wiki_talk:Community_Portal/Archive69#Reintegration_of_Hasbroverse_wiki_content|Archive 69]]), it was just never implemented. --[[User:Xaaron|Xaaron]] ([[User talk:Xaaron|talk]]) 16:10, 1 August 2024 (EDT)
::Like half of MASK issues have something from Transformers in them. Picking and choosing which select issues to cover here is hair-splitting and obnoxious for readers. It's immensely better to just have all the information in one, easily-accessible spot and regard Hasbro Universe as a de facto spinoff of Transformers, much like Beastformers and Energon Universe are. [[User:Saix|Saix]] ([[User talk:Saix|talk]]) 17:10, 1 August 2024 (EDT)

==One spoilers==
I propose that information about this movie be withheld until it actually opens in its largest market next weekend. --[[User:Thylacine 2000|Thylacine 2000]] ([[User talk:Thylacine 2000|talk]]) 11:04, 14 September 2024 (EDT)
: Agreed. [[User:Locoman|Locoman]] ([[User talk:Locoman|talk]]) 11:08, 14 September 2024 (EDT)

==Transformers One and the conversation we've all been waiting for==

On September 12th, Lorenzo di Bonaventura [https://comicbook.com/movies/news/is-transformers-one-a-prequel-optimus-prime-origin-story-exclusive/ clarified the relationship] between ''Transformers One'' and the live-action ''Transformers'' films, describing them as "two universes" that will be "separate". For some, this kind of explicit confirmation may come as a relief after years of wishy-washy answers regarding ''Bumblebee'' and ''Rise of the Beasts'', but it also leaves us with questions on how to best handle ''One''-related information going forward. Around 2015, we adopted a unique layout we applied to all the movie characters, where we organized their movie appearances at the top of the page, regardless of chronological order of release (see "[[Optimus Prime (Movie)#Movies]]"). Obviously, this leads to some questions regarding how we should handle our ''One'' coverage going forward.

The way I see it, we have three options:

* '''Keep the page format as is, and keep''' '''''One''''' '''up with the rest of the movies''': For obvious reasons I think this is probably our weakest possible solution; it's pretty clear at this point that our current solution for classifying the films is not really sustainable, and mashing them all together under a single loosely-affiliated umbrella is already confusing and frustrating people who aren't intimately acquainted with the mechanics of the wiki.

* '''Reorganize movie character pages so that we acknowledge the live-action films and''' '''''One''''' '''as separate continuities within one continuity family, similar to how our G1 pages cover Sunbow, Marvel, JG1, IDW, etc.''': Historically speaking, this is probably the safest option, but from what I understand there is very little "connective tissue"—visually, character-wise, plot-beats—between the live-action films and ''One'' beyond the inertia of "they were both made by Paramount". As some people have discussed in the past, this could lead to a full or partial reformat of our movie character coverage to more clearly reflect the ambiguous "prequel" status of ''Bumblebee'' and ''Rise of the Beasts'', but this may be a conversation for another time.

* '''Separate''' '''''One''''' '''as an entirely new continuity family and split out the relevant information so we have pages for "Optimus Prime (One)", "Megatron (One)", etc.''' Probably the most radical proposal, but this is honestly where I'm at right now: from what I understand the movie is a pretty radical departure from everything that's gone before, with entirely new interpretations of old ''Transformers'' lore—I'd classify it as the start of a new "franchise" in the same way that we distinguish ''Earthspark'' and ''Cyberverse'' despite them both clearly drawing on the same well of post-Aligned lore, and these days "new franchise" is generally synonymous with "new continuity family" for the ease of wiki bookkeeping.

We would appreciate hearing your thoughts on the matter! '''As the film is not out yet in all regions please refrain from posting spoilers here'''. [[User:Locoman|Locoman]] ([[User talk:Locoman|talk]]) 08:56, 15 September 2024 (EDT)

:I could see option 3 being the way we go, but what holds me back from that is that beyond just Paramount, Spielberg and Bay are still executive producers on the film. [[User:Escargon|Escargon]] ([[User talk:Escargon|talk]]) 09:39, 15 September 2024 (EDT)

::I think we should put them on the Earthspark Continuity pages to satisfy no-one /j - but yeah, the film is drawing from the same vaguely Binder Of Revelation backstory as everything else for the last 10 years, and unless they have been hiding The Fallen twisting D-16 to evil or the twist that the Creators were the Quintessons all along, One feels pretty decoupled from the rest of the movies. The big issue I see with splitting out fully is that people wondering why we do not do the same for Bumblebee/ROTB, but that more easily passes a "vibe check" as being "Movie-adjacent" and belonging on the same page as the Bay 5-dom than One so far. Agree that trying to put them directly alongside the other movies as a prequel feels both unwieldy and confusing. [[User:AkibaSilver|AkibaSilver]] ([[User talk:AkibaSilver|talk]]) 09:41, 15 September 2024 (EDT)

:I vote for '''option 3''', I think creating separate pages is the way to go. [[User:MrRald|MrRald]] ([[User talk:MrRald|talk]]) 09:54, 15 September 2024 (EDT)
::I vote for '''option 2'''. To me the movie is different enough to be a separate universe but not an entirely different continuity. Josh Cooley himself on April 18 when asked whether the film is a fresh start, a prequel to the live-action films, or its own thing, replied with: "yes to all of the above" https://comicbook.com/movies/news/transformers-one-director-confirms-new-movies-canon-status. (And having seen the movie I can confirm those connections to the live-action series do exist). [[User:Grievous Prime|Grievous Prime]] ([[User talk:Grievous Prime|talk]]) 10:05, 15 September 2024 (EDT)

:I vote for '''option 3'''. One has always felt very different to the previous live action movies so I feel it should get its own dedicated pages. As for BB and ROTB, there is "connective tissue" to the Bayverse movies so I feel they can stay on the pre-existing movie pages. [[User:PublicCrown|PublicCrown]] ([[User talk:PublicCrown|talk]]) 10:25, 15 September 2024 (EDT)
:Having viewed the film at an advance screening, I think there are easily enough references and homages to previous films that '''option two''' makes the most sense. - [[User:Archforce|Archforce]] ([[User talk:Archforce|talk]]) 10:45, 15 September 2024 (EDT)

::I'm favorable for the '''3rd option''', it is still produced under Paramount & there are some producers attached to the project that were on previous movies, but my stance is that we should judge based on the final product & having seen the movie, it doesn't try to be in line to what came before (there are some similarities in design & names, but it stops there since every popular TF stories has influence over the next ones), helped by the new team of writers & creatives. If we can treat each new cartoon as its own entity (even tho in recent years they are streamlined in some areas), I think we can do the same for the recent movies that have more contradictory elements to the Bayverse –[[User:MahXyme|MahXyme/MahXymal]] ([[User talk:MahXyme|talk]]) 10:49, 15 September 2024 (EDT)
:'''<nowiki>#3</nowiki>''' is the cleanest option to me. [[User:Saix|Saix]] ([[User talk:Saix|talk]]) 11:32, 15 September 2024 (EDT)

:I think from a practical perspective, '''#3''' is the only real option. Looking at the loose guidelines for a new family on our [[continuity family]] page:
:*"a fresh continuity" — Yep, even Lorenzo's acknowledged this. Even if we questioned that, there's stuff like the AllSpark being absent (with the Matrix pretty much taking exactly the role the AllSpark would have), Megatronus being a good guy, and Sentinel's role being entirely irreconcilable with Dark of the Moon.
:*"within a separate franchise" — Yep. New franchise, and the marketing hasn't done anything to allude to the live-action films specifically.
:*"significantly different in cast, theme, style, etc." — This is the big sticking point for me. One makes no attempt to align with the visual style or characterisations of the live-action films. The sole real connective point is B-127 (name from ''Bumblebee'', he has the big cheeks and antenna of the movie guy, and his talking a lot is clearly a meta-gag about him losing his voice), but even he's characterised completely differently, as the "comedy crazy guy" who's a peer to Optimus and co instead of the cool-but-rude big brother figure from Bay/Bee/Beasts.
:I'm sympathetic to the Paramount/Bay/Spielberg/Di Bonaventura connective tissue, but my big rebuttal there is that we don't consider ''EarthSpark'' to be Aligned because Nicole Dubuc is the showrunner. Ultimately, if we hadn't had pre-release producer statements (now contradicted) calling it a prequel to the other movies, there's absolutely no way this would be in question — we'd already have it as a separate continuity family. And from a wiki organisation standpoint I don't think there's any way to, say, write up Sentinel Prime's opening paragraph in a way that adequately covers both the DOTM and One characters without genericising it to the point of uselessness. --[[User:Broadside|Broadside]] ([[User talk:Broadside|talk]]) 12:33, 15 September 2024 (EDT)
::Yeah, I think '''#3''' is straightforward and likely the approach we'd take if we were presented with the film, as a story, with zero context on the studio releasing it or EPs involved or whatever. I also think there's a high likelihood that the next live-action film will have Elita appear and be like "hey Optimus remember when we were in Transformers One?" and we'll all groan and have to reconsider, but until then, I think the real-world context is basically the only thing separating One from just being the next Broadly Aligned-y New Thing like Cyberverse and EarthSpark before it, which we consistently split out for organisation reasons. [[User:Jalaguy|Jalaguy]] ([[User talk:Jalaguy|talk]]) 13:45, 15 September 2024 (EDT)
:Toss me in for '''Option 3''' of an entirely new continuity given how ''different'' the story details has been laid out when compared to the original 2007 film-verse and then later what's set by ''Bumblebee''. --[[User:Lonegamer78|Lonegamer78]] ([[User talk:Lonegamer78|talk]]) 14:38, 15 September 2024 (EDT)
:Voting for '''option #2'''. While we would still have the outlier of TF:TAM 86 being a theatrically released movie in the G1 continuity family, I see no reason why "movie continuity family" would not only include transmedia spinoffs from feature films (''Reign of Starscream'', toy redeco Tech Specs, etc. etc.) but also feature films which are belonging different timelines and story universes. This would also free us from having to reconcile Movie 'Bee's history -- did he come to Earth in the 1940s or the 1980s? -- and put to bed *that* long running argument about whether the Bay-directed films were the same universe as BB and RotB or not -- now they don't have to be! [[User:Banpei the Mini-Con|Banpei the Mini-Con]] ([[User talk:Banpei the Mini-Con|talk]]) 14:58, 15 September 2024 (EDT)
:Having seen the movie, I think '''#3''' is our cleanest option. Between the Lorenzo interview and, without going into spoilers, the numerous discrepencies there are, I don't think we can get away with suiting it out ala G1. The time may come when we do that for Bumblebee onwards but as far as One goes, I say we treat it as a new continuity. [[User:Ezim93|Ezim93]] ([[User talk:Ezim93|talk]]) 19:53, 15 September 2024 (EDT)
:'''#3'''. #2 was close for me, but TFOne (having seen the movie) is so artistically different from the live action movies, it feels pointless to keep it on the same page like G1/IDW. Ironically, we could give Bayverse/BB&ROTB the G1/IDW treatment. [[User:Boingus|--Boingus]] ([[User talk:Boingus|talk]]) 23:23, 15 September 2024 (EDT)
:I think 3 is where I'm leaning after seeing the film. Keeping this as "movie continuity" simply because it was released theatrically doesn't make sense to me. We wouldn't do that with a new comic or show because it was the same medium, why do it for a movie just because of that? Yes There is some CNA here to the live action films, but it could be argued it has just as much pulled from G1. One is it's own thing in the end. Trying to fit it into the live action movie box just doesn't feel right in this case.--[[User:ParadoxFactor|ParadoxFactor]] ([[User talk:ParadoxFactor|talk]]) 05:47, 16 September 2024 (EDT)
:I vote for '''Option 3''' for all the reasons previously mentioned as well as size concerns. --[[User:Khajidha|Khajidha]] ([[User talk:Khajidha|talk]]) 09:29, 16 September 2024 (EDT)
:'''Option 3''', I believe the movie was clearly made with a new continuity in mind.-[[User:TitaniumToughGuy|TitaniumToughGuy]] ([[User talk:TitaniumToughGuy|talk]]) 09:38, 16 September 2024 (EDT)
===CHECKPOINT (2024/09/16)===
*Votes for Option 1: 1 (96megatron)
*Votes for Option 2: 3 (GrievousPrime, Archforce, Banpei the Mini-Con)
*Votes for Option 3: 15 (Locoman, AkibaSilver, MrRald, PublicCrown, MahXyme, Saix, Broadside, Jalaguy, Lonegamer, Ezim93, Boingus, ParadoxFactor, Khajidha, TitaniumToughGuy, CyberLink420)
As it stands, current consensus is pretty overwhelmingly in favor of Option 3 by a ratio of 5:1. I know it's only been a day, but barring a sudden swell of support for #2, it might be prudent to start switching everything over. -- [[User:Cyberlink420|Cyberlink420]] ([[User talk:Cyberlink420|talk]]) 10:20, 16 September 2024 (EDT)
: I'm reluctant to make actual changes until the movie hits wide release and the general public can make informed input. Give it a few more days. --[[User:Broadside|Broadside]] ([[User talk:Broadside|talk]]) 10:40, 16 September 2024 (EDT)
::::This. Let people... SEE the movie before we make important decisions. --[[User:ItsWalky|ItsWalky]] ([[User talk:ItsWalky|talk]]) 19:49, 16 September 2024 (EDT)
::::Right. We can wait a few days for more than a small handful of people to see this and base their decision on, you know, '''''the actual movie''''' rather than whatever someone who had something to do with it says ''this'' week, which historically has waffled between "vague" and "contradictory". Hell, even ''now'' some of them are still being all "well maybe it is and maybe it isn't" and frankly I have no faith they won't ride that ambiguity for a long time like they've done since ''Bumblebee''. --[[User:M Sipher|M Sipher]] ([[User talk:M Sipher|talk]]) 20:49, 16 September 2024 (EDT)
::I've said ever since Keegan Michael Key tweeted as much that One should be treated as a separate continuity. '''Option 3''' for sure. {{unsigned|jmcdavid}}
:'''Option 3'''. I've seen the movie and other users have covered why that seems like the best choice. It feels as different from the previous movies as Prime is from Animated, or Earthspark from Sunbow (which, despite directly homaging/referencing Sunbow, Earthspark is considered separate from). [[User:Ashendawn|Ashendawn]] ([[User talk:Ashendawn|talk]]) 18:01, 16 September 2024 (EDT)
::I vote '''Option 2'''. There seems to be a large focus on whether or not the film fits in continuity with the prior films, but considering how little they fit with each other that feels irrelevant to me. The creators have been rather unclear whether this film should be considered separate from the ongoing live-action series in terms of production, just in terms of universe. If we had a sense this was the springboard for an entirely separate animated film series I'd say Option 3, but it feels unwarranted at this time. [[User:Indridcold13|Indridcold13]] ([[User talk:Indridcold13|talk]]) 20:29, 16 September 2024 (EDT)
:I'm voting '''Option 3'''; much of my reasons are the same as others have stated above, and I do apologise for opening this bags of worms on the ''One'' talk page. It's not that I don't understand why some people are opposed to creating a new set if pages, but for argument's sake, if ''One'' gets one or more sequels, it would likely draw further away from the established live-action films and become its own continuity/franchise (though that's more of a what-if right now). Overall, I personally think that separating live-action films and animated ones into their own continuities is a reasonable option, and I believe that ''One'' has proven itself a different entity. [[User:Prime Temple|Prime Temple]] ([[User talk:Prime Temple|talk]]) 06:26, 17 September 2024 (EDT)

::Also '''Option 3''' . In tone, content, continuity, style, story, just feels too different to me from the Michael Bay and other films, really only having the method of release in common. It feels more separate from the other movies than even Cyberverse from G1, and that’s happily separate. —[[User:MissDaria|MissDaria]] ([[User talk:MissDaria|talk]]) 10:05, 17 September 2024 (EDT)
:Screen Rant: I vote for '''Option 1''' This came out from ScreenRant today. Is Transformers One considered a prequel to the recent movies of Bumblebee and Rise of the Beast or the original live-action film starting in 2007? Or is it something completely, entirely new? ... Lorenzo di Bonaventura: "It obviously exists beforehand. I think we figured it out. It was like 300 million years before the first Michael Bay movie, so if that's a prequel, that's a prequel. But we're really following the lore about where it starts, and so we really just think about it as the beginning of the story. The origin, yes, but literally the beginning of the thing that we've all come to appreciate." https://screenrant.com/transformers-one-lorenzo-di-bonaventura-and-josh-cooley-interview/ [[User:96megatron|96megatron]] ([[User talk:96megatron|talk]]) 10:56, 17 September 2024 (EDT)
::Voting for '''Option 2'''. If adding stuff like Aligned backstory influence disqualifies One from being movie, then there could be an argument for splitting IDW characters off from the G1 pages because of things like the absence of the traditional "Ark crashes on Earth, everyone wakes up 4 million years later" backstory, and no amount of Owning The Bayverse (which I can't help but feel some of the desire to split One off is fueled by) is worth opening that can of worms. [[User:BattleBlade|BattleBlade]] ([[User talk:BattleBlade|talk]]) 12:31, 17 September 2024 (EDT)
:Voting '''Option 3''', y'all gotta stop taking Lorenzo's word as gospel especially over the actual creatives behind these movies. [[User:Jman98|Jman98]] ([[User talk:Jman98|talk]]) 14:25, 17 September 2024 (EDT)
:Voting '''Option 3''', Lorenzo has made multiple contradictory statements in the past, some having been outright proven wrong. He doesn't seem like he's involved enough in the productions in order to make concrete statements about their continuity, nor is he a representative of Hasbro. [[User:TheDarkMage10218|TheDarkMage10218]] ([[User talk:TheDarkMage10218|talk]]) 19:30, 17 September 2024 (CST)
:: While I would agree that splitting it out makes the most sense as I currently see it, lets also not pretend the wiki is under some thrall to the evil boogeyman known as "the fandoms view of Lorenzo" and ignore that multiple creatives for all the movies people like to argue are definitely not Bayverse for realsies have made contradictory statements about whether or not the films are all supposed to be prequels / sequels, and its because [https://x.com/SJ_Broadside/status/1836084548020338988 they are not ubernerds who care about whether this movie perfectly follows the backstory of one from nearly 2 decades ago]. Just personally, I am seeing this like the High Moon Games advertising themselves as a G1 prequel back in the day - for people not like us, all of Transformers falls into the same vague umbrella, so sure, it can be a "prequel" to the rest of the movies, in the same way Optimus Prime is Optimus Prime is Optimus Prime to Hasbro, no matter whether he be G1, Movie, Animated, or Armada. [[User:AkibaSilver|AkibaSilver]] ([[User talk:AkibaSilver|talk]]) 04:34, 18 September 2024 (EDT)
:::Haven't seen the movie yet, but I strongly agree with that comment. This wiki has never been governed by author intent, and particularly regarding the live-action movies there are too many authors giving too much contradictory intent about contradictory material. ''We'' made up the concept of a "continuity family," that concept ''we made up'' is now old enough for a driver's license, we will have to continue making our own judgments about which stories mesh with what. --[[User:Thylacine 2000|Thylacine 2000]] ([[User talk:Thylacine 2000|talk]]) 08:45, 18 September 2024 (EDT)
:::: All this, and as to that last point: "continuity family" ''has literally '''NEVER''' meant "all fits into one actual internal timeline"''. There's a reason we used the word "family". We treat the totally-irreconcilable-timelines-having G1 cartoon and G1 comic as part of the same "family" (and BW as well), because of an ''external'' concept of them being "related" to each other by dint of the how and who and why of their creations. And this has held true as we moved forward, the above-mentioned High Moon statements being a very good example. The sheer squirreliness of multiple creatives -and the films themselves- over the past half-decade or so over "continuity" (and let's just dismiss out of hand what a ''voice actor'' thinks, okay), doesn't exactly make me think that the future won't see more squirreliness in whatever comes next. "The existing character pages are too big already" is a more convincing argument for a full-on split, and we got subpages/suites for that problem. --[[User:M Sipher|M Sipher]] ([[User talk:M Sipher|talk]]) 17:17, 18 September 2024 (EDT)
::::: You all make great points; I amend my reasoning for my choice of Option 3: One deviates stylistically and tonally from the live-action movies, and it isn't even live-action to begin with. [[User:TheDarkMage10218|TheDarkMage10218]] ([[User talk:TheDarkMage10218|talk]]) 22:37, 18 September 2024 (EDT)
:Having seen the movie, I believe '''Option 3''' is the best. It is irreconcilable with the Bay films on several levels (more so than ROTB/Bumblebee). It is extremely aesthetically and tonally different from them as well. I feel that grouping One with the rest of the live-action films simply because they share the same release venue would be akin to grouping Prime and G1. [[User:Paladin Denn|Paladin Denn]] ([[User talk:Paladin Denn|talk]]) 15:22, 18 September 2024 (EDT)

:Just got out of the advanced screening, I think '''Option 3''' would be the best option. There's a few details that clash with the prior films in many regards. It has an overall different feel. --[[User:GordonShumway8690|GordonShumway8690]] ([[User talk:GordonShumway8690|talk]]) 22:10, 18 September 2024 (EDT)

:Just saw the movie, and I vote '''Option 3'''. This movie ''cannot'' be in the same continuity as the other films, so Option 3 would be our safest bet. [[User:Decepticon Stryker|Decepticon Stryker]] ([[User talk:Decepticon Stryker|talk]]) 01:06, 19 September 2024 (EDT)

:Another vote by a movie watcher for '''Option 3.''' Several events in the third act counter what has happened in Bay's films. For the ease of the wiki having it stay separated is the best way to prevent headaches and finger pointing by having it all on the same page. [[User:Singularity|Singularity]] ([[User talk:Singularity|talk]]) 12:21, 19 September 2024 (EDT)
:Does my vote count when I watch it tomorrow? [[User:JasenomousTF|JasenomousTF]] ([[User talk:JasenomousTF|talk]]) 17:27, 19 September 2024 (EDT)

:Saw the film yesterday, only delayed a response because I didn't think I could come up with any unique arguments. But a vote is a vote, and mine is '''Option 3'''. [[User:Bobpiecheese|Bobpiecheese]] ([[User talk:Bobpiecheese|talk]]) 19:32, 19 September 2024 (EDT)

:Count me among the other votes for '''Option 3'''. After seeing the movie, there really is no possible way to finagle it into the pre-existing Movie continuity, even in an Aligned Continuity "works-if-you-squint" manner. It's absolutely its own thing by the definitions the Wiki uses to separate continuities from one another. [[User:SlimerJoel|SlimerJoel]] ([[User talk:SlimerJoel|talk]]) 19:42, 19 September 2024 (EDT)

Just got back from seeing the movie, giving a vote for '''Option 3'''. The film is significantly different in tone, lore, designs, characterization, and story beats from bayverse. Arguably closer to aligned or idw1 [[User:Arren1234|Arren]] ([[User talk:Arren1234|talk]]) 21:31, 19 September 2024 (EDT)

:Having just seen the film, it is thoroughly '''Option 3'''. There isn't a single link in play between this and the live action films, not even in design or animation language. Hell, you could make a vastly stronger argument for it being a prequel to the Aligned continuity than the films. Just from an ease of use angle, I also don't think people who are coming in for Transformers One info are going to want to dig through years of irrelevant existing live action film content in the first place. [[User:MCRG|MCRG]] ([[User talk:MCRG|talk]]) 02:16, 20 September 2024 (EDT)

:Just seen the film. Definitely '''Option 3'''. I was just thinking it would be easier too for newcomers looking for info to not have to encounter a mainpic and write-up that describes a totally different person up top. [[User:Nu-Priest|Nu-Priest]] ([[User talk:Nu-Priest|talk]]) 09:10, 20 September 2024 (EDT)

Coming out of the movie, I was '''Option 2'''. Definitely separate from the live action films, but I think it would be convenient to have all the films (that aren’t extended episodes of a pre-existing cartoon) all under the same umbrella. I do understand the arguments that it’s really different in tone and content from the other films, but so is 2005 IDW to G1. Maybe do a suite page that includes everything One related? Like, Optimus Prime (Movie) Main/Games/Toys/One? [[User:Cylasbreakdown|Cylasbreakdown]] ([[User talk:Cylasbreakdown|talk]]) 20:34, 20 September 2024 (EDT)
:Suiting is only done in instances where a single subject, such as a specific piece of media or a toy section, gets ''so'' big that it starts to overwhelm the page, something that absolutely does not apply to ''One'' yet. -- [[User:Cyberlink420|Cyberlink420]] ([[User talk:Cyberlink420|talk]]) 20:39, 20 September 2024 (EDT)
::Correct me if I’m wrong, but was Shattered Glass Unicron really overwhelming the rest of the page on its own? Or RID2001 Universe Optimus Prime? I figured they were just really distinct and separate from all the ether appearances. Unless there’s something I’m not completely understanding about the suiteing rules (which I admit is entirely possible), I think that hypothetically making a One suite for all the big main characters and their toys would be convenient. [[User:Cylasbreakdown|Cylasbreakdown]] ([[User talk:Cylasbreakdown|talk]]) 11:12, 21 September 2024 (EDT)
:::Shattered Glass Unicron and the female, yellow 2003 Universe RID2001 Optimus Prime pages also have arguments of merging them with the larger articles they were originally spun off from. [[User:Shockwave2018|Shockwave2018]] ([[User talk:Shockwave2018|talk]]) 21:07, 23 September 2024 (GMT-3)

'''Option 3'''. After having watched the movie, it's substantially different so as to be disconnected from the live action movies, and I don't like the precedence it sets to lump every movie together from here on out, especially if this one's success inspires future free-standing Transformers movies down the line. I understand it with the live-action movies, because the line was very blurry, but it's pretty obvious that this one is separate. [[User:Thunderwolf|Thunderwolf]] ([[User talk:Thunderwolf|talk]]) 21:10, 20 September 2024 (EDT)

'''Option 3'''. I just got back from watching the movie, and it's the option that makes the most sense. There's just too much to connect it to the previous films, and while I do see where Option 2 is coming from I don't even think there's enough in common for it to be in the same continuity family (and I don't think its a good idea to throw every single movie that we're unsure about into the the 2007 family imo). Also taking into account the contradictory statements regarding the movie from producers and higher-ups, I think the simplest and most user-friendly option is to put everything into one new continuity family. If something changes so be it, but based on what we have 3 is the best choice. [[User:Hyperious|Hyperious]] ([[User talk:Hyperious|talk]]) 18:19, 21 September 2024 (EDT)

:Might as well throw my vote for '''Option 3''' in too. Even if we keep having this conversation over every new movie they release, it's already very clear that the best ''for wiki purposes'' is to split One from the rest. -- [[User:Fritz|Fritz]] ([[User talk:Fritz|talk]]) 20:23, 21 September 2024 (EDT)
I haven't seen the movie yet, so I don't quite feel right casting a vote here, but I do have one question: to those in favor of option 2, what do you feel makes Transformers One in the same family as the live-action movies, that didn't make Earthspark in the same family as Cyberverse? -- [[User:Dark T Zeratul|Dark T Zeratul]] ([[User talk:Dark T Zeratul|talk]]) 03:39, 24 September 2024 (EDT)
: The fact that Cyberverse and Earthspark are sold as entirely separate franchises, whereas this is just the new movie. [[User:Indridcold13|Indridcold13]] ([[User talk:Indridcold13|talk]]) 07:19, 24 September 2024 (EDT)
::''All'' of the Paramount TF movies have had their own separate franchises. Heck, even the 2010 Movieverse toyline between ROTF and DOTM was its own franchise and it didn't even have a movie. --[[User:Sabrblade|Sabrblade]] ([[User talk:Sabrblade|talk]]) 18:51, 24 September 2024 (EDT)

We've clearly long since moved forward with this but just for posterity now that I've finally made it out to the theater, '''Option 3''' does indeed strike me as the right call. --[[User:AzimuthAcolyte|AzimuthAcolyte]] ([[User talk:AzimuthAcolyte|talk]]) 18:24, 29 September 2024 (EDT)
:I second what Azimuth said, now. -- [[User:Dark T Zeratul|Dark T Zeratul]] ([[User talk:Dark T Zeratul|talk]]) 18:29, 2 October 2024 (EDT)

== Privacy Policy ==

It occurred to me recently that the Privacy Policy has not been adopted though it has been over fifteen years since it was originally written. I wrote a couple of things in its talk page but ultimately got no response. I then contacted abates on what to do next, he told me I could write up a new intro in the talk page. I did, and it hasn't had a response. The policy is linked to at the bottom of every page on the wiki, so if we could get some activity on its talk page, I'd appreciate it. [[User:Hilfam|Hilfam]] ([[User talk:Hilfam|talk]]) 20:41, 6 November 2024 (EST)

==The Thirteen and the other conversation we've been waiting for==

Over the last few years, the Thirteen have played a major role in multiple ''Transformers'' stories. However, this prominence—combined with Hasbro's increasingly loose approach their in-universe lore—has also led to increasingly divergent portrayals of the group and its individual members.

Around 2015, we took the step of consolidating all the different incarnations of the Thirteen on one page for each, with the rationale that the characters were former [[multiversal singularity|multiversal singularities]], and mostly shared similar backstories and personalities between incarnations. However, even at the time, this was not a completely ideal comporomise. Most notably, the various [[Alpha Trion (disambiguation)|Alpha Trion]]s were not consolidated into one, partly due to length and partly because the existence of his [[Alpha Trion (SG)|murderously insane evil counterpart]] represented a massive contradiction to the entire notion.

However, over the years, multiple authors have drastically reinterpreted the Thirteen and their story. The role of "Thirteenth Prime" has been filled by multiple contradictory characters—[[Optimus Prime (WFC)|Optimus Prime]], [[Zeta Prime (One)|Zeta Prime]], [[Sentinel Prime (G1)|Sentinel Prime]]—and individual depictions of the Primes themselves have grown increasingly divergent. "Shattered Glass" Alpha Trion is no longer the outlier, but rather an increasing trend: for instance, ''Transformers One'' features a completely heroic Megatronus who never becomes The Fallen, a Liege Maximo that looks nothing like Loki, and an incarnation of Nexus Prime that does not seem to be a combiner. With these data points in mind—and the potential for even further divergence in the coming years—I and several other editors feel that it may be time to reorganize our Thirteen coverage, splitting them out into individual [[continuity family]]-based incarnations the way we would for stock characters like [[Optimus Prime (disambiguation)|Optimus Prime]], [[Bumblebee (disambiguation)|Bumblebee]], etc.

However, if we do adopt this approach, some further problems would need to be solved.

* '''How do we handle toys?''' With a few exceptions like ''Revenge of the Fallen'' The Fallen, the toys of the Thirteen are clearly meant to be somewhat continuity-agnostic. ''Age of the Primes'' Solus Prime is about as faithful to her depiction in ''The Covenant of Primus'' as it is to ''One'' or any of the IDW comics in which she appears. Even if we count them as "repurposes" across multiple pages, the format of the wiki means they'd have to be based ''somewhere''...

* '''FunPub stuff''': The Vector Prime of "Ask Vector Prime" is clearly meant to be a version of the same Vector Prime who appeared in the ''Cybertron'' cartoon, but at the same time makes reference to off-camera events, such as a time when he and the Thirteen lived in Ancient Greece—would we make a separate "FunPub" page for the Thirteen, or try and work these events onto Unicron Trilogy pages when necessary? Other similar problems exist: "[[Coalescence]]" is a story that features a movie universe Fallen jumping into the world of ''Shattered Glass'', and AVP established that "The Evil One" of GoBots fame, is another alternate-universe incarnation of The Fallen/Megatronus.

Feedback on this proposal is appreciated! [[User:Locoman|Locoman]] ([[User talk:Locoman|talk]]) 11:50, 7 December 2024 (EST)
:From my point of view, I think as it stands right now my thoughts on the Thirteenth Prime stuff is that I absolutely understand the concerns, but for me personally it kind of falls into the same view as like, IDW Primus being Rung, which I think our current model handles fairly well. For the other Primes, I'm tempted to say that like...as it stands, there's about as much divergence there as like, Unicron as he's depicted in The Last Knight (not really shown to be aggressive beyond being called Cybertron's enemy), and as it stands right now, I don't think that's enough to say there should be a full-on split, but I do think it's worth thinking about future-proofing. And I suppose my main concern right now about pushing ahead too soon is in the event there's some fiction accompanying the Age of the Primes stuff; certainly, the fact that we're getting a toy of the Fallen with the Megatronus name but with the original Dreamwave design does make me hesitant that there might be some further consolidation of disparate elements; and I remember that last time we did this in the early 2010s was that we figured the idea of the Aligned Primes not having any connections to the others was going to be the standard going forward, which turned out not to be the case, and I figure it might be worth considering if something like that happens again. But! I am open to ideas of how to implement this if we do go for it; I think the suite options we have for Primus and Unicron work perfectly fine if we go for something like that. Just figure it's worth considering the stuff I've brought up here first. [[User:Escargon|Escargon]] ([[User talk:Escargon|talk]]) 12:35, 7 December 2024 (EST)
::Right now, I'm leaning toward the camp of not splitting them out for all the reasons you've given. I look at our current situation and, while not perfect, I feel that things can be tidied up simply with some "Conceptual history" sections for the pages that need them. The aforementioned Vector Prime is a particular case not just for everything stated about him above, but because [[Vector Prime: In the Beginning|his very first Fub Pub appearance]] written by [[Forest Lee]] leans so heavily far into the multiversal aspect of the character that it doesn't treat him like he is a native to the Cybertron cartoon universe but rather to the whole multiverse itself. Similarly, Nexus Prime was also continuity-agnostic by his very nature from the ground up. The safest solution for splitting him out would be to classify his Fun Pub incarnation under "(Timelines)" (the previous "(Classics)" tag we had him under was bleh), but that's typically a last-resort tag we have tried to avoid in the past.
::Regarding The Fallen, while he does tend to be evil in a majority of his depictions, and has had a few outlier cases where he either didn't go bad at all (TF One) or was the victim of other's manipulations (Covenant), it's implied that the majority of those evil versions weren't always evil from the start, and only went bad later. The TF One version of Megatronus never turned to the dark side, but one could argue that he was murdered before he ever would have gotten the chance to. ;-)
::Regarding the Thirteenth Prime and various conflicting the depictions, we solved that issue by simply creating the "[[Thirteenth Prime]]" article to explain everything there.
::You mention the situation with Alpha Trion, and I get it. The biggest reasons for simply not merging all of his pages together were that A) he was never originally meant to be one of the Thirteen since the original Dreamwave-based lore for the Thirteen had them all die before A3 was even born, and B) his Shattered Glass self. I used to be a proponent for keeping all of his versions separate because of A, but in the time since then we've had more and more depictions of him as a 13er who were all still pretty much the same as his traditional pre-Aligned depictions. If we were to merge all of his versions together, a "Conceptual history" section for him could explain the whole "Sometimes he's a 13er, sometimes he's not" situation.
::BUT, there still remains his SG version, which I wouldn't feel comfortable putting on the same page as his other versions. Reaching back to the [https://tfwiki.net/wiki/Talk:Transformers:_Shattered_Glass_(franchise)#Separate_Continuity.3F original discussion] about how to handle the SG characters, I find myself still agreeing with those like Steve-o who pointed out how awkward "'''Continuity X''': Bumblebee loves humans and does lots of funny and cute stuff to help save the universe. '''Continuity Y''': Bumblebee loves humans and does lots of different but still funny and cute stuff to help save the universe. '''Shattered Glass''': Bumblebee is hardcore evil and wants to kill you for no particular reason. '''Continuity Z''': Bumblebee loves humans and does yet another set of funny and cute stuff to help save the universe." reads as a page. But, there is one thing we have nowadays that we did not have back when that original discussion was held and makes me wonder how differently the conversation might have gone if they had existed back then: Subpages. Looking at our [[Primus]] and [[Unicron]] articles, I find it to be a very fair and workable compromise that their respective SG versions are placed not on their respective main pages but as subpages for each. Doing the same for SG Alpha Trion were we to merge all of the non-SG A3's together could be a valid solution too, in my eyes. Unlike others, I don't see subpages as an annoying evil that much be dealt with and eliminated, but as a handy tool to work around tricky situations like this.
::Had they even existed back then, it's very possible that ALL SG characters may have ended up on subpages for their positive polarity counterparts instead of separate pages entirely. And since then, SG has grown to expand not just beyond the original Fun Pub SG G1 continuity but to other non-G1 SG continuities, like for the Movies, Animated, and Cybertron, forcing us to create such unsightly tags as "(SG Movie)", "(SG Animated)", and "(SG Cybertron)", when subpages could have prevented that with "(Movie)/Shattered Glass" or "(Animated)/Shattered Glass" and so on.
::But, I'm getting off topic. Backing up to the Thirteen, I'm for keeping the Thirteen together. In addition to what all I've said above, the Age of the Primes toys seem to be treating them as the standard or definitive versions of the Thirteen that apply for every version/universe/continuity, pulling from all across the board rather than sticking to a single depicted version of them. Prima has his Aligned body but the Sunbow Powerful Robot's head. The Fallen is just the Dreamwave design but with Aligned Megatronus's weapons from the books and RID 2015 cartoon. Micronus is likely to be based on his RID 2015 design which was itself based on the Aligned design. The statue group artwork makes Amalgamous looks more like his TF One design than his Aligned design. Vector Prime is just straight-up Cybertron Vector Prime. And Star Convoy was never one of the Thirteen in any version before now. Yet, all these disparately-sourced designs are being treated as if they all belong to the same group no matter what continuity they come from. So keeping them together as they are would just make it easier for us to not have to split hairs over which versions of which 13ers these are supposed to be when the answer would simply be "all of the above" (and we wouldn't have to put multiple entries of the same toy on, like, six or seven different characters' pages that would have to maintained equally across all of those pages). This model makes this particular version of the group feel inherently multiversal, with each member either originating from a different universe as each other, or being a multiversal hybrids comprised of different aspects of different versions of them from across the dimensions, as if Hasbro is trying to say that the AOTP versions represent *every* version of the Thirteen (minus Star Optimus, of course, since we know he's not a member in every version of this group). --[[User:Sabrblade|Sabrblade]] ([[User talk:Sabrblade|talk]]) 13:01, 7 December 2024 (EST)
:::As somebody who's pushed for this split for a long time, I'm obviously all for it. I feel we can easily determine where the toys go based on their main inspirations (Fallen is G1 Dreamwave, Micronus is Aligned RID, etc) are or just make the links go to the G1 pages (since G1 is effectively the wastebasket taxon of this franchise anyway). For the FunPub stuff, we can either do it Sideways style or just do it like we do for Kre-O and ancillary stuff: place them based on the characterization/design used by the work. Multiversal Vector Prime is pretty much just Cybertron Vector Prime (and the TransTech incarnation from the last portion of AVP can be split out).
:::I am pretty much opposed to "subpages" because that is just duplicating the parentheses system we already have just for the sake of pedantry. [[User:Saix|Saix]] ([[User talk:Saix|talk]]) 13:03, 7 December 2024 (EST)
:::Fully agree with both Escargon and Sabrblade, and their reasoning. I am biased against splits pretty much as a matter of cause, but the Thirteen ''in particular'' have for most of their history (including now, in the continuity-agnostic ''Age of the Primes!)'' been defined by their multiversal nature. I just don't think a split would be helpful. —[[User:The Wadapan|wadapan]] ([[User talk:The Wadapan|talk]]) 16:05, 7 December 2024 (EST)
::::So we need to wait five years of more non-multiversal stories to have this discussion again? That doesn't make sense. The COP version of the Thirteen weren't characterized as singularities in the first place, regardless; only FunPub cared about that aspect (and not even with the usual lineup we have now) and they tossed it because they realized it was an unworkable concept in this franchise and it's unlikely to ever get resurrected. It's been nearly a decade since the Shroud (the concept only existed from 2009-2015). You bring up AOTP but toylines clearly don't and never thought about those characters in terms of our organizational schema. [[User:Saix|Saix]] ([[User talk:Saix|talk]]) 17:19, 7 December 2024 (EST)
:I think we can probably leave the most of the old content together, since it might be a mess to split them apart and much of that content is based on the Covenant mythos anyway. I feel new iterations of the Thirteen (post-POTP?) should get their own pages, like ''Earthspark'' Quintus and the ''One'' Primes (particularly Megatronus since he's quite different). Though I suppose that begs the question of what to use in the parentheses for their current pages... —[[User:BluJayWarrior|BluJayWarrior]] ([[User talk:BluJayWarrior|talk]]) 13:10, 7 December 2024 (EST)
::How much of it is actually sticking to the Covenant? IDW1 had them be regular guys and some pre-Covenant stuff (notably Megatronus/Fallen) is more prominent for the character and not really compatible. Other Aligned stuff has also influenced other "continuity families", but we're not merging those articles, so I don't really see why this is different regarding the Thirteen. [[User:Saix|Saix]] ([[User talk:Saix|talk]]) 13:49, 7 December 2024 (EST)
:I’m against splitting pages, mostly because The Thirteen haven’t had enough drastic and unique depictions of them to stop “breaking the rules” for them and give them split pages.
::> The Thirteen haven’t followed the traditional convention of “every character gets a new page for that universe’s depiction”, mostly because of the whole multiversal singularity issue. Now while that concept isn’t used in fiction anymore, ''Age of the Primes'' seems to lean towards having a standard, continuity-agnostic depiction of the Thirteen from which future teams can use as the foundation of their depictions.
::> Escargon and Sabrblade make some good points regarding subpages, particularly with the example of the standard '''“Primus = God”''' and '''Rung (G1)''' incarnations. Rung is a distinct and unique take on the Primus character whose backstory is incompatible with virtually every other Primus incarnation, so placing him on the same page as the Primus of the Marvel Comics, or Cybertron, or the Aligned continuity, wouldn’t seem right.
::> ''The Covenant of Primus'' has been the foundation of every depiction of the Thirteen since it was released. Certain things might be modified, such as the 2005 IDW’s take on them, but even those Primes still follow certain story beats: Megatronus kills Solus, Liege Maximo is a manipulator, Prima’s role as the leader and his conflict with Megatronus, etc. ''One'' offers a depiction of the Thirteen who don’t enter a War of the Primes situation, but because we don’t really get any more information about them besides how they died, I wouldn’t say that they’re distinct enough or important enough to warrant their own pages.
::> Then there’s the fact that a lot of the Primes either have had very small roles or haven’t had any real importance to the franchise in several years: '''Micronus'''’s last big role was a few episodes in ''Robots in Disguise'' and a clever tie-in to the Microspace of the 2005 IDW universe. '''Onyx'''’s only big role was in the ''Covenant'', mostly thanks to '''[[Shockwave (G1)/2005 IDW continuity|this guy]]''' taking his place in another universe. Onyx has a few mentions in ''Cyberverse'', but I don’t think that alone should be the reason for splitting his page up. '''Nexus Prime''' and '''Vector Prime''' haven’t really done anything notable since the Shroud. '''Solus Prime''' has seen some prominence thanks to IDW's Caminus and ''Power of the Primes'', but those depictions again don’t stray too far from the ''Covenant''. '''Amalgamous Prime''' has had virtually no exploration as a character. The most we’ve gotten for him is a much easier-to-look-at design in ''One''.
::> Character-wise, story-wise… they’re all still heavily based on the ''Covenant''. Even '''Quintus Prime'''’s ''Earthspark'' depiction (with his more human-looking face) is based on his “Johnny Appleseed, made the Quintessons” lore established from the ''Covenant''. Now if we had a full group of the Thirteen from a Shattered Glass universe or had some “What-If?” incarnations of the characters that made them very different… splitting pages would make more sense to me.
::> A lot of the Thirteen have also maintained a consistent visual look to them since their introduction: all the Primes introduced in the Covenant have kept their look (Alchemist’s Lenses, Onyx’s face, Solus’ hair and color scheme), and every version of Megatronus seems to have a Decepticon insignia face, flames, and/or both. While ''One'' may have changed some color schemes (Liege Maximo missing his green), I don’t think just having a different color scheme and nothing else different warrants a new page.
::> I like the idea of conceptual history sections for now, and as I said on ''The Fallen''’s talk page, I think the beginning to his page needs a general rewrite from its “frozen in 2009” version. But until drastic new interpretations of those characters are created, if a member of the Thirteen has a single page… we should keep it as a single page --[[User:Daytonjhammon|Daytonjhammon]] ([[User talk:Daytonjhammon|talk]]) 16:33, 7 December 2024 (EST)
: Splitting them would simply be a bigger headache. They're rather like Primus and Unicron where they're "bigger picture" characters (only this time around designed ''very specifically'' to '''''be''''' as such) and it's best to treat them as such, and really, there's not enough material to BOTHER splitting for most of them. --[[User:M Sipher|M Sipher]] ([[User talk:M Sipher|talk]]) 18:29, 7 December 2024 (EST)
::Since it's related to this subject, it should probably also be mentioned here that there have recently been two discussions happening on the talk page for [[The Fallen]]. One about changing that article's mainpic and the other about moving the page's name to Megatronus. As of now, nothing has come out of either discussion, but I feel the results of this a bigger discussion may have an effect on either of those two smaller ones. Speaking as one who is in favor of not splitting out the Thirteen, my thoughts on these two smaller topics are that a good compromise would be to keep the article at its current name since many Megatronuses still become The Fallen, but replace the mainpic with The Fallen's Age of the Primes toy packaging art (as it depicts him in his original first body from Dreamwave but armed with his now-signature weapons from Aligned media, serving as a sort of visual overview for the character's history), along with a rewrite of his intro at the top of the page to be more all-encompassing, and the inclusion of a new "Conceptual history" section to give a proper overview of his different depictions. --[[User:Sabrblade|Sabrblade]] ([[User talk:Sabrblade|talk]]) 19:29, 7 December 2024 (EST)
:::I'm going to second this. I've mulled it over a little bit and while there is an argument to be made for splitting them out, I feel that 12 of the 13 primes really don't warrant it. They just haven't had as much an impact on the story and while it could be future proofing to split them, until we get prominent appearances from them I don't think it's a viable option right now. Megatronus is clearly the exception to this rule. I don't know if there's a clean solution to dealing with him at the moment. Part of me thinks maybe we should suite out the Movie and RiD versions since those are his too big appearences to date. At the bare minimum though I think we should use either his Dreamwave or Age of Primes art as the mainpic. It's his first body and I think it's influenced more designs than his RoTF design has. [[User:Ezim93|Ezim93]] ([[User talk:Ezim93|talk]]) 22:57, 7 December 2024 (EST)
::::Erm, no. Neither his Movie or RiD sections (certainly not the latter) are big enough to warrant subpages for either. --[[User:Sabrblade|Sabrblade]] ([[User talk:Sabrblade|talk]]) 00:57, 8 December 2024 (EST)
:::I'm also of the opinion that a split would be a massive hassle for very little gain, but I do feel we should move The Fallen to Megatronus. -- [[User:Dark T Zeratul|Dark T Zeratul]] ([[User talk:Dark T Zeratul|talk]]) 06:54, 8 December 2024 (EST)
::::To me, renaming the page to Megatronus feels like renaming an Optimus Prime page to Orion Pax. The name was created to tell us what he was called ''before'' he became The Fallen, like how Orion Pax was what Optimus was called before he became Optimus Prime. TF One Megatronus never became The Fallen but he's an anomaly, not a new standard. As of now, the only impact TF One Megatronus has had on the brand is the official reveal video for Age of the Primes describing the very Dreamwave/Aligned-based AOTP version as "the most powerful Prime," while also putting a grim, pronounced emphasis on "The Fallen" when referring to him as "Megatronus... The Fallen". --[[User:Sabrblade|Sabrblade]] ([[User talk:Sabrblade|talk]]) 13:16, 8 December 2024 (EST)
::::: '''Yes''' to changing The Fallen's mainpic back to the DW-style character design, huge-ass '''No''' to changing the page name; the Optimus/Orion comparison is spot-on. (And as to below... yes. The Thirteen are absolutely "set dressing that walks like a man" and best to approach them as such.) --[[User:M Sipher|M Sipher]] ([[User talk:M Sipher|talk]]) 20:11, 8 December 2024 (EST)

:After meditating upon this a while I think I've come to agree with the broad majority above that splitting each member of the Thirteen would hurt more than it would help. The way I see it what we should be striving for here is the approach that involves the least "hallucinating data" within our organizational system, and splitting will require making a lot of different calls on what "counts" to formulate micro-characterizations for dozens of serial continuity transplants, none of which do much individually, while obfuscating the larger context they are gesturing towards. Fundamentally what we may be running up against here is that the closest most of these guys have to a true "home continuity" as we typically think of it is... the brand bible. They are set dressing that walks like a man.

:To go one step further, if we want to talk future-proofing I would advocate formalizing the approach of treating them as a squad of mini-Unicrons/Primuses such that:

::1) My suggestion for the issues currently plaguing the Fallen (and to a lesser degree Trion) would be to make "Conceptual History" sections more or less standard issue across the board for the Thirteen, laying out swerves in characterization and appearance as they happened rather than trying to pry them apart ''or'' smoosh them together.

::2) I think it's worth revisiting merging Alpha Trion for consistency. In the decade+ since Prime cludged him into the lineup, Alpha Trion has consistently appeared as a member of the Thirteen, an insubstantial cameo, or both in pretty much every continuity he's appeared, and looking backwards I cannot help but notice that the fact that there's next to no meaningful daylight between his depictions has been the running gag of his [[Alpha Trion (disambiguation)|disambiguation page]] since day one. If Shattered Glass remains a sticking point the Unicron/Primus style suite split approach is a reasonable compromise.

:I wouldn't say I'm married to any of this and counter-counter-proposals are welcome, but that's my two cents. --[[User:AzimuthAcolyte|AzimuthAcolyte]] ([[User talk:AzimuthAcolyte|talk]]) 14:08, 8 December 2024 (EST)
:I think just put a line at the end of the fallens intro article that says "while mostly a bad guy, there exists at least one universe (link to TF one section) where he's managed to defy all logic and be...good for once).[[User:Poliwag06|Poliwag06]] ([[User talk:Poliwag06|talk]]) 21:53, 8 December 2024 (EST)

I'm for splitting the Thirteen, for the same reasons Saix gave. If that doesn't work, I think the versions of Alpha Trion should be merged. It's the inconsistency that drives me batty. [[User:Boingus|--Boingus]] ([[User talk:Boingus|talk]]) 22:12, 8 December 2024 (EST)

===Checkpoint? (01/18/2025)===
This topic seems to have gotten as much interaction as it's going to get, so to take stock before it falls off the agenda completely:

:*'''Votes for splitting the Thirteen across the board:''' 4 (Locoman, Saix, BlueJayWarrior, Boingus)
:*'''Votes against:''' 8 (Escargon, Sabrblade, Wadapan, Daytonjhammon, M Sipher, Exim93, Dark T Zeratul, AzimuthAcolyte)

That seems like a pretty resounding 2:1 "no," but the discussion also generated some possible compromises/suggestions for future-proofing:

:*'''Votes for more widespread use of "Conceptual History" sections:''' 3 (Sabrblade, Daytonjhammon, AzimuthAcolyte)
:*'''Votes to merge Alpha Trion (with potential SG suite) for consistency:''' 3 (Sabrblade, AzimuthAcolyte, Boingus)

Lastly it generated some cross-bleed from the debates on [[Talk:The Fallen|The Fallen's talk page]] about some updates now that we're 16 years out from his [[live-action film series]] star turn:

1) Moving the page to "Megatronus":
:*'''For:''' 1 (Dark T Zeratul)
:*'''Against:''' 2 (Sabrblade, M Sipher)

2) Swapping back to a Dreamwave-style mainpic:
:*'''For:''' 3 (Sabrblade, Ezim93, M Sipher)

If anyone wants to try to resuscitate the mega-split speak now. If not, thoughts on the compromise proposals?

The Fallen discussion should probably return to his own page. --[[User:AzimuthAcolyte|AzimuthAcolyte]] ([[User talk:AzimuthAcolyte|talk]]) 13:33, 18 January 2025 (EST)
:My stances remain unchanged on all of the above. --[[User:Sabrblade|Sabrblade]] ([[User talk:Sabrblade|talk]]) 13:55, 18 January 2025 (EST)
::I'd be fine with splitting, but if we don't, we ''absolutely'' need to merge the Alpha Trions. There's no good justification for the others being together and him being split.
::As for the Fallen... I feel the need to point out that it's not ''just'' One Megatronus that didn't use the name. EVERY toyline and piece of media in the last decade — RID15, the Prime Wars cartoons, the POTP toy, the offhand mentions in Cyberverse — have used "Megatronus", completely dropping the idea that he stopped being Megatronus and became the Fallen. It's evidently how Hasbro thinks of the character; the Studio Series toy provides plenty of evidence that they ''could'' have just called the AOTP toy "The Fallen" if they'd wanted to. -[[User:Broadside|Broadside]] ([[User talk:Broadside|talk]]) 15:51, 18 January 2025 (EST)
:::I am also pro-merging Alpha Trions with a SG subpage along the lines of what we do for Primus and Unicron. [[User:Escargon|Escargon]] ([[User talk:Escargon|talk]]) 16:11, 18 January 2025 (EST)
::::I disagree that we need to put SG Trion on a separate page. Just have his Shattered Glass section open with "In the mirror universe of Shattered Glass, Alpha Trion was..." --[[User:Broadside|Broadside]] ([[User talk:Broadside|talk]]) 16:58, 18 January 2025 (EST)
::::I'm pro merging Alpha Trion as well and adding conceptual history. Fallen/Megatronus discussion I'm good with taking back to his page. [[User:Ezim93|Ezim93]] ([[User talk:Ezim93|talk]]) 16:20, 18 January 2025 (EST)

:Here's my 5 cents. We are under no obligation to be consistent with how we treat the members of the Thirteen. If it makes sense for the characters, we can have Alpha Trions on separate pages because he has a long rich history of appearances in wide and varied media, including media in which he is not a member of the Thirteen, and we can also have Amalgamous Prime on one page because he doesn't. --[[User:Abates|abates]] ([[User talk:Abates|talk]]) 16:48, 18 January 2025 (EST)
:My votes: No to splitting the 13 articles, yes for conceptual history, no to merging Trion (maybe expanding his disambig a la Sideways'?), no to moving the Fallen, maybe to changing his mainpic (compare to UT or Aligned characteers with major body changes - UT generally sticks with the Armada bodies, but Aligned favours Prime bodies over WFC). [[User:BattleBlade|BattleBlade]] ([[User talk:BattleBlade|talk]]) 18:01, 18 January 2025 (EST)
:I also think that it wouldn´t be appropriate to separate the pages of the thirteen and that the articles about Alpha Trion should be merged, after he become one one of the 13 he is mostly the same across all media. --[[User:MikeOsix|MikeOsix]] ([[User_talk:MikeOsix|talk]]) 20:57, 18 January 2024 (EST)

== Maybe we should consider our stance on leaks... ==

I know they suck, but considering how they happen and most the fandom tends to lap it up (at least on TFW and seibertron),us just kind of vehemently refusing to admit they happen feels a bit wrong now. Maybe we should retroactively start acknowledging when the figures got leaked when they're officially confirmed, instead of just pretending they don't exist, for completionists sake. --[[User:Poliwag06|Poliwag06]] ([[User talk:Poliwag06|talk]]) 19:41, 7 December 2024 (EST)

:Sometimes Hasbro affiliate wiki. No. --[[User:McBaggins|McBaggins]] ([[User talk:McBaggins|talk]]) 20:05, 7 December 2024 (EST)
: Absogoddamnlutely not. This site does not exist to give leakers clout. --[[User:M Sipher|M Sipher]] ([[User talk:M Sipher|talk]]) 20:46, 7 December 2024 (EST)
: That's a legal area best not crossed, so it's a bad idea. --[[User:Lonegamer78|Lonegamer78]] ([[User talk:Lonegamer78|talk]]) 23:49, 7 December 2024 (EST)
:: Understood.[[User:Poliwag06|Poliwag06]] ([[User talk:Poliwag06|talk]]) 23:53, 7 December 2024 (EST)

== International Sightings ==

So, as of late, mentions of "toy appeared in (non-US country) without prior announcement" type lines have been getting purged from the wiki. This makes me wonder: am I allowed to even mention them anymore when a new toy appears somewhere? I'm not really sure why these relatively harmless information lines are getting removed, nor am I really a fan of it, but if I can't mention them anymore I will happily oblige.[[User:Poliwag06|Poliwag06]] ([[User talk:Poliwag06|talk]]) 21:04, 7 January 2025 (EST)
:They're being removed because "toy first showed up at a random store in Asia" is not useful information. That's how toy retail has worked for decades. Hasbro deigning to announce some product doesn't make it the standard. [[User:Saix|Saix]] ([[User talk:Saix|talk]]) 22:57, 7 January 2025 (EST)
::Oh, ok, I'll keep that in mind from now on.[[User:Poliwag06|Poliwag06]] ([[User talk:Poliwag06|talk]]) 23:11, 7 January 2025 (EST)

==First revealed at (some regular online update)==
On a similar note to the international sightings, what do people think of "toy was first revealed in Hasbro Instagram post / Fans First Friday / Pulse livestream of whatever date," etc.? We note this constantly, because it's another fact to include about a just-announced toy nobody owns yet. A year later it looks unimportant. Is this something we like and value, or more of a space-filing habit? --[[User:Thylacine 2000|Thylacine 2000]] ([[User talk:Thylacine 2000|talk]]) 07:34, 8 January 2025 (EST)
:I think it's a lot of blather, but at least it's documenting Hasbro marketing as opposed to random retail appearances. [[User:Saix|Saix]] ([[User talk:Saix|talk]]) 09:25, 8 January 2025 (EST)
: I'm lukewarm at best on 'em. But often these announcements are followed up almost immediately by pre-orders opening up through official channels, and that feels a bit more... noteworthy. --[[User:M Sipher|M Sipher]] ([[User talk:M Sipher|talk]]) 12:31, 8 January 2025 (EST)

Talk:The Fallen

2025-01-19T02:56:23Z

MikeOsix: /* Move to Megatronus? */

[[File:RID-megatronussparkmerger.jpg|thumb|right|250px|unused image]]

That bit about how the Fallen was created by Pat Lee? In the latest edition of Wayward's [http://www.insecticons.com/insecticomics.html Insecticomics] it is said that it was actually Furman who created the character, that Lee just did the design. When I asked her about it, she posted this [http://p206.ezboard.com/fthepaddedcell71381frm19.showMessage?topicID=2995.topic&index=107 transcript] which backs that up. --[[User:KilMichaelMcC|KilMichaelMcC]] 14:46, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

== Trivia ==

OK so I just left line in the trivia, cos I thought it was funny.
*So he's the henchman of a evil being, has mystical supernatural powers, is a badass and is on fire? Someone might want to file a law suit.

Can it stay or should I take it back down?[[User:Dead Metal|Dead Metal]] 09:33, 22 June 2009 (EDT)

..I don't even get that. [[User:AlwaysWrong|AlwaysWrong]] 22:44, 10 June 2009 (EDT)
:It was removed, it contained a link to the wikipedia article for Ghost Rider[[User:Dead Metal|Dead Metal]] 09:33, 22 June 2009 (EDT)

==Head==
Anyone notice that his head is very Soundwave-y? When i first saw him, i clearly recognized his head as soundwave's with added badassery.--[[User:Skyglide|Skyglide]] 05:35, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

==Disambig time?==
http://www.hasbro.com/transformers/default.cfm?page=News/Item&newsid=59522272-D56F-E112-4C783175A8BBBAD6

Ah-heh.

(SOMEBODY IN THAT MOVIE DAMN WELL BETTER BE ON FIRE.) --[[User:ItsWalky|ItsWalky]] 19:39, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

==Fallen, Bludgeon and Megs==

I don't know about Bludgeon, but there is a connection between the Fallen and Megs: IDW Megatron's Cybertronian body is based off of the Fallen, right down to the design of the Fusion Cannon. [[User:GWolfv2]] 21.07 June 11

== Defiance issue 4 Fallen's backstory ==

Defiance issue 4 is out. [http://www.tfw2005.com/transformers-news/transformers-movie-just-movie-31/revenge-of-the-fallen-prequel-comic-defiance-4-provides-potential-movie-spoilers-167267/ TFW2005.com has posted all the Fallen-relevant spoilers from issue 4, but beware, if you're avoiding Defiance, this spoils the Fallen's crazy scheme in the movie]. The backstory for the Fallen seems fairly different to the Fallen we know. So are they still the same guy? --[[User:FFN|FFN]] 14:56, 8 April 2009 (EDT)
:Still appears to be a member of the Thirteen, still appears to betray them, still apparently serves a force that devours planets/stars.--[[User:Rosicrucian|Rosicrucian]][[User Talk:Rosicrucian|<sup>Talk</sup>]] 15:12, 8 April 2009 (EDT)
::But from what I understand of the "multiversal singularity" characters thing, there's just one Fallen, so the guy created by Primus who eventually serves Unicron is also a guy created by a Cube who serves nobody but himself and is building solar towers to replenish the Cube. Or is the currently-untold story of the 13 vague enough that this still works? --[[User:FFN|FFN]] 15:20, 8 April 2009 (EDT)
::It does seem pretty distinct. One's a "created by mighty power source, got selfish, betrayed his brothers, now want to kick off where things went wrong" other "created as a multiversal control for entrophy and warrior against Unicron. Switched sides. Most dangerous servant of the ultimate evil ever". [[User:Eire]] 21.21 Apr 8 2009 (UTC)
:I don't trust a 3rd party summary written by someone who may not fully understand the story to accurately represent what's actually in the story. -[[User:Derik|Derik]] 16:44, 8 April 2009 (EDT)
::In any case, I suspect we are probably going to need to wait to see what the movie itself has to say before making a decision on this. It may expand on what is presented in the comic, it may contradict it in some way, it could make it easier to tie this version in with the previous mythos or may firmly separate it, etc. --[[User:KilMichaelMcC|KilMichaelMcC]] 17:54, 8 April 2009 (EDT)
:::I don't think we would have to wait until the movie if the comic is fairly clear on the matter. - [[User:Starfield|Starfield]] 17:59, 8 April 2009 (EDT)
::::I think we do, because as I said, we have no way of knowing in advance how well the actual movie will line up with the comic. --[[User:KilMichaelMcC|KilMichaelMcC]] 18:05, 8 April 2009 (EDT)
:The Fallen is one thing, but what about definite "multiversal singularity" Primus? Does the AllSpark=Primus in the movieverse? - [[User:Starfield|Starfield]] 17:59, 8 April 2009 (EDT)
::The AllSpark has been designated a [[sacred implement]] in Japanese fiction.--[[User:Rosicrucian|Rosicrucian]][[User Talk:Rosicrucian|<sup>Talk</sup>]] 18:07, 8 April 2009 (EDT)
:::It is not uncommon for Transformers to have no knowledge of Primus or Unicron. For every world where they have a full-blown religion to fill them in, you have one where the Transformers have neither heard of either-- remember in [[The Transformers: The Movie]] Hot Rod and Kup had never even heard Unicron's name before. -[[User:Derik|Derik]] 02:06, 15 April 2009 (EDT)
Did they not mention that the Fallen calls himself and his other pals "trans-dimensional beings"? --[[User:ItsWalky|ItsWalky]] 19:48, 8 April 2009 (EDT)
:Not the mention [http://www.usatoday.com/life/movies/news/2009-04-01-transformers-first-look_N.htm this interview] affirming he's the original and was "banished to another dimension." -[[User:Derik|Derik]] 02:06, 15 April 2009 (EDT)
::I think what they mean by that is that he's stuck in that stupid pylon. --[[User:ItsWalky|ItsWalky]] 02:15, 15 April 2009 (EDT)

==The Fallen gets Power Plans!==
[http://transformerslive.blogspot.com/2009/05/transformers-movie-universe-preview.html] Preview page from the upcoming DK Ultimate Movie Guide, which is totally written by Furman. It establishes a few important things. The Fallen is an "omniversal tyrant." He betrayed his fellow Primes to serve the source of his new "chaotic" powers "from the very birth of the universe," forces which seek to replace morality with a "void." --[[User:ItsWalky|ItsWalky]] 16:06, 18 May 2009 (EDT)
:If Nimoy is cast as him, it will be the second time in his career that he'll be playing some sort of servant of Unicron. --[[User:FFN|FFN]] 02:36, 20 May 2009 (EDT)

== Subject Seperation ==

Will you make a separate page the live action version of the Fallen? --Some Random User guy {{unsigned|69.230.53.229|00:50, May 20, 2009 EDT}}
:As we far as we know, the Fallen is a multi-dimensional being that can... you get the picture. If this Fallen is established as a seperate being, then maybe.--[[User:AWT88|AWT88]] 01:01, 20 May 2009 (EDT)
::And as seen in Walky's post above this, the DK guide establishes the Fallen as an "Omniversal tyrant". That more or less means the Fallen is one of those characters who can travel between dimensions, and there's only one of him. Thus, we consider ROTF Fallen to be the same guy as Dreamwave comics Fallen, unless the movie says otherwise (and it obviously won't). --[[User:FFN|FFN]] 02:36, 20 May 2009 (EDT)
::Despite the brain-bending problems this creates with the other 12, yes. Are they all birthed by the AllSpark then? That's not what The Ultimate Guide says... (We'll figure it out. Expect the backpedaling, qualifications and clarifications to begin trickling in this fall.) -[[User:Derik|Derik]] 04:15, 20 May 2009 (EDT)
:::You know, the movie universe could have two individuals named the Fallen. I mean, it's not a real name, but rather a sort of title, right? Why couldn't the omniversal tyrant and some douchebag that came from the AllSpark live in the same universe? -- [[User:Semysane|Semysane]] 04:26, 20 May 2009 (EDT)
:::'''Two''' dimension-hopping flaming ancient Primes who discarded their name in favor of being called "The Fallen" after betraying their 12 fellow Primes, the oldest of Transformers?
:::We already have the Covenant and the Thirteen. Don't make this ''more'' complicated. -[[User:Derik|Derik]] 04:39, 20 May 2009 (EDT)
:::I personally think they should be seperated. I mean, he's been trapped in that relic, or whatever it exactly is, for a really long time. How could he of shown up in the IDW series? And, the other 12 sacrificed themselves, so, how could they exist either? -[[User:VakamaMetruNui|VakamaMetruNui]] 09:29, 20 May 2009 (EDT)
::::(The Dreamwave series, not the IDW series.) That's really easy to explain. The DW Fallen was also trapped in a dimension, same as the Movie one. He was able to break free of it due to a space bridge accident, and was apparently banished back to it by Primus. (He would have returned if DW hadn't gone bankrupt, so he wasn't dead.) Who knows how time and space work in there. --[[User:ItsWalky|ItsWalky]] 10:11, 20 May 2009 (EDT)
:::::Unicron keeps showing up in new places yet always gets defeated in more or less the same way; why should his gothy wanna-be have it any better? Since his "real" origin was as a creation of Primus, perhaps the entire Movie AllSpark / Movie Original 13 was something the Fallen himself put together later--he tried his own hand at being a god, while actually not claiming credit for it but just inserting himself among the lineup, like Keyser Soze. Or maybe he used his woowoo omniversal magic to sense that some other god was about to create the AllSpark, and then he twisted the whole process to his own ends. Who knows. And if all that sounds like a deus-ex-machina, remember that that is LITERALLY what he is. --[[User:Thylacine 2000|Thylacine 2000]] 10:24, 20 May 2009 (EDT)
[[Image:Defianceissue4-creation.jpg|right|thumb|100px|What dimension did this happen in? The movie-verse? Not necessarily.]]
::::::I think splitting the page of a known dimension-hopper goes against common sense. Without a really good reason, of course. I don't think there is a good reason yet. - [[User:Starfield|Starfield]] 10:47, 20 May 2009 (EDT)
:::::::At BotCon 2009, Hasbro copy-writer Forest Lee stated once again (at the Collectors' Club panel) that the Original 13 are all multiversal singularities. Apparently the upcoming movie hasn't changed his mind! So let's hold on to our current setup for the time being. --[[User:ItsWalky|ItsWalky]] 16:11, 2 June 2009 (EDT)
::::::::He didn't state this before, IIRC he stated that they were ''probably'' Multiversal singularities before.
::::::::Do you or anyone (Steve) have an exact working on his statement this weekend? It's worth citing it on the 13 page. -[[User:Derik|Derik]] 16:52, 2 June 2009 (EDT)
:::::::::I don't, no. And Steve-o wasn't there this weekend, so we are without his meticulous information-gathering. He did specifically say that the original 13 were multiversal singularities, though. It was in response to someone asking if Shattered Glass The Fallen would be icy. Forest said that as one of the 13, The Fallen doesn't have any multiverse counterparts. There's just one of him, the same as Vector Prime and the others. (Trent noted that he liked to believe that if the Fallen were to ever wander into the Shattered universe, his flames would turn to ice, much to his confusion.)--[[User:ItsWalky|ItsWalky]] 19:53, 2 June 2009 (EDT)
Is there evidence that supports ROTF Fallen is the same as the character in The War Within?--[[User:TOM|TOM]] 13:20, 29 August 2010 (EDT)
:Evidence in the form of fictional stories? No. Apparently not. It is all shadow evidence as far as I can tell. Word of mouth at conventions and [[Hasbro Q&A/July 2009: Answers|a Hasbro Q&A]]. Should the wiki hang its hat on such shadow evidence? Or would the "multiversal singularity" thing be better put in the "notes" section until it shows up in fiction? - [[User:Starfield|Starfield]] 13:53, 29 August 2010 (EDT)
::If this Wiki wants to wait on merging Alpha Trions I suggest your side doesn't split the G1, UT, ROTF and Prime versions of Prima, Megatronus, Liege or Vector. And it wouldn't call it shadow evidence considering Megatronus explicitly described his brothers as able to traverse dimensions, or Vector and Nexus being the sole versions of those characters flying about the timelines. "[[Reunification: Part 5|All Cybertrons are yours.]]" [[User:Alientraveller|Alientraveller]] 14:15, 29 August 2010 (EDT)

== Movie altmode ==

FYI: If we get Hasbro photography depicting a toy with an altmode (we have!) and the paragraph in question is describing that toy, then ''the presence of said altmode is officially confirmed''. I don't know under what logic you can say otherwise.--[[User:Rosicrucian|Rosicrucian]][[User Talk:Rosicrucian|<sup>Talk</sup>]] 20:10, 22 May 2009 (EDT)
:Remember Scorponok's robot mode? I believe the debate is whether or not The Fallen's vehicle mode was something invented for the toyline. - [[User:Cattleprod|Cattleprod]] 20:48, 22 May 2009 (EDT)
::Except the altmode description was removed from the toy section. The toy has an altmode. Plain as day. Thus the section describing that toy ought to mention said altmode.--[[User:Rosicrucian|Rosicrucian]][[User Talk:Rosicrucian|<sup>Talk</sup>]] 21:07, 22 May 2009 (EDT)
:::Ah, right then. Well... most of what I said can be salvaged, assuming this argument comes up outside the toy section. - [[User:Cattleprod|Cattleprod]] 21:14, 22 May 2009 (EDT)

== Decepticon symbol ==

I see there is a Decepticon symbol on The Fallen's page for a long while, is this something related to his toy(s)? Thanks. (I can't reach my Titanium Fallen now, so... ) --'''[[User:TX55|<span style= "color:#00FA9A">TX55</span>]]'''<small><SUP>''[[User talk:TX55|<span style= "color:#0000CD">TALK</span>]]''</SUP></small> 11:24, 4 June 2009 (EDT)
: His ROTF toy packaging consistently labels him a Decepticon. He helped Megatron START the Decepticon faction in the live-action continuity. And the Decepticon faction symbol is based on his face. --[[User:ItsWalky|ItsWalky]] 11:35, 4 June 2009 (EDT)

:::So it is really due to the ROTF. Thanks. ;-D --'''[[User:TX55|<span style= "color:#00FA9A">TX55</span>]]'''<small><SUP>''[[User talk:TX55|<span style= "color:#0000CD">TALK</span>]]''</SUP></small> 12:55, 4 June 2009 (EDT)

::What they said.
::I notice the Beast-machines Dinobots symbol links to the Dinobots disambig page-- was it used tor the Wal-Mart Dinobots as well? -[[User:Derik|Derik]] 11:56, 4 June 2009 (EDT)

==Mainpic==
When the Wikia site comes up on Google, it also has a secondary link, which is their version of this page. Our secondary link is [[Transformers Animated (cartoon)|''Animated'']], which is unfortunately now a bit less relevant than theirs. (Notably, they've even rebranded their site to have a Movie look.) Happily, our [[The Fallen]] is much better than theirs because we've expanded the DW section, and they still haven't written ANYTHING about the prequel comics. Plus, y'know, there's [[:Image:WikiaAdInsert_TheFallen.jpg|the stuff that made us leave in the first place]]. But in the interests of sealing the relevancy deal, I suggest we change the mainpic to be The Fallen's ROTF body. That way even at a GLANCE a viewer can see which one is more up-to-date. What do you all think? - [[User:Jackpot|Jackpot]] 16:23, 4 June 2009 (EDT)
:I support this. We've got good promo renders of it. Let's do it.--[[User:Rosicrucian|Rosicrucian]][[User Talk:Rosicrucian|<sup>Talk</sup>]] 16:29, 4 June 2009 (EDT)
:Sounds good to me, I say go for it. Maybe change it back when the movie buzz fades down, but for now, yeah, totally. - [[User:Chris McFeely|Chris McFeely]] 16:44, 4 June 2009 (EDT)
::Heh, so they merged the articles back. TX55 was an editor here. Doesn't he notice the borked layout of the images? --[[User:FFN|FFN]] 17:00, 4 June 2009 (EDT)

===New main pic===
[[Image:ROTF The Fallen promotional 1.jpg|thumb|right|250px|You dare photograph me?! I am a a Prime!]]
Swap the current one for a promotional shot from [[Josh Nizzi]]'s website? -- [[User:SFH|SFH]] 13:58, 21 July 2009 (EDT)
:Naw, I prefer the one we have now. Flashier. - [[User:Chris McFeely|Chris McFeely]] 14:12, 21 July 2009 (EDT)

==Grargh fiction==
Do we really need to separate out his various DK Ultimate Guide and Titanium information into their own little sections. Can't we throw those into the beginning of the Dreamwave continuity section and cite them appropriately? This page is now a real friggin' chore to read and understand. --[[User:ItsWalky|ItsWalky]] 19:58, 6 June 2009 (EDT)
:Yeah, it sorta feels like it's... out of order. Cause, it is. Fictionally. I mean, I grok what Jackpot has done - he's put it in publication order, which I know is an approach that he's generall favoured in the past, but to me, it just doesn't "read" right. (Also, I am totally about to ruin the "he is on fire" joke. Watch me go!) - [[User:Chris McFeely|Chris McFeely]] 20:05, 6 June 2009 (EDT)
::I feel a little weird about combining them like that, but I don't full-on object. I don't think there's ever been precedent for putting toy-bio info into a comic-series summary, but in this case there was clearly intent behind the bio to make it mesh, and there are no variant ''War Within'' "continuities." All I can do is note that it's unorthodox and move along.
::Oh, and Walky, thanks for restoring the continuity-family headers. My theory is that since our default organizational model is to separate our articles based on continuity family, whenever we break that "rule," we should call it out.
::- [[User:Jackpot|Jackpot]] 16:49, 7 June 2009 (EDT)

==Really not buying the 'multiversal singularity' thing here==
Recently, I saw the new movie and....... I don't see how it could possibly be the same character as in Dreamwave's comics.
Not only is his entire backstory different, but his motives also seem different and the film also makes mention that The Fallen was a member of 8 original leaders (if I remember correctly), as opposed to 13.
Not to mention his radically different appearance (the other 'multiversal singularities' at least all looked alike) and abilities.

Unless the writers find a way of explaining how this could be possible, I don't see how it makes any form of sense.
:The fact it's 8 and not 13 is the first sign that the writers ''intend'' to explain it. They're backpedaling away from making it "The 13" because it creates ''way'' to many problems.
:We all basically agree that it makes not sense now, but this ('''very''' last-minute) change strongly indicates that it ''will'' make sense, and that Hasbro's story-gurus has finally figured out how they intend to make it fit. -[[User:Derik|Derik]] 19:33, 21 June 2009 (EDT)
::I seriously doubt that Hasbro's story-gurus had any imput whatsoever on the contents of the movie itself. --[[User:KilMichaelMcC|KilMichaelMcC]] 20:35, 21 June 2009 (EDT)
:::Yes, I think that rather than being The 'Multiversal Singularity' Fallen, The (ROTF) Fallen is just a 'fallen' Prime who is subsequently and coincidentally called "The Fallen". He happens to have the same name, like Prowl, Prowl, Prowl, Prowl and Prowl.[[Special:Contributions/218.214.49.189|218.214.49.189]] 21:02, 23 June 2009 (EDT)
::::That's nice, but Hasbro's packaging bio writer is saying that's not the case. Thus we have to go with what he says. --[[User:Rosicrucian|Rosicrucian]][[User Talk:Rosicrucian|<sup>Talk</sup>]] 21:09, 23 June 2009 (EDT)
So... Doesn't this mean that since he died in the movie, he has died in all universes forever, since he is a "multiversal singularity"?[[Special:Contributions/76.251.230.101|76.251.230.101]] 19:59, 3 August 2009 (EDT)
:When a multiversal singularity "dies" in one universe, he'll reappear in another universe --[[Special:Contributions/72.64.107.124|72.64.107.124]] 20:02, 3 August 2009 (EDT)
::I've seen that idea expressed on the Wiki before, but I've never seen a source for it. Basically... says who? In fact, most of what we "know" about multiversal singularities comes not from the fiction itself, but from creator comments. I don't agree with putting [[authorial intent]] on that high a pedestal, especially when its results are flat-out nonsensical. I think that at best, author-intent should get a Note, not define central aspects of how we describe characters. - [[User:Jackpot|Jackpot]] 20:16, 3 August 2009 (EDT)
:::Hear hear! Besides, saying that a character is a multiuniversal singularity only lasts until someone else says he's not. Then we get a weird state of 'he's mostly a multiuniversal singularity, except where he isn't' situation. I think this sort of notion warrants about as much consideration as a Madman DVD book saying that Cyclonus categorically was Skywarp - we note it, then we go on with the rest of our lives. --[[User:Jimsorenson|Jimsorenson]] 20:37, 3 August 2009 (EDT)
::::There's at least some indication that Mowry and Furman are going to attempt to reconcile the multiversal singularity thing, or at least hang a lampshade on it and run with it, in [[Transformers: Tales of the Fallen|Tales of the Fallen]]. We may get our answer soon.--[[User:Rosicrucian|Rosicrucian]][[User Talk:Rosicrucian|<sup>Talk</sup>]] 21:09, 3 August 2009 (EDT)
:::::''saying that a character is a multiuniversal singularity only lasts until someone else says he's not''
:::::Bingo. No matter how much people might like Forrest's ideas, it's just as much "authorial intent" whenever anybody else at Hasbro or IDW or Bay's workshop says something that contradicts him. We know he's multiversal, or "omniversal," whatever, because one of the movie guidebooks says so. I try not to think too hard about the "13-whoops-7-Primes" clusterfuck. --[[User:Thylacine 2000|Thylacine 2000]] 21:48, 3 August 2009 (EDT)
:::I think the idea of Multiversal Singularities dieing in one universe and appearing in another has 2 sources: 1) Unicron - He's a multiversal singularity and this is demonstrably how he works, and 2) Vector Prime - After his death in the UT he's seen again in the final credits battling Galvatron again. Granted it's supposition, but I think that's the basis for the idea.--[[Special:Contributions/76.28.72.27|76.28.72.27]] 21:22, 3 August 2009 (EDT)
::::Unicron's many deaths constitute one of the reasons why the multiversal-singularity idea is generally thought to be nonsensical. The idea that he "respawns" every time he's destroyed is a rationalization somebody here came up with; it's never been shown to ''happen'' in the fiction. And Vector Prime's case barely applies; he wasn't destroyed the way Unicron or The Fallen were; he just permanently phased outside of normal time because he overexerted his temporal powers. It was presumably in this non-time limbo that he battled Galvatron again, and where he will be forever. Ultimately, I think Rosicrucian's right: We should wait until "Tales of the Fallen" comes out before we make any hard-and-fast calls on the subject. But I've [[Talk:Unicron#"Respawning"?|long thought]] that we should be more rigorous about letting the fiction alone define "multiversal singularity" instead of the authors, and I'll be more than happy if future information radically changes what we think it means. - [[User:Jackpot|Jackpot]] 22:43, 3 August 2009 (EDT)
:::::The bio for TRU-excl. Universe Unicron says he travels through multiple dimensions and that whenever he dies he comes back to life. I don't think it says he has to be reobrn in a different dimension than the one he just died in, but honestly, once they've officialized and published the "multidimensionality and immortality" aspect, precisely where he is at ANY given moment in any life doesn't matter. But that's just Unicron--there's nothing as cut-and-dried in published form for the rest of them, I don't think. --[[User:Thylacine 2000|Thylacine 2000]] 23:08, 3 August 2009 (EDT)
::::::Ah, that's interesting. Let's [http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3254/2856639219_b4fb44b44e.jpg?v=0 take a look]... Hm, it actually sounds more like Vector Prime's existence than the hoppity-hop-from-universe-to-universe model that's been the wiki party line. Unicron "floats through the non-space between dimensions, reaching out with his sensors to find the universe with the most energy. Those dimensions he finds suitable, he consumes." Also, "He has been defeated or destroyed countless times, yet he always returns [...] for [...] He is evil incarnate, and as long as there is evil, there is Unicron." It sounds like, whereas Vector Prime is stuck outside of time and can only send messages (or swords) into the timestream, Unicron can actually manifest himself in a very real and devastating way. But they share some essential transcendent nature, which to me is a bit more sensical than the more linear model. I read it to mean that basically he can keep coming back because he's always got one foot outside of normal space-time, and destroying a specific incarnation will never be enough. It's not a full "death." Plus he's got that strange relation to the concept of evil, which is backed up in the ''Armada'' cartoon when only Galvatron's death and the resulting end of the war could destroy him. As you say, I don't know how this would apply to The Fallen or others, but one thing at a time... - [[User:Jackpot|Jackpot]] 00:06, 4 August 2009 (EDT)
:::::::It's not particularly relevant, but I just want to point out that Vector Prime ''did'' actually die, in the sense that his linear lifespan came to an end point. He continues to exist because ''prior'' to his death, he spent most of his existence outside of the timestream, and since time has no meaning there, he will ''always'' be there, watching and guiding. - [[User:Chris McFeely|Chris McFeely]] 07:55, 4 August 2009 (EDT)

== Change of appearance ==

From TF; The Movie Universe
{{quote|The Fallen butchered and betrayed his brother Primes, disowning his given name in favor of one befitting his new, terrifying appearance.|<u>[[Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen: The Movie Universe]]</u> p86|"The Fallen"}}
Late intot he game, we have the idea that The Fallen may have changed his appearance. (And since his appearance is really no different than the other Primes... it begs the question what the hell this is talking about.)

Oh, and Walky was wondering abotu the curiously-regular panes of transparent plastic on The Fallen toy's shoulders... accordign to the guidebook, he has "Energon Distribution arcs" in his shoulders-- I think they're actually supposed to represent some sort of energy blade. -[[User:Derik|Derik]] 19:44, 21 June 2009 (EDT)

== Unreliable narrator ==

So I saw the ROTF film. It really doesn't clash with the Multiversal Singularity thing too bad... it's Defiance that's the real problem. And I'm beginning to think that Definace just had a ''serious'' case of "unreliable narrator."

Let's assume (for a moment) that the Fallen ''was'' lying about parts of his backstory to Megatron. He certainly didn't mention Primus or Unicron (so we know he left stuff out) and we know he was snowing Megatron about making him a Prime (something you apparently have to be born to in the Movieverse.) He's ALREADY demonstrably lying, so lets throw out everything he said about his own origins, and assume he's actually the same dimension-hopping spanish-speaking nutjob we know and love-- what would the universe 'look' like?

Logically, The Fallen {{redact|''traveled'' to this universe and integrated himself with it-- somehow convincing the six Founding Primes of the universe that he was one of them. He then secretly endeavored to murder them all, destroy the Earth and seize ultimate power for himself using the sun harvester.}}

Of course, if this was '''actually''' what happened, and The Fallen is lying... you'd expect there to be some ''indicator['' of this in the IDW comics.

[[Image:Ros03 cuberitual.png|thumb|250px]]
Oh hey, look at that! It's the ancient illustration Starscream was trying to replicate in "Reign of Starscream"! The ''only'' piece of evidence from the era of the original Primes that ''doesn't'' come from our Unreliable Narrator. And what does it show?
{{redact|'''Six''' Primes surrounding the AllSpark cube as it is renewed by the Sun Harvester. '''Not''' seven.}} -[[User:Derik|Derik]] 23:55, 24 June 2009 (EDT)
:As much as I really want to make this all work, I don't know if I want to go the Unreliable Narrator route. --[[User:ItsWalky|ItsWalky]] 00:18, 25 June 2009 (EDT)
::Neither do I... but if IDW chooses to quietly change the 13 primes to the 7 in their Movie Spotlight books... at ''that'' point the Fallen's retelling of history becomes much more actively wrong, and this bit from Reign of Starscream fits quite nicely.
::I figured it was worth highlighting as a possibility. It wouldn't be appropriate to present it as "fact" until IDW gets a crack at it. (It seems almost inevitable that there are Retcons Comings.) But i was pleased to discover that there's at least one ''fairly'' clean way here to make things more-or-less fit, and it ties into some pre-established continuity arond Starscream's plan with the [[Replica AllSpark]], which is a definite plus in terms of making the change less jarring. -[[User:Derik|Derik]] 00:27, 25 June 2009 (EDT)
:::Your way probably works better than my "the other 6 Primes were busy." But still, that's fanon until Forest Lee gets a crack at it. --[[User:ItsWalky|ItsWalky]] 00:31, 25 June 2009 (EDT)
:::...That leaves me a little worried that we're putting our hopes on IDW. Especially since they caused quite a few of the problems. And lets not even get into their record of continuity consistency in okaying [[The Transformers: All Hail Megatron|All Hail Megatron]]. -- [[User:SFH|SFH]] 00:34, 25 June 2009 (EDT)
:::::But '''nothing''' the movies is 100% consistent with one another. Did you notice Leo mentioned the big fight from the 2007 movie took place in '''L.A.'''? And the IDW comics aren't in continuity with the ''first'' movie in a strict sense either-- Reign of starscream dedicated a page to re-doing the "gathering of the 'cons" from the dfirst movie ''just'' so they could assert "no, he's called BRAWL damnit." Or the helicopter being shot down over <strike>Afganistan</strike> America.
:::::Frankly, I think think the wiki would be best off is we weaned ourselves of this tendency to present the IDW comics as somehow "the primary continuity." They're definitely bound up tightly with the movies... but they ''aren't'' in perfect continuity with them-- and it's not just oddities, it's outright deliberate contradiction, like the Brawl thing. -[[User:Derik|Derik]] 00:57, 25 June 2009 (EDT)
::::::Until I get an official reasoning to change continuity flow of various fiction, I'd rather leave the articles as they are. Brawl thing - who cares, really? --[[User:FFN|FFN]] 04:36, 25 June 2009 (EDT)
:::::::By which you mean "structured differently than every other fiction section on the wiki." ;)
:::::::(I'm not really pushing for the restructure either. Just talking in general terms.) -[[User:Derik|Derik]] 04:54, 25 June 2009 (EDT)
::::::::I'm set in my ways, dagnabbit. Yeah, the movie kind of started the movement of supporting fiction such as comic books and novels more or less directly being in continuity with the primary fiction, something we saw later in Animated. As opposed to the traditional TF method of having comics and cartoons and books all going in completely different directions. --[[User:FFN|FFN]] 05:26, 25 June 2009 (EDT)

::::You've got it backwards. The Mowry-penned stuff has some of the best internal consistency of the entire continuity.--[[User:Rosicrucian|Rosicrucian]][[User Talk:Rosicrucian|<sup>Talk</sup>]] 00:37, 25 June 2009 (EDT)
:::::Right, Mowry was foreshadowing the RotF plot in the second issue of Reign of Starscream, before ''anything'' had leaked. And he seems to have a pretty clear idea where almost ''every'' character "was" before and after the war, how they're related to one another, etc. He also did a ''lot'' of ground work to make the game drones fit right. -[[User:Derik|Derik]] 00:57, 25 June 2009 (EDT)

== Voyager toy ==

The Voyager toy has slidable gauntlets, shinguards, and some kind of firey thing under the shinguards, but none of these are called out in the instructions, or seem to serve any point in either mode. Should this be mentioned in the article, and if not, does anyone know what the deal with them is?[[User:KrytenKoro|KrytenKoro]] 20:50, 4 July 2009 (EDT)

== "saturn"? ==

Especially because the novel specifically says it's not Saturn, can we get rid of this? Unless it was revealed in an interview or on a toy bio or something, all the movie shows is that it's on the moon of a ringed planet - without specifically identifying it.[[User:KrytenKoro|KrytenKoro]] 19:22, 12 July 2009 (EDT)
:I think it has to be Saturn unless it is a plot hole. Megatron just flies there in about a day or so. It has to be in the solar system, I think. Megatron was never shown to have a personal space bridge like Jetfire. Can Megatron travel faster-than-light? Possibly, but the space bridge seems to be this universe's faster-than-light technology. - [[User:Starfield|Starfield]] 20:57, 12 July 2009 (EDT)
::I recall seeing something about how Megatron can travel interstellar distances, but that he's supposed to be one of the few Transformers who can. Additionally, we see the Decepticons travel to Earth in transition form, implying that they are coming from somewhere in the solar system. -- [[User:SFH|SFH]] 20:59, 12 July 2009 (EDT)
:::Yes, Megatron can travel interstellar distances, but in a day or two? - [[User:Starfield|Starfield]] 21:02, 12 July 2009 (EDT)
::::And return with Starscream and Grindor? And have The Fallen and a buttload of new Hatchlings arrive not soon after? They can't be lightyears away. That'd basically be Yet Another Plothole. --[[User:ItsWalky|ItsWalky]] 21:09, 12 July 2009 (EDT)
:::::According to the Ultimate Guide, The Fallen actually can do something like a space bridge, so wouldn't it be possible for the Fallen to have brought them to the final battle? Unless the Fallen can only do personal transport.
:::::For Grindor, though, do we know he was actually on the Nemesis?[[User:KrytenKoro|KrytenKoro]] 22:47, 12 July 2009 (EDT)
::::::I thought someone might suggest that about The Fallen, so I didn't argue that point. I think that if he has the ability to space bridge armies across interstellar distances I would wonder why he would need the Nemesis at all. Starscream also made it to the Nemesis but he had a little longer, he could have hailed a space taxi or something. I think the movie strongly implies the Decepticons traveled by protoform from a relatively short distance and landed on the aircraft carriers. Even The Fallen. He seems to have traveled by protoform. Maybe space bridging long distances uses too much energy? - [[User:Starfield|Starfield]] 23:13, 12 July 2009 (EDT)
:::::::"Saturn" appears to have a nebula in the background in the movie.
:::::::Which means that unless you can provide a cite for it being Saturn, it's not Saturn. -[[User:Derik|Derik]] 00:51, 13 July 2009 (EDT)

==Power of a Prime?==
Why is that important? --[[User:Boba Fett|Boba Fett]] 20:15, 12 July 2009 (EDT)
:Why is pointing out the differences between the film itself and its adaptations important? Is that what you're asking? --[[User:KilMichaelMcC|KilMichaelMcC]] 20:19, 12 July 2009 (EDT)
:Why IS information about a Transformer in a Transfomers wiki important, I wonder? --[[User:ItsWalky|ItsWalky]] 20:50, 12 July 2009 (EDT)
:The novel and comics are similar enough to the movie that they don't merit their own sections on the page, so the few significant differences that DO crop up need to go SOMEWHERE. - [[User:Cattleprod|Cattleprod]] 20:53, 12 July 2009 (EDT)

==Main Pic==

Since the standard practice to to have the main image use the body the character first appeared in, rather than their most recent or more well known, shouldn't the main pic here be his Dreamwave body? [[User:Eire]] 23.45 18 Aug 09 (UTC)
:In this case it was changed so that movie visitors wouldn't reach the page and go "who the hell is this guy?" as well as to visually distinguish our article from Wikia's.--[[User:Rosicrucian|Rosicrucian]][[User Talk:Rosicrucian|<sup>Talk</sup>]] 19:25, 18 August 2009 (EDT)

==Leader Class==

I found a clip on Youtube about a Leader class The Fallen toy. It's extremely close to the CGI version in design and look and it comes with a staff. I think it's a fanmade one, but it's definitely worth noticing. I have proof. [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q142a9Fl9_c]--[[User:Cydra|Cydra]] 09:49, 10 October 2009 (EDT)
: Yeah, that's a custom by FrenzyRumble. --[[User:ItsWalky|ItsWalky]] 09:51, 10 October 2009 (EDT)

== Image:Vectorprimeut.jpg ==

OK, who put that there? The Fallen isn't even on it. --[[User:-Blackout-|-Blackout-]] 12:07, 20 October 2009 (EDT)
: Read the caption and come back to me. --[[User:ItsWalky|ItsWalky]] 12:09, 20 October 2009 (EDT)
::I just wasted two seconds on reading a caption which I have already memorized, and another ten on checking the image again. The Fallen is NOT on the image. --[[User:-Blackout-|-Blackout-]] 12:19, 20 October 2009 (EDT)
:::...yes he is. See the guy behind Vector Prime? His silhouette matches The Fallen's. Pay special attention to the little spikey hangy-things on his crotch, plus the shape of his head. And don't talk to ME about wasting time. --[[User:ItsWalky|ItsWalky]] 12:21, 20 October 2009 (EDT)
::::My bad. --[[User:-Blackout-|-Blackout-]] 12:26, 20 October 2009 (EDT)

== Unable to edit ==
I noticed that I am unable to edit The Fallen page why is that. Also I thing the sarcophagus should have its own link and that it should be edited to make it more appropiate. --[[User:Naruotfox94|Narutofox94]] 10:04, 14 November 2009

== Lawson Exclusive EZ Fallen??? ==

Just noticed the pic of the 'Lawson exclusive' EZ figure.

Apparently the version of EZ Fallen released in the 2-pack with Soundwave was actually the standard US version, and the Takara-Tomy picture was incorrect. Unless anyone has an official source (in-hand pictures, on-line sales listings etc) that says the Japanese version of the Legends figure is any different from the US colours, I'd recommend deleting this photo. [[Special:Contributions/213.123.203.109|213.123.203.109]] 09:03, 1 December 2009 (EST)
:... that doesn't make any sense. If we don't have any in-hand photos, how do we know it's the SAME as the US release? --[[User:Monzo|Monzo]] 10:10, 1 December 2009 (EST)
::So what you're saying is that we have this exclusive Legends Fallen, now released in Japan. You'd think it might show up ''somewhere''? But there's not a squeak of it on YouTube, on eBay, or for that matter ANY Transformers retailer or website you can care to name (trust me, I've checked). I realise it's supposedly an exclusive, but I can't think of another occasion in all my years of collecting when a figure's been commercially released and yet NO-ONE has seen it. As I say, I think it's just a bad photograph.

::Also, note that the two supposed 'exclusives' in this Lawson offer were Mudflap and The Fallen... which haven't actually been released in Japan as part of the main EZ line (nor have they been announced as forthcoming). So it would make sense that these are the standard US versions, which were Lawson store exclusives in Japan. Just like how ROTF Deluxes Dead End, Swerve and Stalker Scorponok were on general sale in the US but store exclusives in Japan.

::I seem to recall pictures of Takara Deluxe Ravage and Voyager Mixmaster with different paint apps too (extra purple on Ravage and a different coloured head on Mixmaster) - yet both releases ended up the same as their US counterparts. Early photos of the Takara combiner Devastator (shown in Hyber Hobby and Dengeki Hobby) has the US grey face that was later changed to red in Japan. We now know that the Deluxe red Rampage has a movie-accurate silver shovel, not the red one we saw in the early pictures. My point here is that promotional photos are notoriously unreliable.

::I realise I'm on shaky ground here - It's very difficult to prove something ''doesn't'' exist. But I think at the very least the point should be made on the page that this so-called redeco has never - to anyone's knowledge - been sighted outside of a low-res photo on the Takara website. And possibly never will.[[Special:Contributions/91.104.167.124|91.104.167.124]] 13:55, 7 December 2009 (EST)
:::This strikes me as a question that would easily be resolved if we had actual contact with the Japanese fanbase.... -[[User:Derik|Derik]] 14:01, 7 December 2009 (EST)
::::OK, after a bit of research, I've discovered that the US and Japanese versions of these legends are IDENTICAL. There are pictures on TFW2005 (I think you need to be a member to sign into the forums) [http://www.tfw2005.com/boards/transformers-toy-discussion/281376-rotf-takara-v-hasbro-comparisons.html] So this page ''does'' need to be changed, as does Mudflap's.[[Special:Contributions/91.104.167.124|91.104.167.124]] 17:20, 7 December 2009 (EST)

== Page Quote ==

To be fair... whether or not it should be changed to LesterX's idea, the current quote does suck. It says pretty much zero about the Fallen's personality or motivation or purpose or anything. All it says is that he's from some past time period, which is true of every 13 member. --[[User:Jeysie|Jeysie]] 17:21, 7 January 2010 (EST)
:I never was crazy about it but it does do a good job of summing up a pretty major aspect of the character. I'm gonna go through all his comic appearances and have a look for a better one (can't think of one from the movie) [[User:Eire]] 00.00 Jan 08 2009 (UTC)
::Change the top quote all you want, but "kali ma" is so not going away for another damn "Give me your face" joke. --[[User:ItsWalky|ItsWalky]] 19:05, 7 January 2010 (EST)
:::No argument from me on ''that'' regard. --[[User:Jeysie|Jeysie]] 19:14, 7 January 2010 (EST)

==Separate==
I recommend that this page be split into two different pages, as the backgrounds differ. (I would type in a label, but the thing won't let me) [[User:Cold Rod|Cold Rod]] 16:23, 17 May 2010 (EDT)
: I recommend you learn what [[multiversal singularity]] means. --[[User:ItsWalky|ItsWalky]] 16:38, 17 May 2010 (EDT)
::Of which the movie version is not. [[Special:Contributions/74.78.77.122|74.78.77.122]] 12:41, 18 May 2010 (EDT)
::::I would like to laugh at this, because do you see that big pile of text on [[multiversal singularity]]? That was taken from a Hasbro response ABOUT SPECIFICALLY MOVIE THE FALLEN. The original question was "If The Fallen is a multiversal singularity, how can we reconcile these various different movie-originated versions of him, like in the novelization and childrens storybooks?" And then we got that answer. So to say that the answer does not pertain to movie The Fallen betrays a monumental ignorance of the subject at hand. --[[User:ItsWalky|ItsWalky]] 13:11, 27 May 2010 (EDT)
:::Prove it. According to Hasbro multiversal singularities can have different backgrounds in different universes and still be the SAME character. Confusing, but true. [[User:Khajidha|Khajidha]] 12:43, 18 May 2010 (EDT)
::::So they look exactly the same then? they have the same background? [[Special:Contributions/74.78.77.122|74.78.77.122]] 12:56, 18 May 2010 (EDT)
:::::Somebody sign this guy up for a course in logic. Or at least ENGLISH. --[[User:Khajidha|Khajidha]] 12:58, 18 May 2010 (EDT)
::::::Seriously, read the [[multiversal singularity]] page. Specifically "multiversal dynamics". - [[User:Chris McFeely|Chris McFeely]] 13:00, 18 May 2010 (EDT)
:::::::You said '''can''', not '''do'''. There's a difference. '''Can''' means possibly. '''Do''' means certainly. It doesn't prove their one and the same. The one bathed in fire isn't a Decepticon. In addition, Teletraan 1 (the other wiki) split theirs. [[Special:Contributions/74.78.77.122|74.78.77.122]] 13:05, 18 May 2010 (EDT)
::::::::Then go annoy them and leave us alone. --[[User:Detour|Detour]] 13:08, 18 May 2010 (EDT)
:::::::::Besides, the other wiki is pretty much abandoned by this community. They're now almost independent. Not only that, but I'm pretty sure Hasbro said they were the same character. --[[User:NCZ|NCZ]] 13:09, 18 May 2010 (EDT)
::::::::::Yes, can. The Fallen has different backgrounds in different universes, but is still a singularity. Other singularities have the same background in different universes. Thus, singularities CAN have different backgrounds. Also, what Teletraan 1 does is not an argument that will go over well here. [[User:Khajidha|Khajidha]] 13:10, 18 May 2010 (EDT)
:::::::::::To cut a long story short, we're treating them as the same because Hasbro writer [[Forest Lee]], who's basically responsible for all the multiversal singularity stuff, ''says they are'', and has offered an explanation for how that works. And yes, kindly refrain from holding up ''anything'' Teletraan-1 does as a basis for how we should do things. - [[User:Chris McFeely|Chris McFeely]] 13:22, 18 May 2010 (EDT)
::::::::::::I thank the other wiki a billion times for separating their Fallen pages, because Google sure likes our page way better now! (and that was fairly immediate) --[[User:ItsWalky|ItsWalky]] 13:07, 27 May 2010 (EDT)
:::::::::::::Google still prefers Wikia if you add "Transformers" to your search terms for "The Fallen", at least from what I can tell. --[[User:FFN|FFN]] 14:18, 27 May 2010 (EDT)

== Multiversal Clean Up ==

Some people's stubborn refusals to understand his nature aside, I think the article as written right now might contain a few too many "artifacts" from when we were still rather unsure of the Fallen's Multiversal Singularity status and how it worked. The "Origin" section for instance seems to exist entirely to present his differing origins as being a conflict while not mentioning at all that Hasbro's explanation on how singularities work explains any conflict away.

I think the page could use a slight "refresh" (the Origin section especially) to really make it clearer that all the differing apperences, actions, and even origins are all part and parcel of how a mulitversal singularity works and not mistakes or continuity conflicts.

Didn't want to try to touch/alter such a potentially controversial article without feeling people out on the idea first though. --[[User:ZacWilliam|ZacWilliam]] 14:43, 18 May 2010 (EDT)

:Anyone have any real feelings on this one way or another? If no, I may attempt a clean up as discribed above in the near future. --[[User:ZacWilliam|ZacWilliam]] 13:03, 27 May 2010 (EDT)
::I'm inclined that it gets a "refresh", given the "stubborn refusals to under his nature". MUL-TI-VERSE, how hard is it to understand? Oy. --[[User:Lonegamer78|Lonegamer78]] 14:39, 27 May 2010 (EDT)
:::What is this 'multiverse' of which you speak? Is that a breakfast cereal?--[[User:Jimsorenson|Jimsorenson]] 14:44, 27 May 2010 (EDT)
::::A wonderful porridge filled with all the vitamins and minerals (some necessary, some superfluous, and some bad for the waistline) for growing protoforms, from the same company that produces Garbage O's! :B --[[User:Lonegamer78|Lonegamer78]] 14:49, 27 May 2010 (EDT)

==Megatronous Prime==
Where the hell did the person who put The Fallen's real name as Megatronous Prime? Which comic or whatever included his real name did that person learn that?
:I believe it was mentioned in the [[Transformers: Exodus|Exodus novel]]. --[[User:Jeysie|Jeysie]] 16:32, 30 June 2010 (EDT)
::I wonder if that's a reference to the Covenant of Primus... "I am alpha and omega, the beginning and the end. I am that which is, which was, and is yet to come...and you will know my name is Megatron when I lay my vengeance upon you!" Sounds like it could be about the Fallen to me. If that's the case, other Megatrons may have named themselves after him to show how hardcore they are. -- [[User:Semysane|Semysane]] 16:58, 30 June 2010 (EDT)

===Appearance===
Dark, Decepticon symbol face, did he look like Soundblaster? Considering that [[Logos Prime|Soundblaster]] might or might not be one of the 13, feels like an odd coincidence. I guess we'll have to wait to find out if that actually means anything. [[User:Item42|Item42]] 11:43, 4 September 2010 (EDT)
:No. He looked like this squat, ornately-carved boxy monstrosity whose whole body vaguely looked like a 'Con symbol, the face much moreso, with a big right-arm cannon. Hasbro said in a previous Q&A answer that we should not assume Logos Prime is one of the 13. I would not be surprised if that character never matters again. --[[User:Thylacine 2000|Thylacine 2000]] 18:09, 4 September 2010 (EDT)
::Considering Logos Prime can alter his appearance at will, and that Soundblaster is only one of those forms, Logos Prime can basically be any of the other 13 that he wants. Hell, maybe he's the Fallen. </fanon> --[[User:ItsWalky|ItsWalky]] 20:36, 4 September 2010 (EDT)
:::I put up this section hoping for it to turn out that way. I think I should maybe discuss this on a messageboard. [[User:Item42|Item42]] 20:52, 4 September 2010 (EDT)
::::Was it [http://t4ak.roblox.com/daaf9f4eb9b33f115661eb4a7c849007 this?] --[[User:King Starscream|King Starscream]] 15:17, 10 April 2012 (EDT)

==Megatronus vs Megatronus Prime==
When Hasbro did their Thirteen concept art presentation at BotCon, pre-The Fallen was just "Megatronus" rather than "Megatronus Prime". I assume this was intentional, as the only Thirteener to otherwise have "Prime" as part of his name in the line-up was Vector Prime. I don't know how this factoid should be incorporated, though. Just in Notes? --[[User:Monzo|Monzo]] 11:07, 12 July 2010 (EDT)

== Life support chair ==

Where did this info come from? It wasn't clarified in the movie.--[[Special:Contributions/96.54.128.212|96.54.128.212]] 16:49, 23 December 2010 (EST)

== A little request ==

Can we have some notes to compare and contrast Fallen's tie-in IDW comics, game, and promo-render forms with the one presented in the final movie? Or at least, can someone explain to me here on this talk page? I know they're different...but I just can't put my finger on how (probably because of the drought of good full body screencaps of him in ROTF) and it's kind of bugged me for a while now. - [[User:Tyrannolodon|Tyrannolodon]] 11:09, 27 May 2011 (EDT)

== Disciples vs. Apostles ==

''"If the first Transformers were Cybertron's '''disciples''', then The Fallen is its Judas."'' I changed this to "apostles" a short time ago, and my edit was undone with this message as accompaniment: ''"The reference is to''' Jesus' twelve disciples'''. Not all of them became apostles, and not all apostles had been disciples."'' I believe there is a confusion here between "apostle" ("one who is sent forth") and "disciple" (student). The apostles were Jesus' twelve chosen: Peter, Andrew, James the Greater, John, Phillip, Bartholomew, Matthew, Thomas, James the Lesser, Thaddeus, Simon, and Judas (Judas was later replaced by Matthias, and the title was also granted to Paul and Barnabas). The disciples were simply the followers of Jesus: the first Christians. Since this page refers to the Twelve, the reference should say "apostle." And if anyone wants a source for all this (other than my Catholic upbringing), I'll list the Bible, CatholicAnswers, and my religion teacher (a Dominican sister who DEFINITELY knows what she is talking about). Sorry for the religion lesson, but I'm 99.9% sure that "apostle" is the right word here.
:-[[User:Queso|¡Usa El Queso!]] - 2:30 PM, 8 June 2011 A.D.
::You must not have listened carefully. Judas Iscariot was a disciple of Jesus, but he was never an apostle. Because he was not sent forth to teach after Jesus death and resurrection. At least that's the way it was explained in the Baptist Churches I grew up in.--[[User:Khajidha|Khajidha]] 14:36, 8 June 2011 (EDT)
:::The only part of Judas sent forth was his intestines. --[[User:ItsWalky|ItsWalky]] 14:44, 8 June 2011 (EDT)
:Does that really apply anymore anyway? There is now the [[Liege Maximo|Liege Maximo]] so there would be two Judases. - [[User:Starfield|Starfield]] 14:51, 8 June 2011 (EDT)
::I'm still wondering if there is any actual evidence (the two being specifically mentioned as being somewhere at the same time for instance) that The Fallen isn't the Liege Maximo. --[[User:Khajidha|Khajidha]] 14:52, 8 June 2011 (EDT)
:::Uh, the relevant panels at the last two BotCons? [[User:Interrobang|—Interrobang]] 15:52, 8 June 2011 (EDT)
::::What exactly was said at the panels, what I've heard didn't sound definitive. --[[User:Khajidha|Khajidha]] 15:58, 8 June 2011 (EDT)
:::::What was said is "This is The Liege Maximo. He's one of the 13. Here is Megatronus Prime, another member of the 13. Later, Megatronus Prime becomes this guy, The Fallen." Each of those three entities had their own art. Liege Maximo looked drastically different from Megatronus/Fallen. And... I'm pretty sure The Fallen isn't going to be two different members of the 13. --[[User:ItsWalky|ItsWalky]] 18:27, 8 June 2011 (EDT)
::::::Okay, that is clear. Given that it was stated that they are separate, my question is invalidated. --[[User:Khajidha|Khajidha]] 21:19, 8 June 2011 (EDT)
I beg to differ, [[User:Khajidha|Khajidha]]: he was sent forth '''before''' Jesus' death. [http://www.biblestudytools.com/rsv/luke/passage.aspx?q=luke+9:1-6 Luke 9:1-6] gives one account of this. Judas was one of the Twelve, AKA the apostles. Also, hee hee... intestines.
:-[[User:Queso|¡Usa El Queso!]] 3:01 PM, 8 June 2011 A.D.
::I'm not arguing that he wasn't sent forth before Jesus's death, I'm arguing that "the apostles" are those sent forth AFTER Jesus's death. Paul was an apostle, never a disciple. Judas was a disciple, never an apostle (by the definition I gave). Since Fallen = Judas, apostle is not a good term to use here. --[[User:Khajidha|Khajidha]] 15:04, 8 June 2011 (EDT)
:::Perhaps [http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/apostle the dictionary definition] can settle this? Note the list of the Twelve.
::::-[[User:Queso|¡Usa El Queso!]] 15:59, 8 June 2011 (EDT) 3:59 PM, 8 June 2011 A.D.
:::::I really think this is a Catholic vs Protestant thing. To a Protestant hearing the word Apostle applied before Jesus's death seems weird. Do a google search for "12 Disciples" and look how many Protestant sources use that formulation. --[[User:Khajidha|Khajidha]] 16:07, 8 June 2011 (EDT)
::::::Whereas to a Catholic, "12 Disciples" sounds just plain uneducated (no offense intended). So what shall be done here? (All definitions I see in dictionaries still list Judas among the apostles.) -[[User:Queso|¡Usa El Queso!]] 16:31, 8 June 2011 (EDT)

I'm gonna go out on a whim here and say we should have it compare the Thirteen to the Archangels and that The Fallen is their Lucifer. At least Judas was remorseful enough to kill himself. [[User:Alientraveller|Alientraveller]] 17:02, 8 June 2011 (EDT)
:Lucifer was not an Archangel. He was a Seraph. In fact, the Archangels are the second-lowest in the nine choirs. -[[User:Queso|¡Usa El Queso!]] 18:23, 8 June 2011 (EDT)
::My point still stands: I had considered changing the comparison from Judas to Lucifer ages ago but opted not to out of respect for the lead ItsWalky wrote. [[User:Alientraveller|Alientraveller]] 18:35, 8 June 2011 (EDT)
::I don't think "Lucifer was not an Archangel" is something that's universally agreed upon, especially since a lot of that stuff is, well, apocryphal. Googling "Lucifer Archangel" sure brings up a lot of stuff about how Lucifer is an Archangel, for example. I think you need to start stating these things with less certainty. There's a lot of Christian mythology, and it all doesn't agree with itself. --[[User:ItsWalky|ItsWalky]] 18:38, 8 June 2011 (EDT)
:::To be perfectly honest, I ''can't'' state these things with less certainty. Being Catholic, I am obligated to believe what the Church teaches. I'm actually quite surprised and fascinated to see some of these other views that I'd never heard of before. But, in Catholic teaching (which we just so happen to regard as objective reality, not just our opinion), Judas was an apostle and Lucifer was the highest of the angels and thus a Seraph. I do hope I don't sound rude or inconsiderate or <insert negative adjective here>, because I don't mean to be. I'm simply pointing out what I thought was an error (that being said, I preferred the Judas comparison to the Lucifer one; [[Unicron]] would make a better Satan parallel). -[[User:Queso|¡Usa El Queso!]] 20:11, 8 June 2011 (EDT)
::Sorry if this has already been resolved, but wikipedia describes the definition of "apostle" to include Judas, stating that he wasn't sent afterward, and that the title was extended past the Twelve. They were sent out in Mark 6:7-13, and Matthew 10:1-4 explicitly calls Judas one of the apostles. Like, it says "the names of the twelve apostles are" and then says "Judas". Luke 6:12-16 says this as well, and indicates that they worked alongside other disciples who were not apostles.
::As far as archangels/seraphs -- Lucifer is not given an explicit rank beyond being the "highest of angels". There are two main treatments of the angelic hierarchy -- one with simply "angels" and "archangels", and one with all nine ranks organized in three spheres, essentially splitting the other's "archangel" into eight separate rungs, the lowest of which retains the name "archangel". Both rankings place Lucifer, Gabriel, Michael, and Raphael at the top, regardless of what they actually name that rank. It's basically a difference in terms/detail, rather than intent.[[User:KrytenKoro|KrytenKoro]] ([[User talk:KrytenKoro|talk]]) 13:28, 28 October 2014 (EDT)
:::To be fair, I guess saying "the thirteen are his disciples" isn't really "wrong", as the apostles ''were'' disciples.[[User:KrytenKoro|KrytenKoro]] ([[User talk:KrytenKoro|talk]]) 13:29, 28 October 2014 (EDT)

==The Fallen's plan in movie continuity==
Now forgive me if this was explained in any of the more recent IDW stuff (I don't own any comics past the ROTF adaptation), but has the Fallen's initial plan with Megatron ever been explained beyond: '''1. Find star harvester, 2. Find Matrix, 3. ???, 4. Control power of the AllSpark'''? By the timeframe of ROTF, the plan is evidently to use energon from the harvester to revitalise the AllSpark-less Cybertron, but this clearly wasn't their original intention. Thanks, [[User:Jalaguy|Jalaguy]] 17:48, 15 August 2011 (EDT)

== Split? ==

I know that the Fallen is a multiuniversal singularity, but I honestly think the Movie incarnation of The Fallen should get a seperate page. I think the character's article is getting way too long and I think we should split that section. Like [[Optimus Prime (G1)]] gets a page for his appearances in the cartoon and Marvel Comics continuities, I believe that should happen here. We should split the section into an article titled <nowiki>[[The Fallen (Movie)]]</nowiki> or <nowiki>[[The Fallen (ROTF)]]</nowiki> or <nowiki>[[The Fallen/Live-action film continuity family]]</nowiki>.[[Special:Contributions/72.70.64.11|72.70.64.11]] 11:21, 8 November 2011 (EST)

:I know this has been discussed before. I, like you, believe it is possible for all Fallen's to actually be 1 Fallen, but I believe the film incarnation should get a seperate page anyway because this article is getting way too long.[[Special:Contributions/72.70.64.11|72.70.64.11]] 11:26, 8 November 2011 (EST)
::49 kb is not that particularly long. [[User:Interrobang|—Interrobang]] 13:18, 8 November 2011 (EST)

== Exodus-Exiles ==

Should the two sections be merged to better represent the in-continuity chronological order?[[Special:Contributions/192.249.47.196|192.249.47.196]] 13:46, 1 December 2011 (EST)

== Capitalization concerning the Aligned continuity. ==

I don't have "Exodus" so readily available at the moment, but in "Exiles" the capitalization is "the Fallen", more used as an adjective than a name (likely as the "Fallen Prime"). I'm willing to do this, but I move for all mentions of "the Fallen" concerning the Aligned universe be written with the lower case "t", just as "Mini-Con" is "Minicon", or the whole "Brawl/Devastator" movie thing. Not all will be "the Fallen" (like in the movies that DOES have the capitalization) just information with the Aligned continuity family. --[[User:Karhukjnsi|Karhukjnsi]] 22:15, 31 January 2012 (EST)

== Title ==

Should this not be at Megatronus? It's his true name and the name more often used nowadays in Aligned stuff. [[User:Saix|Saix]] ([[User talk:Saix|talk]]) 10:11, 17 December 2015 (EST)
:While I like the idea of putting the page at his original personal name rather than his moniker, I think more people know of the character by the moniker than by the name. [[User:S.H.I.E.L.D. Agent 47|S.H.I.E.L.D. Agent 47]] ([[User talk:S.H.I.E.L.D. Agent 47|talk]]) 15:51, 17 December 2015 (EST)
:: The only time people regularly call him anything other than the Fallen is in Aligned stuff, so I'd say no. [[User:Grum|Grum]] ([[User talk:Grum|talk]]) 15:54, 17 December 2015 (EST)
:::Well, Aligned and IDW are the only stuff featuring him at this point (and are also two of the three-still running major continuities in the first place). Dreamwave material is now obscura and ROTF is a flash in the pan movie that nobody cares about anymore. The trend is towards using "Megatronus" over "the Fallen" now and that seems likely to continue in the future. [[User:Saix|Saix]] ([[User talk:Saix|talk]]) 16:07, 17 December 2015 (EST)
:Ehhhhn. The movie kind of has this article by the throat. It's why we decided to break our usual rule for the article-header picture, and I think it'd be odd to go with Megatronus. Right now, anyway.- [[User:Chris McFeely|Chris McFeely]] ([[User talk:Chris McFeely|talk]]) 16:30, 17 December 2015 (EST)
::I still feel ROTF is old news now. It's been two movies since then, and all the general public remembers at best is "that random evil guy who got his face ripped off in that confusing movie". Is it really that big of an impact whether this article is at Megatronus or not for those people? [[User:Saix|Saix]] ([[User talk:Saix|talk]]) 10:23, 23 December 2015 (EST)

:::When you say IDW is featuring Megatronus/The Fallen in their stuff, are you referring to their RID tie-in comic, or has he made an appearance in IDWG1 that I haven't heard about? -[[User:Foffy the Sheep|Foffy the Sheep]] ([[User talk:Foffy the Sheep|talk]]) 10:39, 23 December 2015 (EST)
::::He's been mentioned in IDW, and the Thirteen in general are becoming prominent parts of its mythology. [[User:Saix|Saix]] ([[User talk:Saix|talk]]) 16:29, 25 December 2015 (EST)
:There's also the notion that one of the whole points behind this guy is that, because he did something so terrible in the past, he's not supposed to have a real name anymore. So even if we know that he real name formerly was "Megatronus", he in his present life isn't supposed to be known by that name (or any name) anymore, much like how a few Optimus Primes were formerly "Orion Pax" in their earlier lives but not in their present lives. --[[User:Sabrblade|Sabrblade]] ([[User talk:Sabrblade|talk]]) 16:17, 25 December 2015 (EST)
::But that's not really the case in Aligned... [[User:Saix|Saix]] ([[User talk:Saix|talk]]) 16:29, 25 December 2015 (EST)
::: It's the case in most other works of Aligned fiction except RID. [[User:Grum|Grum]] ([[User talk:Grum|talk]]) 16:48, 25 December 2015 (EST)
::::Exodus, Exiles, and the Covenant all made it clear that "Megatronus" was his name back ''before'' he fell, not after. The Prime cartoon even called in "The Fallen" in a present sense. Only the RID cartoon treats him with "Megatronus" as his present day name, and that's just one piece of fiction out of several. --[[User:Sabrblade|Sabrblade]] ([[User talk:Sabrblade|talk]]) 16:57, 25 December 2015 (EST)
:::::That may be true, but it's the ''only'' fiction featuring him right now. It's not like there's some other series calling him the Fallen at the same time. -[[User:Foffy the Sheep|Foffy the Sheep]] ([[User talk:Foffy the Sheep|talk]]) 20:37, 25 December 2015 (EST)
::::::Unless he somehow comes back from the dead to return in season 2, RID isn't currently featuring Megatronus anymore after his only appearing in 3 out of 26 episodes, what with RID season 1 being long since done and over with by this point. --[[User:Sabrblade|Sabrblade]] ([[User talk:Sabrblade|talk]]) 22:52, 25 December 2015 (EST)

:::::::Ah. That's what I get for not actually watching the show. -[[User:Foffy the Sheep|Foffy the Sheep]] ([[User talk:Foffy the Sheep|talk]]) 23:06, 25 December 2015 (EST)
I feel like we should revisit this? [[User:Saix|Saix]] ([[User talk:Saix|talk]]) 12:29, 9 January 2018 (EST)
:Seconded. With two of the three Prime Wars Trilogy cartoons using Megatronus as the primary name (Megatron only references The Fallen as a nickname/title of sorts, i.e. "the Fallen, the Flame, the one who stood apart from the original Thirteen, the first Decepticon"), that's another piece of non-Aligned media making the shift. It's also been almost a decade since RotF, so I think it doesn't hold as much weight as it used to. -- [[User:Cyberlink420|Cyberlink420]] ([[User talk:Cyberlink420|talk]]) 13:17, 9 January 2018 (EST)
::Agreed. 'The Fallen' title is rarely used anymore, with the biggest one being ROTF, but even then the movie came out almost 9 years ago. Since all current media refer to him as Megatronus, the page should really be called that. And here on this wiki, we usually do real names, not nicknames. Additionally 'Fallen' is a very common name amongst all media (and a word too). [[User:Notirishman|-west james/notirishman]] ([[User talk:Notirishman|talk]]) 14:12, 9 January 2018 (EST)
:::There is no amount of other media that counterbalances 1) the first name used for him in fiction or 2) BLOCKBUSTER LIVE ACTION MOVIE. I don't care if it was friggin' 60 years ago. --[[User:ItsWalky|ItsWalky]] ([[User talk:ItsWalky|talk]]) 15:43, 9 January 2018 (EST)
::::Plus it's like... in the ''title'' of that blockbuster live action movie. "Oh no, no one is going to remember the name of the bad guy from the movie with the name of the bad guy in the title" is just a weird concern. [[User:Diecast|Diecast]] ([[User talk:Diecast|talk]]) 17:21, 9 January 2018 (EST)
::::Right. Just. Fucking. Stop. --[[User:M Sipher|M Sipher]] ([[User talk:M Sipher|talk]]) 22:21, 9 January 2018 (EST)

== Change the mainpic? ==

Right, so here's the thing; RoTF's been out for a while, we've had two sequels and another forthcoming...and none of the movies since have ever even mentioned The Fallen. He's sort of become discarded within the movie continuity; I mean, you can't erase RoTF from existance, but it seems like Movie Fallen is being silently pushed aside. To this point, DW Fallen is still the most notable instance of the character, since he's both the first occurance of the concept and the (to this point) most unanimously lauded version; Aligned Fallen is screwed by Aligned itself being a clusterfuck, Movie Fallen was barely in his own movie and was not recieved well by anybody...Should we then maybe consider making Dreamwave Fallen the mainpic again?

Mostly because A) The DW-verse Fallen is the first body of the character; so, by the whole "first body/most notable body is mainpic" rule, DW!Fallen should be mainpic, not Movie!Fallen. And B) Movie Fallen has fallen into obscurity, at least as far as the character goes. We usually go with the most well-known bodies of these characters, and I know that DW (as...questionable as they were at times) still had a huge influence on TF comics, about as much as the movies did, IIRC.

So I'd say that we should at least hold a psuedo-council to see if we stick with the mainpic we have now or if we'll switch it out for a different mainpic. Anybody have any thoughts? [[User:MaximalBroadjaw|MaximalBroadjaw]] ([[User talk:MaximalBroadjaw|talk]]) 13:03, 21 February 2016 (EST)
:Most notable? How many people have seen the RotF movie versus know about the comics from a failed publisher? [[User:S.H.I.E.L.D. Agent 47|S.H.I.E.L.D. Agent 47]] ([[User talk:S.H.I.E.L.D. Agent 47|talk]]) 13:08, 21 February 2016 (EST)
::DW also single-handedly revived interest in TF comics from all sorts of comic fans, so obviously they're pretty well-known, even if they did go down in flames. RoTF, while still seen by many people, was also probably rather incredibly hampered by the massive negative reception it recieved, which means it probably didn't reach as much people as, say, it's sequel did. In fact, both DoTM and AoE are ''far'' above RoTF in revenue, so obviously a lot more people saw the former two and not the latter.

::Plus, we also need to consider that RoTF was, financially, not the most sucessful of the films; in fact, except for the original, it's the ''worst'' preforming of them. So really, I'd say DW's had a much more lasting impact than RoTF had, at least in any positive ways. [[User:MaximalBroadjaw|MaximalBroadjaw]] ([[User talk:MaximalBroadjaw|talk]]) 19:27, 21 February 2016 (EST)

:::This accomplishes nothing. The mainpic now is perfectly fine. Besides, no one even remembers Dreamwave anymore, except to make Pat Lee jokes. I could see maybe changing the picture to a collage of Megatronus/The Fallen in various continuities similar the one over at [[Sideways (disambiguation)]], but changing to the way he looked in ten year old comics from a dead publisher is aggressively stupid. -[[User:Foffy the Sheep|Foffy the Sheep]] ([[User talk:Foffy the Sheep|talk]]) 20:04, 21 February 2016 (EST)

::::Revenge of the Fallen total box office take: $836,300,000. Average ticket price in 2011: $8. Estimated number of people who saw it in the theater worldwide: 104,000,000. Let's be insanely conservative and assume that most people saw it twice. Still, 52,000,000 people. Let's further assume that the home video distribution reached a whopping ZERO people who didn't see the film theatrically.
::::Now let's look at DW. Biggest print run per issue: approximately 100,000. Let's be insanely generous and double that number, to 200,000 unique people reading a DW issue. Then let's double it again because of trade paperbacks, for 400,000. Let's double it a third time because maybe people are lending / selling their old issues. 800,000. Even with all these generous assumptions, Revenge of the Fallen had about 65 times the audience that DW did for its entire existence. --[[User:Giggidy|Giggidy]] ([[User talk:Giggidy|talk]]) 20:07, 21 February 2016 (EST)

I'm reviving this discussion since over 8 years have passed and a lot more media has come out since. While RotF may have been the most prevalent piece of media to feature The Fallen, I feel it hasn't had significant influence on the character. I feel this is most evident with his upcoming toy in Age of the Primes being based off his Dreamwave body. I don't know a perfect solution to this as it may be hard to argue which iteration should be the one to headline the page, but as RotF's relevance dwindlts I think we need to reevaluate this. [[User:Ezim93|Ezim93]] ([[User talk:Ezim93|talk]]) 13:21, 9 November 2024 (EST)
:I support first appearance main pic if a split is off the table. [[User:Saix|Saix]] ([[User talk:Saix|talk]]) 13:25, 9 November 2024 (EST)

:: Throwing in my two cents, I think something like the "Optimus family comparison" photo on the [[Continuity family]] page would be a good idea. It would allow the various depictions of The Fallen (Dreamwave, ''ROTF'', ''Covenant'', ''RID (2015)'', ''POTP'', and ''One'') to be together under one image, maybe with a nod that almost every version of The Fallen's face seems to be based on the Decepticon faction symbol and the common visual of flames. While the Dreamwave incarnation is the first appearance and the basis of the upcoming toy in [[Transformers: Age of the Primes]], the Michael Bay incarnation is still part of one of the movie's names... so it's hard to completely dismiss that version's importance. <br><br>I also think the intro to the page needs a revamp from the "Evil Judas archetype" version that's been around for a while. If anything, more recent incarnations have been more "Cain" from The Bible's Cain and Abel story. Plus, ''One'' has introduced a non "Fallen" Megatronus, so now there's at least one version of this character who hasn't betrayed his fellow Primes (unless future media in this continuity family changes that).--[[User:Daytonjhammon|Daytonjhammon]] ([[User talk:Daytonjhammon|talk]]) 13:22, 30 November 2024 (EST)
:::Feels like this is sort of the same discussion about the page name as below, or at least dependent on it. At least in my opinion, if the page stays at The Fallen, the pic is probably fine. If it gets moved to Megatronus, though, it should definitely change. -- [[User:Dark T Zeratul|Dark T Zeratul]] ([[User talk:Dark T Zeratul|talk]]) 04:44, 3 December 2024 (EST)

==Move to Megatronus?==
It feels like for the last several iterations, "Megatronus" has gotten more and more use than "The Fallen." Between that, the recent movie giving us a rare non-Fallen version of Megatronus, and now the new "Megatronus the Fallen" toy, would it make sense to move the page to "Megatronus" with "The Fallen" as a redirect, rather than the other way around? -- [[User:Dark T Zeratul|Dark T Zeratul]] ([[User talk:Dark T Zeratul|talk]]) 15:53, 28 October 2024 (EDT)
:I could go either way, but I believe time has indeed proven the previous obstinacy complaints from 2018 to have been false on its face, with ''Transformers One'' indeed having validated ''Robots in Disguise'' and ''Prime Wars Trilogy'' as "Megatronus" being Hasbro's preferred name. [[User:S.H.I.E.L.D. Agent 47|S.H.I.E.L.D. Agent 47]] ([[User talk:S.H.I.E.L.D. Agent 47|talk]]) 13:07, 9 November 2024 (EST)
::I did have a discussion in Discord about this, and, yeah, I still support this move. "But the 15-year-old movie" is dull at this point. No, I don't care about aggro shut-down-the-discussion quips, either. (A good compromise would be to split this page like we do with everything else, then the movie guy can keep the name.) [[User:Saix|Saix]] ([[User talk:Saix|talk]]) 13:20, 9 November 2024 (EST)
:::I feel like a split would be messy, since most Megatronuses (Megatroni?) are also, uh, Fallens (pluralizations are awkward here). -- [[User:Dark T Zeratul|Dark T Zeratul]] ([[User talk:Dark T Zeratul|talk]]) 17:08, 28 November 2024 (EST)
:::I agree that moving it seems like a good idea. As others have said, he’s been called Megatronus more times than he’s been called the Fallen. [[User:IGEBM13|IGEBM13]] ([[User talk:IGEBM13|talk]]) 17:13, 18 January 2025 (EST)
:Just calling him the Fallen feels outdated at this point, maybe the page could just be renamed "Megatronus The Fallen"?. -- [[User:MikeOsix|MikeOsix]] ([[User_talk:MikeOsix|talk]]) 20:53, 18 January 2024 (EST)

==Split Pages==
Now I'm new to this wiki so excuse me if I'm talking out of turn here but didn't the Shroud remove Multiversal singularities which in that case, shouldn't Megatronus be split into duplicate pages from the year the Shroud happened onward? Just asking -- [[User:Jasenomous_TF|Jasenomous_TF]] ([[User talk:Jasenomous_TF|talk]]) 13:34, 4 November 2024 (MDT)
:We don't split out singularities affected by the Shroud because all of their pre-Shroud appearances as singularities still exist as fiction. The Shroud didn't automatically invalidate those appearances because those pre-Shroud appearances are still canon. --[[User:Sabrblade|Sabrblade]] ([[User talk:Sabrblade|talk]]) 17:20, 4 November 2024 (EST)

Talk:The Fallen

2025-01-19T02:51:51Z

MikeOsix: /* Move to Megatronus? */

[[File:RID-megatronussparkmerger.jpg|thumb|right|250px|unused image]]

That bit about how the Fallen was created by Pat Lee? In the latest edition of Wayward's [http://www.insecticons.com/insecticomics.html Insecticomics] it is said that it was actually Furman who created the character, that Lee just did the design. When I asked her about it, she posted this [http://p206.ezboard.com/fthepaddedcell71381frm19.showMessage?topicID=2995.topic&index=107 transcript] which backs that up. --[[User:KilMichaelMcC|KilMichaelMcC]] 14:46, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

== Trivia ==

OK so I just left line in the trivia, cos I thought it was funny.
*So he's the henchman of a evil being, has mystical supernatural powers, is a badass and is on fire? Someone might want to file a law suit.

Can it stay or should I take it back down?[[User:Dead Metal|Dead Metal]] 09:33, 22 June 2009 (EDT)

..I don't even get that. [[User:AlwaysWrong|AlwaysWrong]] 22:44, 10 June 2009 (EDT)
:It was removed, it contained a link to the wikipedia article for Ghost Rider[[User:Dead Metal|Dead Metal]] 09:33, 22 June 2009 (EDT)

==Head==
Anyone notice that his head is very Soundwave-y? When i first saw him, i clearly recognized his head as soundwave's with added badassery.--[[User:Skyglide|Skyglide]] 05:35, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

==Disambig time?==
http://www.hasbro.com/transformers/default.cfm?page=News/Item&newsid=59522272-D56F-E112-4C783175A8BBBAD6

Ah-heh.

(SOMEBODY IN THAT MOVIE DAMN WELL BETTER BE ON FIRE.) --[[User:ItsWalky|ItsWalky]] 19:39, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

==Fallen, Bludgeon and Megs==

I don't know about Bludgeon, but there is a connection between the Fallen and Megs: IDW Megatron's Cybertronian body is based off of the Fallen, right down to the design of the Fusion Cannon. [[User:GWolfv2]] 21.07 June 11

== Defiance issue 4 Fallen's backstory ==

Defiance issue 4 is out. [http://www.tfw2005.com/transformers-news/transformers-movie-just-movie-31/revenge-of-the-fallen-prequel-comic-defiance-4-provides-potential-movie-spoilers-167267/ TFW2005.com has posted all the Fallen-relevant spoilers from issue 4, but beware, if you're avoiding Defiance, this spoils the Fallen's crazy scheme in the movie]. The backstory for the Fallen seems fairly different to the Fallen we know. So are they still the same guy? --[[User:FFN|FFN]] 14:56, 8 April 2009 (EDT)
:Still appears to be a member of the Thirteen, still appears to betray them, still apparently serves a force that devours planets/stars.--[[User:Rosicrucian|Rosicrucian]][[User Talk:Rosicrucian|<sup>Talk</sup>]] 15:12, 8 April 2009 (EDT)
::But from what I understand of the "multiversal singularity" characters thing, there's just one Fallen, so the guy created by Primus who eventually serves Unicron is also a guy created by a Cube who serves nobody but himself and is building solar towers to replenish the Cube. Or is the currently-untold story of the 13 vague enough that this still works? --[[User:FFN|FFN]] 15:20, 8 April 2009 (EDT)
::It does seem pretty distinct. One's a "created by mighty power source, got selfish, betrayed his brothers, now want to kick off where things went wrong" other "created as a multiversal control for entrophy and warrior against Unicron. Switched sides. Most dangerous servant of the ultimate evil ever". [[User:Eire]] 21.21 Apr 8 2009 (UTC)
:I don't trust a 3rd party summary written by someone who may not fully understand the story to accurately represent what's actually in the story. -[[User:Derik|Derik]] 16:44, 8 April 2009 (EDT)
::In any case, I suspect we are probably going to need to wait to see what the movie itself has to say before making a decision on this. It may expand on what is presented in the comic, it may contradict it in some way, it could make it easier to tie this version in with the previous mythos or may firmly separate it, etc. --[[User:KilMichaelMcC|KilMichaelMcC]] 17:54, 8 April 2009 (EDT)
:::I don't think we would have to wait until the movie if the comic is fairly clear on the matter. - [[User:Starfield|Starfield]] 17:59, 8 April 2009 (EDT)
::::I think we do, because as I said, we have no way of knowing in advance how well the actual movie will line up with the comic. --[[User:KilMichaelMcC|KilMichaelMcC]] 18:05, 8 April 2009 (EDT)
:The Fallen is one thing, but what about definite "multiversal singularity" Primus? Does the AllSpark=Primus in the movieverse? - [[User:Starfield|Starfield]] 17:59, 8 April 2009 (EDT)
::The AllSpark has been designated a [[sacred implement]] in Japanese fiction.--[[User:Rosicrucian|Rosicrucian]][[User Talk:Rosicrucian|<sup>Talk</sup>]] 18:07, 8 April 2009 (EDT)
:::It is not uncommon for Transformers to have no knowledge of Primus or Unicron. For every world where they have a full-blown religion to fill them in, you have one where the Transformers have neither heard of either-- remember in [[The Transformers: The Movie]] Hot Rod and Kup had never even heard Unicron's name before. -[[User:Derik|Derik]] 02:06, 15 April 2009 (EDT)
Did they not mention that the Fallen calls himself and his other pals "trans-dimensional beings"? --[[User:ItsWalky|ItsWalky]] 19:48, 8 April 2009 (EDT)
:Not the mention [http://www.usatoday.com/life/movies/news/2009-04-01-transformers-first-look_N.htm this interview] affirming he's the original and was "banished to another dimension." -[[User:Derik|Derik]] 02:06, 15 April 2009 (EDT)
::I think what they mean by that is that he's stuck in that stupid pylon. --[[User:ItsWalky|ItsWalky]] 02:15, 15 April 2009 (EDT)

==The Fallen gets Power Plans!==
[http://transformerslive.blogspot.com/2009/05/transformers-movie-universe-preview.html] Preview page from the upcoming DK Ultimate Movie Guide, which is totally written by Furman. It establishes a few important things. The Fallen is an "omniversal tyrant." He betrayed his fellow Primes to serve the source of his new "chaotic" powers "from the very birth of the universe," forces which seek to replace morality with a "void." --[[User:ItsWalky|ItsWalky]] 16:06, 18 May 2009 (EDT)
:If Nimoy is cast as him, it will be the second time in his career that he'll be playing some sort of servant of Unicron. --[[User:FFN|FFN]] 02:36, 20 May 2009 (EDT)

== Subject Seperation ==

Will you make a separate page the live action version of the Fallen? --Some Random User guy {{unsigned|69.230.53.229|00:50, May 20, 2009 EDT}}
:As we far as we know, the Fallen is a multi-dimensional being that can... you get the picture. If this Fallen is established as a seperate being, then maybe.--[[User:AWT88|AWT88]] 01:01, 20 May 2009 (EDT)
::And as seen in Walky's post above this, the DK guide establishes the Fallen as an "Omniversal tyrant". That more or less means the Fallen is one of those characters who can travel between dimensions, and there's only one of him. Thus, we consider ROTF Fallen to be the same guy as Dreamwave comics Fallen, unless the movie says otherwise (and it obviously won't). --[[User:FFN|FFN]] 02:36, 20 May 2009 (EDT)
::Despite the brain-bending problems this creates with the other 12, yes. Are they all birthed by the AllSpark then? That's not what The Ultimate Guide says... (We'll figure it out. Expect the backpedaling, qualifications and clarifications to begin trickling in this fall.) -[[User:Derik|Derik]] 04:15, 20 May 2009 (EDT)
:::You know, the movie universe could have two individuals named the Fallen. I mean, it's not a real name, but rather a sort of title, right? Why couldn't the omniversal tyrant and some douchebag that came from the AllSpark live in the same universe? -- [[User:Semysane|Semysane]] 04:26, 20 May 2009 (EDT)
:::'''Two''' dimension-hopping flaming ancient Primes who discarded their name in favor of being called "The Fallen" after betraying their 12 fellow Primes, the oldest of Transformers?
:::We already have the Covenant and the Thirteen. Don't make this ''more'' complicated. -[[User:Derik|Derik]] 04:39, 20 May 2009 (EDT)
:::I personally think they should be seperated. I mean, he's been trapped in that relic, or whatever it exactly is, for a really long time. How could he of shown up in the IDW series? And, the other 12 sacrificed themselves, so, how could they exist either? -[[User:VakamaMetruNui|VakamaMetruNui]] 09:29, 20 May 2009 (EDT)
::::(The Dreamwave series, not the IDW series.) That's really easy to explain. The DW Fallen was also trapped in a dimension, same as the Movie one. He was able to break free of it due to a space bridge accident, and was apparently banished back to it by Primus. (He would have returned if DW hadn't gone bankrupt, so he wasn't dead.) Who knows how time and space work in there. --[[User:ItsWalky|ItsWalky]] 10:11, 20 May 2009 (EDT)
:::::Unicron keeps showing up in new places yet always gets defeated in more or less the same way; why should his gothy wanna-be have it any better? Since his "real" origin was as a creation of Primus, perhaps the entire Movie AllSpark / Movie Original 13 was something the Fallen himself put together later--he tried his own hand at being a god, while actually not claiming credit for it but just inserting himself among the lineup, like Keyser Soze. Or maybe he used his woowoo omniversal magic to sense that some other god was about to create the AllSpark, and then he twisted the whole process to his own ends. Who knows. And if all that sounds like a deus-ex-machina, remember that that is LITERALLY what he is. --[[User:Thylacine 2000|Thylacine 2000]] 10:24, 20 May 2009 (EDT)
[[Image:Defianceissue4-creation.jpg|right|thumb|100px|What dimension did this happen in? The movie-verse? Not necessarily.]]
::::::I think splitting the page of a known dimension-hopper goes against common sense. Without a really good reason, of course. I don't think there is a good reason yet. - [[User:Starfield|Starfield]] 10:47, 20 May 2009 (EDT)
:::::::At BotCon 2009, Hasbro copy-writer Forest Lee stated once again (at the Collectors' Club panel) that the Original 13 are all multiversal singularities. Apparently the upcoming movie hasn't changed his mind! So let's hold on to our current setup for the time being. --[[User:ItsWalky|ItsWalky]] 16:11, 2 June 2009 (EDT)
::::::::He didn't state this before, IIRC he stated that they were ''probably'' Multiversal singularities before.
::::::::Do you or anyone (Steve) have an exact working on his statement this weekend? It's worth citing it on the 13 page. -[[User:Derik|Derik]] 16:52, 2 June 2009 (EDT)
:::::::::I don't, no. And Steve-o wasn't there this weekend, so we are without his meticulous information-gathering. He did specifically say that the original 13 were multiversal singularities, though. It was in response to someone asking if Shattered Glass The Fallen would be icy. Forest said that as one of the 13, The Fallen doesn't have any multiverse counterparts. There's just one of him, the same as Vector Prime and the others. (Trent noted that he liked to believe that if the Fallen were to ever wander into the Shattered universe, his flames would turn to ice, much to his confusion.)--[[User:ItsWalky|ItsWalky]] 19:53, 2 June 2009 (EDT)
Is there evidence that supports ROTF Fallen is the same as the character in The War Within?--[[User:TOM|TOM]] 13:20, 29 August 2010 (EDT)
:Evidence in the form of fictional stories? No. Apparently not. It is all shadow evidence as far as I can tell. Word of mouth at conventions and [[Hasbro Q&A/July 2009: Answers|a Hasbro Q&A]]. Should the wiki hang its hat on such shadow evidence? Or would the "multiversal singularity" thing be better put in the "notes" section until it shows up in fiction? - [[User:Starfield|Starfield]] 13:53, 29 August 2010 (EDT)
::If this Wiki wants to wait on merging Alpha Trions I suggest your side doesn't split the G1, UT, ROTF and Prime versions of Prima, Megatronus, Liege or Vector. And it wouldn't call it shadow evidence considering Megatronus explicitly described his brothers as able to traverse dimensions, or Vector and Nexus being the sole versions of those characters flying about the timelines. "[[Reunification: Part 5|All Cybertrons are yours.]]" [[User:Alientraveller|Alientraveller]] 14:15, 29 August 2010 (EDT)

== Movie altmode ==

FYI: If we get Hasbro photography depicting a toy with an altmode (we have!) and the paragraph in question is describing that toy, then ''the presence of said altmode is officially confirmed''. I don't know under what logic you can say otherwise.--[[User:Rosicrucian|Rosicrucian]][[User Talk:Rosicrucian|<sup>Talk</sup>]] 20:10, 22 May 2009 (EDT)
:Remember Scorponok's robot mode? I believe the debate is whether or not The Fallen's vehicle mode was something invented for the toyline. - [[User:Cattleprod|Cattleprod]] 20:48, 22 May 2009 (EDT)
::Except the altmode description was removed from the toy section. The toy has an altmode. Plain as day. Thus the section describing that toy ought to mention said altmode.--[[User:Rosicrucian|Rosicrucian]][[User Talk:Rosicrucian|<sup>Talk</sup>]] 21:07, 22 May 2009 (EDT)
:::Ah, right then. Well... most of what I said can be salvaged, assuming this argument comes up outside the toy section. - [[User:Cattleprod|Cattleprod]] 21:14, 22 May 2009 (EDT)

== Decepticon symbol ==

I see there is a Decepticon symbol on The Fallen's page for a long while, is this something related to his toy(s)? Thanks. (I can't reach my Titanium Fallen now, so... ) --'''[[User:TX55|<span style= "color:#00FA9A">TX55</span>]]'''<small><SUP>''[[User talk:TX55|<span style= "color:#0000CD">TALK</span>]]''</SUP></small> 11:24, 4 June 2009 (EDT)
: His ROTF toy packaging consistently labels him a Decepticon. He helped Megatron START the Decepticon faction in the live-action continuity. And the Decepticon faction symbol is based on his face. --[[User:ItsWalky|ItsWalky]] 11:35, 4 June 2009 (EDT)

:::So it is really due to the ROTF. Thanks. ;-D --'''[[User:TX55|<span style= "color:#00FA9A">TX55</span>]]'''<small><SUP>''[[User talk:TX55|<span style= "color:#0000CD">TALK</span>]]''</SUP></small> 12:55, 4 June 2009 (EDT)

::What they said.
::I notice the Beast-machines Dinobots symbol links to the Dinobots disambig page-- was it used tor the Wal-Mart Dinobots as well? -[[User:Derik|Derik]] 11:56, 4 June 2009 (EDT)

==Mainpic==
When the Wikia site comes up on Google, it also has a secondary link, which is their version of this page. Our secondary link is [[Transformers Animated (cartoon)|''Animated'']], which is unfortunately now a bit less relevant than theirs. (Notably, they've even rebranded their site to have a Movie look.) Happily, our [[The Fallen]] is much better than theirs because we've expanded the DW section, and they still haven't written ANYTHING about the prequel comics. Plus, y'know, there's [[:Image:WikiaAdInsert_TheFallen.jpg|the stuff that made us leave in the first place]]. But in the interests of sealing the relevancy deal, I suggest we change the mainpic to be The Fallen's ROTF body. That way even at a GLANCE a viewer can see which one is more up-to-date. What do you all think? - [[User:Jackpot|Jackpot]] 16:23, 4 June 2009 (EDT)
:I support this. We've got good promo renders of it. Let's do it.--[[User:Rosicrucian|Rosicrucian]][[User Talk:Rosicrucian|<sup>Talk</sup>]] 16:29, 4 June 2009 (EDT)
:Sounds good to me, I say go for it. Maybe change it back when the movie buzz fades down, but for now, yeah, totally. - [[User:Chris McFeely|Chris McFeely]] 16:44, 4 June 2009 (EDT)
::Heh, so they merged the articles back. TX55 was an editor here. Doesn't he notice the borked layout of the images? --[[User:FFN|FFN]] 17:00, 4 June 2009 (EDT)

===New main pic===
[[Image:ROTF The Fallen promotional 1.jpg|thumb|right|250px|You dare photograph me?! I am a a Prime!]]
Swap the current one for a promotional shot from [[Josh Nizzi]]'s website? -- [[User:SFH|SFH]] 13:58, 21 July 2009 (EDT)
:Naw, I prefer the one we have now. Flashier. - [[User:Chris McFeely|Chris McFeely]] 14:12, 21 July 2009 (EDT)

==Grargh fiction==
Do we really need to separate out his various DK Ultimate Guide and Titanium information into their own little sections. Can't we throw those into the beginning of the Dreamwave continuity section and cite them appropriately? This page is now a real friggin' chore to read and understand. --[[User:ItsWalky|ItsWalky]] 19:58, 6 June 2009 (EDT)
:Yeah, it sorta feels like it's... out of order. Cause, it is. Fictionally. I mean, I grok what Jackpot has done - he's put it in publication order, which I know is an approach that he's generall favoured in the past, but to me, it just doesn't "read" right. (Also, I am totally about to ruin the "he is on fire" joke. Watch me go!) - [[User:Chris McFeely|Chris McFeely]] 20:05, 6 June 2009 (EDT)
::I feel a little weird about combining them like that, but I don't full-on object. I don't think there's ever been precedent for putting toy-bio info into a comic-series summary, but in this case there was clearly intent behind the bio to make it mesh, and there are no variant ''War Within'' "continuities." All I can do is note that it's unorthodox and move along.
::Oh, and Walky, thanks for restoring the continuity-family headers. My theory is that since our default organizational model is to separate our articles based on continuity family, whenever we break that "rule," we should call it out.
::- [[User:Jackpot|Jackpot]] 16:49, 7 June 2009 (EDT)

==Really not buying the 'multiversal singularity' thing here==
Recently, I saw the new movie and....... I don't see how it could possibly be the same character as in Dreamwave's comics.
Not only is his entire backstory different, but his motives also seem different and the film also makes mention that The Fallen was a member of 8 original leaders (if I remember correctly), as opposed to 13.
Not to mention his radically different appearance (the other 'multiversal singularities' at least all looked alike) and abilities.

Unless the writers find a way of explaining how this could be possible, I don't see how it makes any form of sense.
:The fact it's 8 and not 13 is the first sign that the writers ''intend'' to explain it. They're backpedaling away from making it "The 13" because it creates ''way'' to many problems.
:We all basically agree that it makes not sense now, but this ('''very''' last-minute) change strongly indicates that it ''will'' make sense, and that Hasbro's story-gurus has finally figured out how they intend to make it fit. -[[User:Derik|Derik]] 19:33, 21 June 2009 (EDT)
::I seriously doubt that Hasbro's story-gurus had any imput whatsoever on the contents of the movie itself. --[[User:KilMichaelMcC|KilMichaelMcC]] 20:35, 21 June 2009 (EDT)
:::Yes, I think that rather than being The 'Multiversal Singularity' Fallen, The (ROTF) Fallen is just a 'fallen' Prime who is subsequently and coincidentally called "The Fallen". He happens to have the same name, like Prowl, Prowl, Prowl, Prowl and Prowl.[[Special:Contributions/218.214.49.189|218.214.49.189]] 21:02, 23 June 2009 (EDT)
::::That's nice, but Hasbro's packaging bio writer is saying that's not the case. Thus we have to go with what he says. --[[User:Rosicrucian|Rosicrucian]][[User Talk:Rosicrucian|<sup>Talk</sup>]] 21:09, 23 June 2009 (EDT)
So... Doesn't this mean that since he died in the movie, he has died in all universes forever, since he is a "multiversal singularity"?[[Special:Contributions/76.251.230.101|76.251.230.101]] 19:59, 3 August 2009 (EDT)
:When a multiversal singularity "dies" in one universe, he'll reappear in another universe --[[Special:Contributions/72.64.107.124|72.64.107.124]] 20:02, 3 August 2009 (EDT)
::I've seen that idea expressed on the Wiki before, but I've never seen a source for it. Basically... says who? In fact, most of what we "know" about multiversal singularities comes not from the fiction itself, but from creator comments. I don't agree with putting [[authorial intent]] on that high a pedestal, especially when its results are flat-out nonsensical. I think that at best, author-intent should get a Note, not define central aspects of how we describe characters. - [[User:Jackpot|Jackpot]] 20:16, 3 August 2009 (EDT)
:::Hear hear! Besides, saying that a character is a multiuniversal singularity only lasts until someone else says he's not. Then we get a weird state of 'he's mostly a multiuniversal singularity, except where he isn't' situation. I think this sort of notion warrants about as much consideration as a Madman DVD book saying that Cyclonus categorically was Skywarp - we note it, then we go on with the rest of our lives. --[[User:Jimsorenson|Jimsorenson]] 20:37, 3 August 2009 (EDT)
::::There's at least some indication that Mowry and Furman are going to attempt to reconcile the multiversal singularity thing, or at least hang a lampshade on it and run with it, in [[Transformers: Tales of the Fallen|Tales of the Fallen]]. We may get our answer soon.--[[User:Rosicrucian|Rosicrucian]][[User Talk:Rosicrucian|<sup>Talk</sup>]] 21:09, 3 August 2009 (EDT)
:::::''saying that a character is a multiuniversal singularity only lasts until someone else says he's not''
:::::Bingo. No matter how much people might like Forrest's ideas, it's just as much "authorial intent" whenever anybody else at Hasbro or IDW or Bay's workshop says something that contradicts him. We know he's multiversal, or "omniversal," whatever, because one of the movie guidebooks says so. I try not to think too hard about the "13-whoops-7-Primes" clusterfuck. --[[User:Thylacine 2000|Thylacine 2000]] 21:48, 3 August 2009 (EDT)
:::I think the idea of Multiversal Singularities dieing in one universe and appearing in another has 2 sources: 1) Unicron - He's a multiversal singularity and this is demonstrably how he works, and 2) Vector Prime - After his death in the UT he's seen again in the final credits battling Galvatron again. Granted it's supposition, but I think that's the basis for the idea.--[[Special:Contributions/76.28.72.27|76.28.72.27]] 21:22, 3 August 2009 (EDT)
::::Unicron's many deaths constitute one of the reasons why the multiversal-singularity idea is generally thought to be nonsensical. The idea that he "respawns" every time he's destroyed is a rationalization somebody here came up with; it's never been shown to ''happen'' in the fiction. And Vector Prime's case barely applies; he wasn't destroyed the way Unicron or The Fallen were; he just permanently phased outside of normal time because he overexerted his temporal powers. It was presumably in this non-time limbo that he battled Galvatron again, and where he will be forever. Ultimately, I think Rosicrucian's right: We should wait until "Tales of the Fallen" comes out before we make any hard-and-fast calls on the subject. But I've [[Talk:Unicron#"Respawning"?|long thought]] that we should be more rigorous about letting the fiction alone define "multiversal singularity" instead of the authors, and I'll be more than happy if future information radically changes what we think it means. - [[User:Jackpot|Jackpot]] 22:43, 3 August 2009 (EDT)
:::::The bio for TRU-excl. Universe Unicron says he travels through multiple dimensions and that whenever he dies he comes back to life. I don't think it says he has to be reobrn in a different dimension than the one he just died in, but honestly, once they've officialized and published the "multidimensionality and immortality" aspect, precisely where he is at ANY given moment in any life doesn't matter. But that's just Unicron--there's nothing as cut-and-dried in published form for the rest of them, I don't think. --[[User:Thylacine 2000|Thylacine 2000]] 23:08, 3 August 2009 (EDT)
::::::Ah, that's interesting. Let's [http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3254/2856639219_b4fb44b44e.jpg?v=0 take a look]... Hm, it actually sounds more like Vector Prime's existence than the hoppity-hop-from-universe-to-universe model that's been the wiki party line. Unicron "floats through the non-space between dimensions, reaching out with his sensors to find the universe with the most energy. Those dimensions he finds suitable, he consumes." Also, "He has been defeated or destroyed countless times, yet he always returns [...] for [...] He is evil incarnate, and as long as there is evil, there is Unicron." It sounds like, whereas Vector Prime is stuck outside of time and can only send messages (or swords) into the timestream, Unicron can actually manifest himself in a very real and devastating way. But they share some essential transcendent nature, which to me is a bit more sensical than the more linear model. I read it to mean that basically he can keep coming back because he's always got one foot outside of normal space-time, and destroying a specific incarnation will never be enough. It's not a full "death." Plus he's got that strange relation to the concept of evil, which is backed up in the ''Armada'' cartoon when only Galvatron's death and the resulting end of the war could destroy him. As you say, I don't know how this would apply to The Fallen or others, but one thing at a time... - [[User:Jackpot|Jackpot]] 00:06, 4 August 2009 (EDT)
:::::::It's not particularly relevant, but I just want to point out that Vector Prime ''did'' actually die, in the sense that his linear lifespan came to an end point. He continues to exist because ''prior'' to his death, he spent most of his existence outside of the timestream, and since time has no meaning there, he will ''always'' be there, watching and guiding. - [[User:Chris McFeely|Chris McFeely]] 07:55, 4 August 2009 (EDT)

== Change of appearance ==

From TF; The Movie Universe
{{quote|The Fallen butchered and betrayed his brother Primes, disowning his given name in favor of one befitting his new, terrifying appearance.|<u>[[Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen: The Movie Universe]]</u> p86|"The Fallen"}}
Late intot he game, we have the idea that The Fallen may have changed his appearance. (And since his appearance is really no different than the other Primes... it begs the question what the hell this is talking about.)

Oh, and Walky was wondering abotu the curiously-regular panes of transparent plastic on The Fallen toy's shoulders... accordign to the guidebook, he has "Energon Distribution arcs" in his shoulders-- I think they're actually supposed to represent some sort of energy blade. -[[User:Derik|Derik]] 19:44, 21 June 2009 (EDT)

== Unreliable narrator ==

So I saw the ROTF film. It really doesn't clash with the Multiversal Singularity thing too bad... it's Defiance that's the real problem. And I'm beginning to think that Definace just had a ''serious'' case of "unreliable narrator."

Let's assume (for a moment) that the Fallen ''was'' lying about parts of his backstory to Megatron. He certainly didn't mention Primus or Unicron (so we know he left stuff out) and we know he was snowing Megatron about making him a Prime (something you apparently have to be born to in the Movieverse.) He's ALREADY demonstrably lying, so lets throw out everything he said about his own origins, and assume he's actually the same dimension-hopping spanish-speaking nutjob we know and love-- what would the universe 'look' like?

Logically, The Fallen {{redact|''traveled'' to this universe and integrated himself with it-- somehow convincing the six Founding Primes of the universe that he was one of them. He then secretly endeavored to murder them all, destroy the Earth and seize ultimate power for himself using the sun harvester.}}

Of course, if this was '''actually''' what happened, and The Fallen is lying... you'd expect there to be some ''indicator['' of this in the IDW comics.

[[Image:Ros03 cuberitual.png|thumb|250px]]
Oh hey, look at that! It's the ancient illustration Starscream was trying to replicate in "Reign of Starscream"! The ''only'' piece of evidence from the era of the original Primes that ''doesn't'' come from our Unreliable Narrator. And what does it show?
{{redact|'''Six''' Primes surrounding the AllSpark cube as it is renewed by the Sun Harvester. '''Not''' seven.}} -[[User:Derik|Derik]] 23:55, 24 June 2009 (EDT)
:As much as I really want to make this all work, I don't know if I want to go the Unreliable Narrator route. --[[User:ItsWalky|ItsWalky]] 00:18, 25 June 2009 (EDT)
::Neither do I... but if IDW chooses to quietly change the 13 primes to the 7 in their Movie Spotlight books... at ''that'' point the Fallen's retelling of history becomes much more actively wrong, and this bit from Reign of Starscream fits quite nicely.
::I figured it was worth highlighting as a possibility. It wouldn't be appropriate to present it as "fact" until IDW gets a crack at it. (It seems almost inevitable that there are Retcons Comings.) But i was pleased to discover that there's at least one ''fairly'' clean way here to make things more-or-less fit, and it ties into some pre-established continuity arond Starscream's plan with the [[Replica AllSpark]], which is a definite plus in terms of making the change less jarring. -[[User:Derik|Derik]] 00:27, 25 June 2009 (EDT)
:::Your way probably works better than my "the other 6 Primes were busy." But still, that's fanon until Forest Lee gets a crack at it. --[[User:ItsWalky|ItsWalky]] 00:31, 25 June 2009 (EDT)
:::...That leaves me a little worried that we're putting our hopes on IDW. Especially since they caused quite a few of the problems. And lets not even get into their record of continuity consistency in okaying [[The Transformers: All Hail Megatron|All Hail Megatron]]. -- [[User:SFH|SFH]] 00:34, 25 June 2009 (EDT)
:::::But '''nothing''' the movies is 100% consistent with one another. Did you notice Leo mentioned the big fight from the 2007 movie took place in '''L.A.'''? And the IDW comics aren't in continuity with the ''first'' movie in a strict sense either-- Reign of starscream dedicated a page to re-doing the "gathering of the 'cons" from the dfirst movie ''just'' so they could assert "no, he's called BRAWL damnit." Or the helicopter being shot down over <strike>Afganistan</strike> America.
:::::Frankly, I think think the wiki would be best off is we weaned ourselves of this tendency to present the IDW comics as somehow "the primary continuity." They're definitely bound up tightly with the movies... but they ''aren't'' in perfect continuity with them-- and it's not just oddities, it's outright deliberate contradiction, like the Brawl thing. -[[User:Derik|Derik]] 00:57, 25 June 2009 (EDT)
::::::Until I get an official reasoning to change continuity flow of various fiction, I'd rather leave the articles as they are. Brawl thing - who cares, really? --[[User:FFN|FFN]] 04:36, 25 June 2009 (EDT)
:::::::By which you mean "structured differently than every other fiction section on the wiki." ;)
:::::::(I'm not really pushing for the restructure either. Just talking in general terms.) -[[User:Derik|Derik]] 04:54, 25 June 2009 (EDT)
::::::::I'm set in my ways, dagnabbit. Yeah, the movie kind of started the movement of supporting fiction such as comic books and novels more or less directly being in continuity with the primary fiction, something we saw later in Animated. As opposed to the traditional TF method of having comics and cartoons and books all going in completely different directions. --[[User:FFN|FFN]] 05:26, 25 June 2009 (EDT)

::::You've got it backwards. The Mowry-penned stuff has some of the best internal consistency of the entire continuity.--[[User:Rosicrucian|Rosicrucian]][[User Talk:Rosicrucian|<sup>Talk</sup>]] 00:37, 25 June 2009 (EDT)
:::::Right, Mowry was foreshadowing the RotF plot in the second issue of Reign of Starscream, before ''anything'' had leaked. And he seems to have a pretty clear idea where almost ''every'' character "was" before and after the war, how they're related to one another, etc. He also did a ''lot'' of ground work to make the game drones fit right. -[[User:Derik|Derik]] 00:57, 25 June 2009 (EDT)

== Voyager toy ==

The Voyager toy has slidable gauntlets, shinguards, and some kind of firey thing under the shinguards, but none of these are called out in the instructions, or seem to serve any point in either mode. Should this be mentioned in the article, and if not, does anyone know what the deal with them is?[[User:KrytenKoro|KrytenKoro]] 20:50, 4 July 2009 (EDT)

== "saturn"? ==

Especially because the novel specifically says it's not Saturn, can we get rid of this? Unless it was revealed in an interview or on a toy bio or something, all the movie shows is that it's on the moon of a ringed planet - without specifically identifying it.[[User:KrytenKoro|KrytenKoro]] 19:22, 12 July 2009 (EDT)
:I think it has to be Saturn unless it is a plot hole. Megatron just flies there in about a day or so. It has to be in the solar system, I think. Megatron was never shown to have a personal space bridge like Jetfire. Can Megatron travel faster-than-light? Possibly, but the space bridge seems to be this universe's faster-than-light technology. - [[User:Starfield|Starfield]] 20:57, 12 July 2009 (EDT)
::I recall seeing something about how Megatron can travel interstellar distances, but that he's supposed to be one of the few Transformers who can. Additionally, we see the Decepticons travel to Earth in transition form, implying that they are coming from somewhere in the solar system. -- [[User:SFH|SFH]] 20:59, 12 July 2009 (EDT)
:::Yes, Megatron can travel interstellar distances, but in a day or two? - [[User:Starfield|Starfield]] 21:02, 12 July 2009 (EDT)
::::And return with Starscream and Grindor? And have The Fallen and a buttload of new Hatchlings arrive not soon after? They can't be lightyears away. That'd basically be Yet Another Plothole. --[[User:ItsWalky|ItsWalky]] 21:09, 12 July 2009 (EDT)
:::::According to the Ultimate Guide, The Fallen actually can do something like a space bridge, so wouldn't it be possible for the Fallen to have brought them to the final battle? Unless the Fallen can only do personal transport.
:::::For Grindor, though, do we know he was actually on the Nemesis?[[User:KrytenKoro|KrytenKoro]] 22:47, 12 July 2009 (EDT)
::::::I thought someone might suggest that about The Fallen, so I didn't argue that point. I think that if he has the ability to space bridge armies across interstellar distances I would wonder why he would need the Nemesis at all. Starscream also made it to the Nemesis but he had a little longer, he could have hailed a space taxi or something. I think the movie strongly implies the Decepticons traveled by protoform from a relatively short distance and landed on the aircraft carriers. Even The Fallen. He seems to have traveled by protoform. Maybe space bridging long distances uses too much energy? - [[User:Starfield|Starfield]] 23:13, 12 July 2009 (EDT)
:::::::"Saturn" appears to have a nebula in the background in the movie.
:::::::Which means that unless you can provide a cite for it being Saturn, it's not Saturn. -[[User:Derik|Derik]] 00:51, 13 July 2009 (EDT)

==Power of a Prime?==
Why is that important? --[[User:Boba Fett|Boba Fett]] 20:15, 12 July 2009 (EDT)
:Why is pointing out the differences between the film itself and its adaptations important? Is that what you're asking? --[[User:KilMichaelMcC|KilMichaelMcC]] 20:19, 12 July 2009 (EDT)
:Why IS information about a Transformer in a Transfomers wiki important, I wonder? --[[User:ItsWalky|ItsWalky]] 20:50, 12 July 2009 (EDT)
:The novel and comics are similar enough to the movie that they don't merit their own sections on the page, so the few significant differences that DO crop up need to go SOMEWHERE. - [[User:Cattleprod|Cattleprod]] 20:53, 12 July 2009 (EDT)

==Main Pic==

Since the standard practice to to have the main image use the body the character first appeared in, rather than their most recent or more well known, shouldn't the main pic here be his Dreamwave body? [[User:Eire]] 23.45 18 Aug 09 (UTC)
:In this case it was changed so that movie visitors wouldn't reach the page and go "who the hell is this guy?" as well as to visually distinguish our article from Wikia's.--[[User:Rosicrucian|Rosicrucian]][[User Talk:Rosicrucian|<sup>Talk</sup>]] 19:25, 18 August 2009 (EDT)

==Leader Class==

I found a clip on Youtube about a Leader class The Fallen toy. It's extremely close to the CGI version in design and look and it comes with a staff. I think it's a fanmade one, but it's definitely worth noticing. I have proof. [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q142a9Fl9_c]--[[User:Cydra|Cydra]] 09:49, 10 October 2009 (EDT)
: Yeah, that's a custom by FrenzyRumble. --[[User:ItsWalky|ItsWalky]] 09:51, 10 October 2009 (EDT)

== Image:Vectorprimeut.jpg ==

OK, who put that there? The Fallen isn't even on it. --[[User:-Blackout-|-Blackout-]] 12:07, 20 October 2009 (EDT)
: Read the caption and come back to me. --[[User:ItsWalky|ItsWalky]] 12:09, 20 October 2009 (EDT)
::I just wasted two seconds on reading a caption which I have already memorized, and another ten on checking the image again. The Fallen is NOT on the image. --[[User:-Blackout-|-Blackout-]] 12:19, 20 October 2009 (EDT)
:::...yes he is. See the guy behind Vector Prime? His silhouette matches The Fallen's. Pay special attention to the little spikey hangy-things on his crotch, plus the shape of his head. And don't talk to ME about wasting time. --[[User:ItsWalky|ItsWalky]] 12:21, 20 October 2009 (EDT)
::::My bad. --[[User:-Blackout-|-Blackout-]] 12:26, 20 October 2009 (EDT)

== Unable to edit ==
I noticed that I am unable to edit The Fallen page why is that. Also I thing the sarcophagus should have its own link and that it should be edited to make it more appropiate. --[[User:Naruotfox94|Narutofox94]] 10:04, 14 November 2009

== Lawson Exclusive EZ Fallen??? ==

Just noticed the pic of the 'Lawson exclusive' EZ figure.

Apparently the version of EZ Fallen released in the 2-pack with Soundwave was actually the standard US version, and the Takara-Tomy picture was incorrect. Unless anyone has an official source (in-hand pictures, on-line sales listings etc) that says the Japanese version of the Legends figure is any different from the US colours, I'd recommend deleting this photo. [[Special:Contributions/213.123.203.109|213.123.203.109]] 09:03, 1 December 2009 (EST)
:... that doesn't make any sense. If we don't have any in-hand photos, how do we know it's the SAME as the US release? --[[User:Monzo|Monzo]] 10:10, 1 December 2009 (EST)
::So what you're saying is that we have this exclusive Legends Fallen, now released in Japan. You'd think it might show up ''somewhere''? But there's not a squeak of it on YouTube, on eBay, or for that matter ANY Transformers retailer or website you can care to name (trust me, I've checked). I realise it's supposedly an exclusive, but I can't think of another occasion in all my years of collecting when a figure's been commercially released and yet NO-ONE has seen it. As I say, I think it's just a bad photograph.

::Also, note that the two supposed 'exclusives' in this Lawson offer were Mudflap and The Fallen... which haven't actually been released in Japan as part of the main EZ line (nor have they been announced as forthcoming). So it would make sense that these are the standard US versions, which were Lawson store exclusives in Japan. Just like how ROTF Deluxes Dead End, Swerve and Stalker Scorponok were on general sale in the US but store exclusives in Japan.

::I seem to recall pictures of Takara Deluxe Ravage and Voyager Mixmaster with different paint apps too (extra purple on Ravage and a different coloured head on Mixmaster) - yet both releases ended up the same as their US counterparts. Early photos of the Takara combiner Devastator (shown in Hyber Hobby and Dengeki Hobby) has the US grey face that was later changed to red in Japan. We now know that the Deluxe red Rampage has a movie-accurate silver shovel, not the red one we saw in the early pictures. My point here is that promotional photos are notoriously unreliable.

::I realise I'm on shaky ground here - It's very difficult to prove something ''doesn't'' exist. But I think at the very least the point should be made on the page that this so-called redeco has never - to anyone's knowledge - been sighted outside of a low-res photo on the Takara website. And possibly never will.[[Special:Contributions/91.104.167.124|91.104.167.124]] 13:55, 7 December 2009 (EST)
:::This strikes me as a question that would easily be resolved if we had actual contact with the Japanese fanbase.... -[[User:Derik|Derik]] 14:01, 7 December 2009 (EST)
::::OK, after a bit of research, I've discovered that the US and Japanese versions of these legends are IDENTICAL. There are pictures on TFW2005 (I think you need to be a member to sign into the forums) [http://www.tfw2005.com/boards/transformers-toy-discussion/281376-rotf-takara-v-hasbro-comparisons.html] So this page ''does'' need to be changed, as does Mudflap's.[[Special:Contributions/91.104.167.124|91.104.167.124]] 17:20, 7 December 2009 (EST)

== Page Quote ==

To be fair... whether or not it should be changed to LesterX's idea, the current quote does suck. It says pretty much zero about the Fallen's personality or motivation or purpose or anything. All it says is that he's from some past time period, which is true of every 13 member. --[[User:Jeysie|Jeysie]] 17:21, 7 January 2010 (EST)
:I never was crazy about it but it does do a good job of summing up a pretty major aspect of the character. I'm gonna go through all his comic appearances and have a look for a better one (can't think of one from the movie) [[User:Eire]] 00.00 Jan 08 2009 (UTC)
::Change the top quote all you want, but "kali ma" is so not going away for another damn "Give me your face" joke. --[[User:ItsWalky|ItsWalky]] 19:05, 7 January 2010 (EST)
:::No argument from me on ''that'' regard. --[[User:Jeysie|Jeysie]] 19:14, 7 January 2010 (EST)

==Separate==
I recommend that this page be split into two different pages, as the backgrounds differ. (I would type in a label, but the thing won't let me) [[User:Cold Rod|Cold Rod]] 16:23, 17 May 2010 (EDT)
: I recommend you learn what [[multiversal singularity]] means. --[[User:ItsWalky|ItsWalky]] 16:38, 17 May 2010 (EDT)
::Of which the movie version is not. [[Special:Contributions/74.78.77.122|74.78.77.122]] 12:41, 18 May 2010 (EDT)
::::I would like to laugh at this, because do you see that big pile of text on [[multiversal singularity]]? That was taken from a Hasbro response ABOUT SPECIFICALLY MOVIE THE FALLEN. The original question was "If The Fallen is a multiversal singularity, how can we reconcile these various different movie-originated versions of him, like in the novelization and childrens storybooks?" And then we got that answer. So to say that the answer does not pertain to movie The Fallen betrays a monumental ignorance of the subject at hand. --[[User:ItsWalky|ItsWalky]] 13:11, 27 May 2010 (EDT)
:::Prove it. According to Hasbro multiversal singularities can have different backgrounds in different universes and still be the SAME character. Confusing, but true. [[User:Khajidha|Khajidha]] 12:43, 18 May 2010 (EDT)
::::So they look exactly the same then? they have the same background? [[Special:Contributions/74.78.77.122|74.78.77.122]] 12:56, 18 May 2010 (EDT)
:::::Somebody sign this guy up for a course in logic. Or at least ENGLISH. --[[User:Khajidha|Khajidha]] 12:58, 18 May 2010 (EDT)
::::::Seriously, read the [[multiversal singularity]] page. Specifically "multiversal dynamics". - [[User:Chris McFeely|Chris McFeely]] 13:00, 18 May 2010 (EDT)
:::::::You said '''can''', not '''do'''. There's a difference. '''Can''' means possibly. '''Do''' means certainly. It doesn't prove their one and the same. The one bathed in fire isn't a Decepticon. In addition, Teletraan 1 (the other wiki) split theirs. [[Special:Contributions/74.78.77.122|74.78.77.122]] 13:05, 18 May 2010 (EDT)
::::::::Then go annoy them and leave us alone. --[[User:Detour|Detour]] 13:08, 18 May 2010 (EDT)
:::::::::Besides, the other wiki is pretty much abandoned by this community. They're now almost independent. Not only that, but I'm pretty sure Hasbro said they were the same character. --[[User:NCZ|NCZ]] 13:09, 18 May 2010 (EDT)
::::::::::Yes, can. The Fallen has different backgrounds in different universes, but is still a singularity. Other singularities have the same background in different universes. Thus, singularities CAN have different backgrounds. Also, what Teletraan 1 does is not an argument that will go over well here. [[User:Khajidha|Khajidha]] 13:10, 18 May 2010 (EDT)
:::::::::::To cut a long story short, we're treating them as the same because Hasbro writer [[Forest Lee]], who's basically responsible for all the multiversal singularity stuff, ''says they are'', and has offered an explanation for how that works. And yes, kindly refrain from holding up ''anything'' Teletraan-1 does as a basis for how we should do things. - [[User:Chris McFeely|Chris McFeely]] 13:22, 18 May 2010 (EDT)
::::::::::::I thank the other wiki a billion times for separating their Fallen pages, because Google sure likes our page way better now! (and that was fairly immediate) --[[User:ItsWalky|ItsWalky]] 13:07, 27 May 2010 (EDT)
:::::::::::::Google still prefers Wikia if you add "Transformers" to your search terms for "The Fallen", at least from what I can tell. --[[User:FFN|FFN]] 14:18, 27 May 2010 (EDT)

== Multiversal Clean Up ==

Some people's stubborn refusals to understand his nature aside, I think the article as written right now might contain a few too many "artifacts" from when we were still rather unsure of the Fallen's Multiversal Singularity status and how it worked. The "Origin" section for instance seems to exist entirely to present his differing origins as being a conflict while not mentioning at all that Hasbro's explanation on how singularities work explains any conflict away.

I think the page could use a slight "refresh" (the Origin section especially) to really make it clearer that all the differing apperences, actions, and even origins are all part and parcel of how a mulitversal singularity works and not mistakes or continuity conflicts.

Didn't want to try to touch/alter such a potentially controversial article without feeling people out on the idea first though. --[[User:ZacWilliam|ZacWilliam]] 14:43, 18 May 2010 (EDT)

:Anyone have any real feelings on this one way or another? If no, I may attempt a clean up as discribed above in the near future. --[[User:ZacWilliam|ZacWilliam]] 13:03, 27 May 2010 (EDT)
::I'm inclined that it gets a "refresh", given the "stubborn refusals to under his nature". MUL-TI-VERSE, how hard is it to understand? Oy. --[[User:Lonegamer78|Lonegamer78]] 14:39, 27 May 2010 (EDT)
:::What is this 'multiverse' of which you speak? Is that a breakfast cereal?--[[User:Jimsorenson|Jimsorenson]] 14:44, 27 May 2010 (EDT)
::::A wonderful porridge filled with all the vitamins and minerals (some necessary, some superfluous, and some bad for the waistline) for growing protoforms, from the same company that produces Garbage O's! :B --[[User:Lonegamer78|Lonegamer78]] 14:49, 27 May 2010 (EDT)

==Megatronous Prime==
Where the hell did the person who put The Fallen's real name as Megatronous Prime? Which comic or whatever included his real name did that person learn that?
:I believe it was mentioned in the [[Transformers: Exodus|Exodus novel]]. --[[User:Jeysie|Jeysie]] 16:32, 30 June 2010 (EDT)
::I wonder if that's a reference to the Covenant of Primus... "I am alpha and omega, the beginning and the end. I am that which is, which was, and is yet to come...and you will know my name is Megatron when I lay my vengeance upon you!" Sounds like it could be about the Fallen to me. If that's the case, other Megatrons may have named themselves after him to show how hardcore they are. -- [[User:Semysane|Semysane]] 16:58, 30 June 2010 (EDT)

===Appearance===
Dark, Decepticon symbol face, did he look like Soundblaster? Considering that [[Logos Prime|Soundblaster]] might or might not be one of the 13, feels like an odd coincidence. I guess we'll have to wait to find out if that actually means anything. [[User:Item42|Item42]] 11:43, 4 September 2010 (EDT)
:No. He looked like this squat, ornately-carved boxy monstrosity whose whole body vaguely looked like a 'Con symbol, the face much moreso, with a big right-arm cannon. Hasbro said in a previous Q&A answer that we should not assume Logos Prime is one of the 13. I would not be surprised if that character never matters again. --[[User:Thylacine 2000|Thylacine 2000]] 18:09, 4 September 2010 (EDT)
::Considering Logos Prime can alter his appearance at will, and that Soundblaster is only one of those forms, Logos Prime can basically be any of the other 13 that he wants. Hell, maybe he's the Fallen. </fanon> --[[User:ItsWalky|ItsWalky]] 20:36, 4 September 2010 (EDT)
:::I put up this section hoping for it to turn out that way. I think I should maybe discuss this on a messageboard. [[User:Item42|Item42]] 20:52, 4 September 2010 (EDT)
::::Was it [http://t4ak.roblox.com/daaf9f4eb9b33f115661eb4a7c849007 this?] --[[User:King Starscream|King Starscream]] 15:17, 10 April 2012 (EDT)

==Megatronus vs Megatronus Prime==
When Hasbro did their Thirteen concept art presentation at BotCon, pre-The Fallen was just "Megatronus" rather than "Megatronus Prime". I assume this was intentional, as the only Thirteener to otherwise have "Prime" as part of his name in the line-up was Vector Prime. I don't know how this factoid should be incorporated, though. Just in Notes? --[[User:Monzo|Monzo]] 11:07, 12 July 2010 (EDT)

== Life support chair ==

Where did this info come from? It wasn't clarified in the movie.--[[Special:Contributions/96.54.128.212|96.54.128.212]] 16:49, 23 December 2010 (EST)

== A little request ==

Can we have some notes to compare and contrast Fallen's tie-in IDW comics, game, and promo-render forms with the one presented in the final movie? Or at least, can someone explain to me here on this talk page? I know they're different...but I just can't put my finger on how (probably because of the drought of good full body screencaps of him in ROTF) and it's kind of bugged me for a while now. - [[User:Tyrannolodon|Tyrannolodon]] 11:09, 27 May 2011 (EDT)

== Disciples vs. Apostles ==

''"If the first Transformers were Cybertron's '''disciples''', then The Fallen is its Judas."'' I changed this to "apostles" a short time ago, and my edit was undone with this message as accompaniment: ''"The reference is to''' Jesus' twelve disciples'''. Not all of them became apostles, and not all apostles had been disciples."'' I believe there is a confusion here between "apostle" ("one who is sent forth") and "disciple" (student). The apostles were Jesus' twelve chosen: Peter, Andrew, James the Greater, John, Phillip, Bartholomew, Matthew, Thomas, James the Lesser, Thaddeus, Simon, and Judas (Judas was later replaced by Matthias, and the title was also granted to Paul and Barnabas). The disciples were simply the followers of Jesus: the first Christians. Since this page refers to the Twelve, the reference should say "apostle." And if anyone wants a source for all this (other than my Catholic upbringing), I'll list the Bible, CatholicAnswers, and my religion teacher (a Dominican sister who DEFINITELY knows what she is talking about). Sorry for the religion lesson, but I'm 99.9% sure that "apostle" is the right word here.
:-[[User:Queso|¡Usa El Queso!]] - 2:30 PM, 8 June 2011 A.D.
::You must not have listened carefully. Judas Iscariot was a disciple of Jesus, but he was never an apostle. Because he was not sent forth to teach after Jesus death and resurrection. At least that's the way it was explained in the Baptist Churches I grew up in.--[[User:Khajidha|Khajidha]] 14:36, 8 June 2011 (EDT)
:::The only part of Judas sent forth was his intestines. --[[User:ItsWalky|ItsWalky]] 14:44, 8 June 2011 (EDT)
:Does that really apply anymore anyway? There is now the [[Liege Maximo|Liege Maximo]] so there would be two Judases. - [[User:Starfield|Starfield]] 14:51, 8 June 2011 (EDT)
::I'm still wondering if there is any actual evidence (the two being specifically mentioned as being somewhere at the same time for instance) that The Fallen isn't the Liege Maximo. --[[User:Khajidha|Khajidha]] 14:52, 8 June 2011 (EDT)
:::Uh, the relevant panels at the last two BotCons? [[User:Interrobang|—Interrobang]] 15:52, 8 June 2011 (EDT)
::::What exactly was said at the panels, what I've heard didn't sound definitive. --[[User:Khajidha|Khajidha]] 15:58, 8 June 2011 (EDT)
:::::What was said is "This is The Liege Maximo. He's one of the 13. Here is Megatronus Prime, another member of the 13. Later, Megatronus Prime becomes this guy, The Fallen." Each of those three entities had their own art. Liege Maximo looked drastically different from Megatronus/Fallen. And... I'm pretty sure The Fallen isn't going to be two different members of the 13. --[[User:ItsWalky|ItsWalky]] 18:27, 8 June 2011 (EDT)
::::::Okay, that is clear. Given that it was stated that they are separate, my question is invalidated. --[[User:Khajidha|Khajidha]] 21:19, 8 June 2011 (EDT)
I beg to differ, [[User:Khajidha|Khajidha]]: he was sent forth '''before''' Jesus' death. [http://www.biblestudytools.com/rsv/luke/passage.aspx?q=luke+9:1-6 Luke 9:1-6] gives one account of this. Judas was one of the Twelve, AKA the apostles. Also, hee hee... intestines.
:-[[User:Queso|¡Usa El Queso!]] 3:01 PM, 8 June 2011 A.D.
::I'm not arguing that he wasn't sent forth before Jesus's death, I'm arguing that "the apostles" are those sent forth AFTER Jesus's death. Paul was an apostle, never a disciple. Judas was a disciple, never an apostle (by the definition I gave). Since Fallen = Judas, apostle is not a good term to use here. --[[User:Khajidha|Khajidha]] 15:04, 8 June 2011 (EDT)
:::Perhaps [http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/apostle the dictionary definition] can settle this? Note the list of the Twelve.
::::-[[User:Queso|¡Usa El Queso!]] 15:59, 8 June 2011 (EDT) 3:59 PM, 8 June 2011 A.D.
:::::I really think this is a Catholic vs Protestant thing. To a Protestant hearing the word Apostle applied before Jesus's death seems weird. Do a google search for "12 Disciples" and look how many Protestant sources use that formulation. --[[User:Khajidha|Khajidha]] 16:07, 8 June 2011 (EDT)
::::::Whereas to a Catholic, "12 Disciples" sounds just plain uneducated (no offense intended). So what shall be done here? (All definitions I see in dictionaries still list Judas among the apostles.) -[[User:Queso|¡Usa El Queso!]] 16:31, 8 June 2011 (EDT)

I'm gonna go out on a whim here and say we should have it compare the Thirteen to the Archangels and that The Fallen is their Lucifer. At least Judas was remorseful enough to kill himself. [[User:Alientraveller|Alientraveller]] 17:02, 8 June 2011 (EDT)
:Lucifer was not an Archangel. He was a Seraph. In fact, the Archangels are the second-lowest in the nine choirs. -[[User:Queso|¡Usa El Queso!]] 18:23, 8 June 2011 (EDT)
::My point still stands: I had considered changing the comparison from Judas to Lucifer ages ago but opted not to out of respect for the lead ItsWalky wrote. [[User:Alientraveller|Alientraveller]] 18:35, 8 June 2011 (EDT)
::I don't think "Lucifer was not an Archangel" is something that's universally agreed upon, especially since a lot of that stuff is, well, apocryphal. Googling "Lucifer Archangel" sure brings up a lot of stuff about how Lucifer is an Archangel, for example. I think you need to start stating these things with less certainty. There's a lot of Christian mythology, and it all doesn't agree with itself. --[[User:ItsWalky|ItsWalky]] 18:38, 8 June 2011 (EDT)
:::To be perfectly honest, I ''can't'' state these things with less certainty. Being Catholic, I am obligated to believe what the Church teaches. I'm actually quite surprised and fascinated to see some of these other views that I'd never heard of before. But, in Catholic teaching (which we just so happen to regard as objective reality, not just our opinion), Judas was an apostle and Lucifer was the highest of the angels and thus a Seraph. I do hope I don't sound rude or inconsiderate or <insert negative adjective here>, because I don't mean to be. I'm simply pointing out what I thought was an error (that being said, I preferred the Judas comparison to the Lucifer one; [[Unicron]] would make a better Satan parallel). -[[User:Queso|¡Usa El Queso!]] 20:11, 8 June 2011 (EDT)
::Sorry if this has already been resolved, but wikipedia describes the definition of "apostle" to include Judas, stating that he wasn't sent afterward, and that the title was extended past the Twelve. They were sent out in Mark 6:7-13, and Matthew 10:1-4 explicitly calls Judas one of the apostles. Like, it says "the names of the twelve apostles are" and then says "Judas". Luke 6:12-16 says this as well, and indicates that they worked alongside other disciples who were not apostles.
::As far as archangels/seraphs -- Lucifer is not given an explicit rank beyond being the "highest of angels". There are two main treatments of the angelic hierarchy -- one with simply "angels" and "archangels", and one with all nine ranks organized in three spheres, essentially splitting the other's "archangel" into eight separate rungs, the lowest of which retains the name "archangel". Both rankings place Lucifer, Gabriel, Michael, and Raphael at the top, regardless of what they actually name that rank. It's basically a difference in terms/detail, rather than intent.[[User:KrytenKoro|KrytenKoro]] ([[User talk:KrytenKoro|talk]]) 13:28, 28 October 2014 (EDT)
:::To be fair, I guess saying "the thirteen are his disciples" isn't really "wrong", as the apostles ''were'' disciples.[[User:KrytenKoro|KrytenKoro]] ([[User talk:KrytenKoro|talk]]) 13:29, 28 October 2014 (EDT)

==The Fallen's plan in movie continuity==
Now forgive me if this was explained in any of the more recent IDW stuff (I don't own any comics past the ROTF adaptation), but has the Fallen's initial plan with Megatron ever been explained beyond: '''1. Find star harvester, 2. Find Matrix, 3. ???, 4. Control power of the AllSpark'''? By the timeframe of ROTF, the plan is evidently to use energon from the harvester to revitalise the AllSpark-less Cybertron, but this clearly wasn't their original intention. Thanks, [[User:Jalaguy|Jalaguy]] 17:48, 15 August 2011 (EDT)

== Split? ==

I know that the Fallen is a multiuniversal singularity, but I honestly think the Movie incarnation of The Fallen should get a seperate page. I think the character's article is getting way too long and I think we should split that section. Like [[Optimus Prime (G1)]] gets a page for his appearances in the cartoon and Marvel Comics continuities, I believe that should happen here. We should split the section into an article titled <nowiki>[[The Fallen (Movie)]]</nowiki> or <nowiki>[[The Fallen (ROTF)]]</nowiki> or <nowiki>[[The Fallen/Live-action film continuity family]]</nowiki>.[[Special:Contributions/72.70.64.11|72.70.64.11]] 11:21, 8 November 2011 (EST)

:I know this has been discussed before. I, like you, believe it is possible for all Fallen's to actually be 1 Fallen, but I believe the film incarnation should get a seperate page anyway because this article is getting way too long.[[Special:Contributions/72.70.64.11|72.70.64.11]] 11:26, 8 November 2011 (EST)
::49 kb is not that particularly long. [[User:Interrobang|—Interrobang]] 13:18, 8 November 2011 (EST)

== Exodus-Exiles ==

Should the two sections be merged to better represent the in-continuity chronological order?[[Special:Contributions/192.249.47.196|192.249.47.196]] 13:46, 1 December 2011 (EST)

== Capitalization concerning the Aligned continuity. ==

I don't have "Exodus" so readily available at the moment, but in "Exiles" the capitalization is "the Fallen", more used as an adjective than a name (likely as the "Fallen Prime"). I'm willing to do this, but I move for all mentions of "the Fallen" concerning the Aligned universe be written with the lower case "t", just as "Mini-Con" is "Minicon", or the whole "Brawl/Devastator" movie thing. Not all will be "the Fallen" (like in the movies that DOES have the capitalization) just information with the Aligned continuity family. --[[User:Karhukjnsi|Karhukjnsi]] 22:15, 31 January 2012 (EST)

== Title ==

Should this not be at Megatronus? It's his true name and the name more often used nowadays in Aligned stuff. [[User:Saix|Saix]] ([[User talk:Saix|talk]]) 10:11, 17 December 2015 (EST)
:While I like the idea of putting the page at his original personal name rather than his moniker, I think more people know of the character by the moniker than by the name. [[User:S.H.I.E.L.D. Agent 47|S.H.I.E.L.D. Agent 47]] ([[User talk:S.H.I.E.L.D. Agent 47|talk]]) 15:51, 17 December 2015 (EST)
:: The only time people regularly call him anything other than the Fallen is in Aligned stuff, so I'd say no. [[User:Grum|Grum]] ([[User talk:Grum|talk]]) 15:54, 17 December 2015 (EST)
:::Well, Aligned and IDW are the only stuff featuring him at this point (and are also two of the three-still running major continuities in the first place). Dreamwave material is now obscura and ROTF is a flash in the pan movie that nobody cares about anymore. The trend is towards using "Megatronus" over "the Fallen" now and that seems likely to continue in the future. [[User:Saix|Saix]] ([[User talk:Saix|talk]]) 16:07, 17 December 2015 (EST)
:Ehhhhn. The movie kind of has this article by the throat. It's why we decided to break our usual rule for the article-header picture, and I think it'd be odd to go with Megatronus. Right now, anyway.- [[User:Chris McFeely|Chris McFeely]] ([[User talk:Chris McFeely|talk]]) 16:30, 17 December 2015 (EST)
::I still feel ROTF is old news now. It's been two movies since then, and all the general public remembers at best is "that random evil guy who got his face ripped off in that confusing movie". Is it really that big of an impact whether this article is at Megatronus or not for those people? [[User:Saix|Saix]] ([[User talk:Saix|talk]]) 10:23, 23 December 2015 (EST)

:::When you say IDW is featuring Megatronus/The Fallen in their stuff, are you referring to their RID tie-in comic, or has he made an appearance in IDWG1 that I haven't heard about? -[[User:Foffy the Sheep|Foffy the Sheep]] ([[User talk:Foffy the Sheep|talk]]) 10:39, 23 December 2015 (EST)
::::He's been mentioned in IDW, and the Thirteen in general are becoming prominent parts of its mythology. [[User:Saix|Saix]] ([[User talk:Saix|talk]]) 16:29, 25 December 2015 (EST)
:There's also the notion that one of the whole points behind this guy is that, because he did something so terrible in the past, he's not supposed to have a real name anymore. So even if we know that he real name formerly was "Megatronus", he in his present life isn't supposed to be known by that name (or any name) anymore, much like how a few Optimus Primes were formerly "Orion Pax" in their earlier lives but not in their present lives. --[[User:Sabrblade|Sabrblade]] ([[User talk:Sabrblade|talk]]) 16:17, 25 December 2015 (EST)
::But that's not really the case in Aligned... [[User:Saix|Saix]] ([[User talk:Saix|talk]]) 16:29, 25 December 2015 (EST)
::: It's the case in most other works of Aligned fiction except RID. [[User:Grum|Grum]] ([[User talk:Grum|talk]]) 16:48, 25 December 2015 (EST)
::::Exodus, Exiles, and the Covenant all made it clear that "Megatronus" was his name back ''before'' he fell, not after. The Prime cartoon even called in "The Fallen" in a present sense. Only the RID cartoon treats him with "Megatronus" as his present day name, and that's just one piece of fiction out of several. --[[User:Sabrblade|Sabrblade]] ([[User talk:Sabrblade|talk]]) 16:57, 25 December 2015 (EST)
:::::That may be true, but it's the ''only'' fiction featuring him right now. It's not like there's some other series calling him the Fallen at the same time. -[[User:Foffy the Sheep|Foffy the Sheep]] ([[User talk:Foffy the Sheep|talk]]) 20:37, 25 December 2015 (EST)
::::::Unless he somehow comes back from the dead to return in season 2, RID isn't currently featuring Megatronus anymore after his only appearing in 3 out of 26 episodes, what with RID season 1 being long since done and over with by this point. --[[User:Sabrblade|Sabrblade]] ([[User talk:Sabrblade|talk]]) 22:52, 25 December 2015 (EST)

:::::::Ah. That's what I get for not actually watching the show. -[[User:Foffy the Sheep|Foffy the Sheep]] ([[User talk:Foffy the Sheep|talk]]) 23:06, 25 December 2015 (EST)
I feel like we should revisit this? [[User:Saix|Saix]] ([[User talk:Saix|talk]]) 12:29, 9 January 2018 (EST)
:Seconded. With two of the three Prime Wars Trilogy cartoons using Megatronus as the primary name (Megatron only references The Fallen as a nickname/title of sorts, i.e. "the Fallen, the Flame, the one who stood apart from the original Thirteen, the first Decepticon"), that's another piece of non-Aligned media making the shift. It's also been almost a decade since RotF, so I think it doesn't hold as much weight as it used to. -- [[User:Cyberlink420|Cyberlink420]] ([[User talk:Cyberlink420|talk]]) 13:17, 9 January 2018 (EST)
::Agreed. 'The Fallen' title is rarely used anymore, with the biggest one being ROTF, but even then the movie came out almost 9 years ago. Since all current media refer to him as Megatronus, the page should really be called that. And here on this wiki, we usually do real names, not nicknames. Additionally 'Fallen' is a very common name amongst all media (and a word too). [[User:Notirishman|-west james/notirishman]] ([[User talk:Notirishman|talk]]) 14:12, 9 January 2018 (EST)
:::There is no amount of other media that counterbalances 1) the first name used for him in fiction or 2) BLOCKBUSTER LIVE ACTION MOVIE. I don't care if it was friggin' 60 years ago. --[[User:ItsWalky|ItsWalky]] ([[User talk:ItsWalky|talk]]) 15:43, 9 January 2018 (EST)
::::Plus it's like... in the ''title'' of that blockbuster live action movie. "Oh no, no one is going to remember the name of the bad guy from the movie with the name of the bad guy in the title" is just a weird concern. [[User:Diecast|Diecast]] ([[User talk:Diecast|talk]]) 17:21, 9 January 2018 (EST)
::::Right. Just. Fucking. Stop. --[[User:M Sipher|M Sipher]] ([[User talk:M Sipher|talk]]) 22:21, 9 January 2018 (EST)

== Change the mainpic? ==

Right, so here's the thing; RoTF's been out for a while, we've had two sequels and another forthcoming...and none of the movies since have ever even mentioned The Fallen. He's sort of become discarded within the movie continuity; I mean, you can't erase RoTF from existance, but it seems like Movie Fallen is being silently pushed aside. To this point, DW Fallen is still the most notable instance of the character, since he's both the first occurance of the concept and the (to this point) most unanimously lauded version; Aligned Fallen is screwed by Aligned itself being a clusterfuck, Movie Fallen was barely in his own movie and was not recieved well by anybody...Should we then maybe consider making Dreamwave Fallen the mainpic again?

Mostly because A) The DW-verse Fallen is the first body of the character; so, by the whole "first body/most notable body is mainpic" rule, DW!Fallen should be mainpic, not Movie!Fallen. And B) Movie Fallen has fallen into obscurity, at least as far as the character goes. We usually go with the most well-known bodies of these characters, and I know that DW (as...questionable as they were at times) still had a huge influence on TF comics, about as much as the movies did, IIRC.

So I'd say that we should at least hold a psuedo-council to see if we stick with the mainpic we have now or if we'll switch it out for a different mainpic. Anybody have any thoughts? [[User:MaximalBroadjaw|MaximalBroadjaw]] ([[User talk:MaximalBroadjaw|talk]]) 13:03, 21 February 2016 (EST)
:Most notable? How many people have seen the RotF movie versus know about the comics from a failed publisher? [[User:S.H.I.E.L.D. Agent 47|S.H.I.E.L.D. Agent 47]] ([[User talk:S.H.I.E.L.D. Agent 47|talk]]) 13:08, 21 February 2016 (EST)
::DW also single-handedly revived interest in TF comics from all sorts of comic fans, so obviously they're pretty well-known, even if they did go down in flames. RoTF, while still seen by many people, was also probably rather incredibly hampered by the massive negative reception it recieved, which means it probably didn't reach as much people as, say, it's sequel did. In fact, both DoTM and AoE are ''far'' above RoTF in revenue, so obviously a lot more people saw the former two and not the latter.

::Plus, we also need to consider that RoTF was, financially, not the most sucessful of the films; in fact, except for the original, it's the ''worst'' preforming of them. So really, I'd say DW's had a much more lasting impact than RoTF had, at least in any positive ways. [[User:MaximalBroadjaw|MaximalBroadjaw]] ([[User talk:MaximalBroadjaw|talk]]) 19:27, 21 February 2016 (EST)

:::This accomplishes nothing. The mainpic now is perfectly fine. Besides, no one even remembers Dreamwave anymore, except to make Pat Lee jokes. I could see maybe changing the picture to a collage of Megatronus/The Fallen in various continuities similar the one over at [[Sideways (disambiguation)]], but changing to the way he looked in ten year old comics from a dead publisher is aggressively stupid. -[[User:Foffy the Sheep|Foffy the Sheep]] ([[User talk:Foffy the Sheep|talk]]) 20:04, 21 February 2016 (EST)

::::Revenge of the Fallen total box office take: $836,300,000. Average ticket price in 2011: $8. Estimated number of people who saw it in the theater worldwide: 104,000,000. Let's be insanely conservative and assume that most people saw it twice. Still, 52,000,000 people. Let's further assume that the home video distribution reached a whopping ZERO people who didn't see the film theatrically.
::::Now let's look at DW. Biggest print run per issue: approximately 100,000. Let's be insanely generous and double that number, to 200,000 unique people reading a DW issue. Then let's double it again because of trade paperbacks, for 400,000. Let's double it a third time because maybe people are lending / selling their old issues. 800,000. Even with all these generous assumptions, Revenge of the Fallen had about 65 times the audience that DW did for its entire existence. --[[User:Giggidy|Giggidy]] ([[User talk:Giggidy|talk]]) 20:07, 21 February 2016 (EST)

I'm reviving this discussion since over 8 years have passed and a lot more media has come out since. While RotF may have been the most prevalent piece of media to feature The Fallen, I feel it hasn't had significant influence on the character. I feel this is most evident with his upcoming toy in Age of the Primes being based off his Dreamwave body. I don't know a perfect solution to this as it may be hard to argue which iteration should be the one to headline the page, but as RotF's relevance dwindlts I think we need to reevaluate this. [[User:Ezim93|Ezim93]] ([[User talk:Ezim93|talk]]) 13:21, 9 November 2024 (EST)
:I support first appearance main pic if a split is off the table. [[User:Saix|Saix]] ([[User talk:Saix|talk]]) 13:25, 9 November 2024 (EST)

:: Throwing in my two cents, I think something like the "Optimus family comparison" photo on the [[Continuity family]] page would be a good idea. It would allow the various depictions of The Fallen (Dreamwave, ''ROTF'', ''Covenant'', ''RID (2015)'', ''POTP'', and ''One'') to be together under one image, maybe with a nod that almost every version of The Fallen's face seems to be based on the Decepticon faction symbol and the common visual of flames. While the Dreamwave incarnation is the first appearance and the basis of the upcoming toy in [[Transformers: Age of the Primes]], the Michael Bay incarnation is still part of one of the movie's names... so it's hard to completely dismiss that version's importance. <br><br>I also think the intro to the page needs a revamp from the "Evil Judas archetype" version that's been around for a while. If anything, more recent incarnations have been more "Cain" from The Bible's Cain and Abel story. Plus, ''One'' has introduced a non "Fallen" Megatronus, so now there's at least one version of this character who hasn't betrayed his fellow Primes (unless future media in this continuity family changes that).--[[User:Daytonjhammon|Daytonjhammon]] ([[User talk:Daytonjhammon|talk]]) 13:22, 30 November 2024 (EST)
:::Feels like this is sort of the same discussion about the page name as below, or at least dependent on it. At least in my opinion, if the page stays at The Fallen, the pic is probably fine. If it gets moved to Megatronus, though, it should definitely change. -- [[User:Dark T Zeratul|Dark T Zeratul]] ([[User talk:Dark T Zeratul|talk]]) 04:44, 3 December 2024 (EST)

==Move to Megatronus?==
It feels like for the last several iterations, "Megatronus" has gotten more and more use than "The Fallen." Between that, the recent movie giving us a rare non-Fallen version of Megatronus, and now the new "Megatronus the Fallen" toy, would it make sense to move the page to "Megatronus" with "The Fallen" as a redirect, rather than the other way around? -- [[User:Dark T Zeratul|Dark T Zeratul]] ([[User talk:Dark T Zeratul|talk]]) 15:53, 28 October 2024 (EDT)
:I could go either way, but I believe time has indeed proven the previous obstinacy complaints from 2018 to have been false on its face, with ''Transformers One'' indeed having validated ''Robots in Disguise'' and ''Prime Wars Trilogy'' as "Megatronus" being Hasbro's preferred name. [[User:S.H.I.E.L.D. Agent 47|S.H.I.E.L.D. Agent 47]] ([[User talk:S.H.I.E.L.D. Agent 47|talk]]) 13:07, 9 November 2024 (EST)
::I did have a discussion in Discord about this, and, yeah, I still support this move. "But the 15-year-old movie" is dull at this point. No, I don't care about aggro shut-down-the-discussion quips, either. (A good compromise would be to split this page like we do with everything else, then the movie guy can keep the name.) [[User:Saix|Saix]] ([[User talk:Saix|talk]]) 13:20, 9 November 2024 (EST)
:::I feel like a split would be messy, since most Megatronuses (Megatroni?) are also, uh, Fallens (pluralizations are awkward here). -- [[User:Dark T Zeratul|Dark T Zeratul]] ([[User talk:Dark T Zeratul|talk]]) 17:08, 28 November 2024 (EST)
:::I agree that moving it seems like a good idea. As others have said, he’s been called Megatronus more times than he’s been called the Fallen. [[User:IGEBM13|IGEBM13]] ([[User talk:IGEBM13|talk]]) 17:13, 18 January 2025 (EST)
:Just calling him the Fallen feels outdated at this point, maybe the page could just be renamed "Megatronus The Fallen"

==Split Pages==
Now I'm new to this wiki so excuse me if I'm talking out of turn here but didn't the Shroud remove Multiversal singularities which in that case, shouldn't Megatronus be split into duplicate pages from the year the Shroud happened onward? Just asking -- [[User:Jasenomous_TF|Jasenomous_TF]] ([[User talk:Jasenomous_TF|talk]]) 13:34, 4 November 2024 (MDT)
:We don't split out singularities affected by the Shroud because all of their pre-Shroud appearances as singularities still exist as fiction. The Shroud didn't automatically invalidate those appearances because those pre-Shroud appearances are still canon. --[[User:Sabrblade|Sabrblade]] ([[User talk:Sabrblade|talk]]) 17:20, 4 November 2024 (EST)