Talk:Combiner

List of toys?

Personally, I am inclined to say that this article is not an appropriate place to make a list of combining toys. Arguably there is no appropriate place for that, since we already have a combiners category. Does anybody else want to chime in? I don't want to just revert Evil-yuusha's work without at least making sure I'm not alone on it. --Steve-o 05:34, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I like the article as it is. Yes, there's a combiners category, but I think having an article with a list of combiners that's further broken down by method of combination is cool, too. --KilMichaelMcC 05:50, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm gonna have to agree, primarily on the basis that it's not just a simple list; the combiners are broken down into type, and the various types explained and detailed. - Dark T Zeratul 08:09, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Okay, then, let's discuss how to improve this. I think that having the lists inbetween definitions of terminology is a bad idea. It puts too much space between the definitions. Also, the lists remove two-robot combiners from the "gestalt" category even though the text of the article explicitly cites that as a point of contention. At the very least, I think the lists should be moved to a newly-created section of this page, but creating a new "List of combiners" article might be even better. The page was written as an explanation of what combiners ARE and what different words people use for them, so inserting complete lists of combiners into the middle is incongruous. --Steve-o 21:44, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Hey everybody, I kinda just added those list on a whim (something to do on lunch break), sorry I started so much discussion! I didnt know there was a combiner list elsewhere, in fact I still can't find it! (Help!) Actually, since then I've been working on an updated draft for the Combiners page that clarifies some stuff and more or less reorganizes everything. I guess I agree with Steve-o, the list do kinda break up the flow of the page, but Im not sure how to move (or remove) them and still have them tie in with their associated terms at-a-glance. In trying to unmuddy the Combiner waters, I devised some new terms (at least i think theyre new!) to describe the often-argued "gestalt or not gestalt" combiners, as well as the "not quite an official combiner" characters. If anyone would like details before I post, or if the Mods think Im being too bold, please let me know! Evil-yuusha 18:45, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for chiming in again, Evil-yuusha. For the time being, I've moved the lists into a new section just before the trivia, and changed their headers slightly to avoid giving preference to one or another meaning for "gestalt". Personally, I'm satisfied with that, but if anybody has other ideas, feel free to bring them up. The only other combiner list would be Category:Combiners, which is organized alphabetically, like all other categories, so it's probably not ideal for all purposes. I think that introducing newly-coined terminology is something the Wiki should be wary of, although we did invent the phrase "continuity family" so it's not totally out of the question. I would recommend bringing up ideas of that sort on the talk page before incorporating them into the article. --Steve-o 00:11, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, the article as it stands now still leaves some ambiguity as to what is or is not a combiner proper, and of those, what qualifies as a gestalt. I thought that the term "Demi-Gestalt" could acknowledge lesser combiners that have the basic criteria of a gestalt, but still sets them apart from the "giants", as some fans feel they should be (like Slamdance).

I thought the term "Pseudo-Combiner" could be applied to characters that do "combine", but do not qualify as "Combiners" (like Omega Supreme). Just lumping these (and there's a lot of them) under the heading of "Not Combiners" with every other TF seems unfair somehow.

As a side note, I think the term "Super Robot" needs to be redefined, as it can refer to most any "big, strong robot", be it combiner, gestalt, pseudo-combiner, or anything else. - Evil-yuusha 18:53, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I am pretty adamant that we not try to prescribe a definition for "gestalt". To some fans it applies only to large combiners, to some only to combiners with more than two members, and to some to any combiner. There is no "real" or official definition of it for us to go off of, so, I would prefer we simply describe its varied usage and leave it at that. Similarly for Super Robot: it is used, repeatedly, in official materials to describe -- as you say -- almost any big, strong robot. It's not a very useful term for that reason, but that's what it is. I don't think we can legitimately redefine it. I can go along with your pseudo-combiner thing, although I feel a little like there must be a better choice of words... To me at least, there is little combiner-esque about Omega Supreme. He combines with his PARTS, yeah... but "combiner" has pretty much always meant combining-robots in Transformers. I admit the Not combiners section could use some work. Feel free to take a stab at it. --Steve-o 22:21, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Merge team articles with super-robot articles?

Am I the only one who thinks that the articles for gestalts and the special teams that form them should be merged? I mean, if all the members of a special team appear at the same time, more often than not their combined mode will also appear. And any notable activities performed by individual team members can always go to the said character's own bio, yes? Takeshi357 11:56, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Squawkbox

Since the first combiner was in the reign of Nova Prime, couldn't squawkbox be a legitimate combiner? --Chiasaur11 02:46, 2007 October 4 (UTC)

By far we only know the first combiner was in the reign of Nova Prime in IDW G1 Continuity. The origin of Combiniers differs from different continuities. --TX55 03:11, 2007 October 4 (UTC)

I believe we're only talking about IDW here. In IDW it doesn't seem likely. Indications are Monstructor was the first and only try by Jhiaxus as 1) he came out a horrible and powerful monster and 2)Prime and the Autobots seem totally ignorant and stunned by the concept of multiple TFs combining to a single robot. It's concievable, I suppose that the Cons could have fiddled with it and the Bots don't know, BUT it seems that Furman's going to play the Combiners as a new Mega-powerful (able to kick Omega's tail) threat, which makes it unlikely the cons would have had them and not used them before. Most likely it's either a) a mistake or b) Squawkbox isn't a combiner in IDW. --ZacWilliam 16:03, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

When their minds don't combine.

I was going on the assumption that the combiner's minds must also combine to be a true combiner. I've seen examples where they don't. In Dreadwing Down!, Dreadwind and Darkwing talk back and forth when they are in Dreadwing mode. Is that typical of Dreadwing? Is he truly a "combiner"? Was he ever called a combiner? Rail Racer from RID has spoken of himself in the plural ("we are"). If it was up to me (and I understand it isn't), I'd be inclined to give that a new term, like "connector" or something. [edit: I looked it up like I should have done before posting.] - Starfield 16:33, 31 May 2009 (EDT)

Faction symbols... Why?

So... why are there faction symbols for this page? It's like to imply that Combiner technology is exclusive to Decepticons and Autobots, when it's clearly not... There are Maximals, Predacons, Minicons... And there's even Nexus Maximus, which from what I can tell, predates any factions whatsoever. It'd seem pointless to just put every single faction symbol for each group that possesses a combiner, so I'm taking it down altogether. If anyone has an argument against it, you can go ahead and try to convince me otherwise. --Ascendron 16:49, 31 May 2009 (EDT)

Optimus Prime + Jetfire= ?

Are they combiners in ROTF? the toys do combine, but in fiction, Jetfire just gives his parts to be combined with prime.--Sunjumper 11:54, 25 June 2009 (EDT)

In fiction, no, Jetfire is dead at that point. I think it would fall under the category of super mode. In the toys, that is a good question. I haven't read any bio information describing what is supposed to be going on there. - Starfield 12:02, 25 June 2009 (EDT)

So, was Optimus Prime and Jetfire's corpse ever called a combiner? - Starfield 15:09, 5 July 2009 (EDT)

Um, possibly called "technically a combiner". I use {{note}} to state the difference. --TX55^TALK 03:13, 6 July 2009 (EDT)

Fiction section

I just realized there is no fiction section to this article. It should say how combiner tech was developed in each continuity and usually the other faction steals the tech at some point, etc. etc. - Starfield 18:56, 4 August 2009 (EDT)

Megatron + Tidal Wave

In Armada, Tidal Wave could attach to Megatron in pieces to give him the "ultimate power", wouldn't that be a combiner of some kind? And speaking of Tidal Wave, he is technically three different ships or pieces that don't transform on their own but combine to form him. Wouldn't that be considered something? --LokitheGrammarNazi 11:29, 20 September 2010 (EDT)

Diaclone

Scramble City-type combiners were initially designed to be a sub-line of Diaclone called... what else... Scramble City

Is there a source for this? Because the info I have (which is corroborated on the Diaclone page) has the intended name as Jizai Gattai ("Free Combination").--Nevermore 21:27, 2 January 2011 (EST)

Possible source of "gestalt"

I was reading some early-'90s pulp sci-fi, and I came across this bit, spoken by robot describing himself: "I am a gestalt robot. I am comprised of six robots, both in body and in mind. [...] In the event of certain types of large-scale emergencies, I can divide into my component robots so that each can move directly to a different site to manage damage control. [...] Their positronic brains are physically distinct from mine, of course, but right now all six are merging data with mine to create my own personality. In order to divide, I will have to allow each latent personality to separate and take control over its data as well as its own body."

The plot of the book - in fact, the whole series it's in - revolves around a hunt for the scattered component robots. It was published in 1993, which seems like just the right timeframe to be the source of our fandom's usage. Of course there are stranger coincidences in the world, and this doesn't actually prove anything, but it seems worth a Note to me. Anyone disagree?

- Jackpot 12:26, 6 September 2012 (EDT)

What happens...

when a Scramble City combiner switches limbs with another? Could Menasor with another team's member attached still be considered Menasor in a mental sense, considering Menasor is defined by his personality with the five Stunticons as components? Avalanche (talk) 16:53, 28 April 2015 (EDT)

In western fiction, nobody knows. In Japan you get Abomenaticus, Comperian, Cybertron Super Scramble, Destron Super Scramble, and Scramble 7. - Gimmick (talk) 16:51, 28 April 2015 (EDT)

Thanks. too bad western fiction doesn't have an answer. I'd like to see what IDW could whip up. Avalanche (talk) 16:53, 28 April 2015 (EDT)

IDW already has Prowl as a part of Devastator. --abates (talk) 17:07, 28 April 2015 (EDT)

Yeah, but I mean that a big part of Menasor is that he's unstable because the Stunticons hate Motormaster. That mind is Menasor. What happens if you take out say, Drag Strip and put in a Protectobot or something. From my limited sources, it looks like Prowlestator was just a bigger Prowl. I could be wrong though.

It hasn't specifically been done with Menasor, but God Neptune is canonically a different character to Piranacon. --abates (talk) 21:40, 28 April 2015 (EDT)

Thanks. That's what I was looking for. Avalanche (talk) 10:34, 29 April 2015 (EDT)

Combiner technology improving over time

I don't think that any fiction directly addresses this, but it seems to me that Combiner technology definitely improves with each "generation", as it were. The original, Devestator, could only combine in one way and was idiotic and driven to bouts of rage. The first Scramble City combiners used only 5 people and could shift posistions, but were also extremely stupid (Superion) and psychotic. The next two however were much more successful. Defensor is considered to be fairly smart, and although Bruticus is dumb, he's also a fairly model soldier. You then get Predaking, who's usually considered fairly flawless, and even the personality flaws of Computron and Abominus seem to be more related to the people who make them up, as well as being fairly minor.

The thing is, I don't know if any of this is intentional. It's there if you read the Universe descriptions, but I don't believe that the comics or cartoon ever really addressed it. So, is it worth noting? Or is it just arguable fan theory? LiamK (talk) 16:32, 1 June 2015 (EDT)

This seems more like fan speculation than anything else. Keep in mind that the combiner teams don't really have a "set" creation order, so to speak; in Combiner Wars Superion predates Defensor(and Monstructor is apparently older than all the other combiner teams), and in WFC Bruticus is apparently the first combiner. Grum (talk) 17:17, 1 June 2015 (EDT)

Moving Ultra Prime and Galvatronus?

I wanted to suggest moving Ultra Prime and Galvatronus from Scramble City-type Combiners to Official mix-n-match Scramble City-type Combiners. Both of these gestalts have no dedicated limbs, they take limbs from other combination sets, just like Betatron does. I also think it is fine to have Ultra Prime and Optimus Maximus listed separately as they are not the same combiner, just like Abominus and Abomenaticus are not the same combiner even if they share the same core member. Cehteshami (talk) 14:34, 21 July 2015 (EDT)

Why are we trying to shoehorn Combiner Wars into the Scramble City classification? These molds are not from Scramble City, therefor these (new) characters are not Scramble City combiners. --Khajidha (talk) 13:39, 21 July 2015 (EDT)

I think the classification is based on the combination method, not the line the toys sold from. So the Generations updates to Scramble City Combiners are also called Scramble City-Type, and their wave-mates get brought in under that classification due to the nature of their combination. At least that's what I guess the logic behind the decision is, I wasn't the one that originally put them there. Cehteshami (talk) 14:34, 21 July 2015 (EDT)

Bruticus Maximus (Energon) and the others of that type are also homages to Generation 1 Scramble City combiners, but get their own category. Not to mention these "new" scramble city types often get a sixth member (chest-plate/weapon) that can't become a limb, unlike the Seacons. That's enough diferences to split them off, in my opinion.Ascendron (talk) 14:42, 21 July 2015 (EDT)

I think the distinction is that these are not homages but the same characters, because these combiners are in IDW, they are explicitly G1. That's why, for example, looking at Superion's page it includes the information that in some parts of G1 fiction, Alpha Bravo is a team member. These aren't homages in a different continuity family, these are alternate versions of the G1 combiners in the same continuity family. To me the line of thinking goes like this: "Defensor, Superion, Menasor, and Bruticus are G1 scramble city-type combiners and depicted as such the Combiner Wars G1 fiction. Optimus Maximus, Victorion, and Sky Reign are part of the same toyline as the Generations updates to the G1 scramble city-type combiners using the same combining gimmick, therefore they are also scramble city-type combiners." I feel like that is an entirely separate discussion to my suggestion though, I went ahead and moved Ultra Prime and Galvatronus into the Official Mix-n-match category since there wasn't any comment opposed to that particular move. Cehteshami (talk) 16:33, 21 July 2015 (EDT)

Volcanicus identity crisis

So, should we list volcanicus as both scramble city and not scramble city?Poliwag06 (talk) 09:55, 23 February 2023 (EST)

I second this motion. Or make a section for same combiner different configuration. It's still G1 Volcanicus. --Metalstar (talk) 12:58, 23 February 2023 (EST)

Guys, the Combiner list is organized by toys first, not characters. There's lots of different toys listed on there for same characters. --Sabrblade (talk) 13:53, 23 February 2023 (EST)

Scrapped combiner and volcanicus

So the not about the scrapped dino combiner... Isn't volcanicus like 2/5 of it? (And also 3/5 becuz legacy gave us an Ankylosaurus if you squint)?Poliwag06 (talk) 11:39, 4 July 2023 (EDT)