Talk:Constructicon (G1)

Do we really want to have links to each of the alt modes?--G.B. Blackrock 23:16, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

I fixed this, it was an artifact left over from when the article was copied from Wikipedia. I also fixed all the links in the articles to fit the standard here, and added some links for specific things. (Robo-Smasher, Cybertronium, etc.) -hx 03:45, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Dreamwave

How is it apparent that the Constructicons weren't on the Ark when it crashed in 1984? We're led to believe that Vol. 2 is the first contact of any kind the Earthbound TFs have had with Cybertron since their crash, yet the Constructicons are a huge part of Vol. 1. --G.B. Blackrock 23:22, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

If they had NO contact- then how did the Arielbots get there? theyw erent' part of the Ark's crew. I suspect that the Cosntructicons took the 'long way around' to Earth, like Omega Supreme/Jetfire did. Thought yey arrived later- they did not represent current contact with Cybertron. (As was the case in the cartoon, per secret of Omega Supreme.) --Derik

This is not clear. MTMTE does indicate a crew of 18, which would not include the Aerialbots. However, this could just as easily be a mistake. They never adequately explained the discrepancy.--G.B. Blackrock 16:36, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

We already know that the Dinobots and the Insecticons separately found their own ways to Earth. It gets pretty ridiculous, but all signs point to the Aerialbots getting their way there, too.--ItsWalky 12:51, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

...I know there must be something-- but is there some reason Prime couldn't have created the Arialbots on Earth?

Constructicons- meh. They came from space int he cartoon, having been out of contact with Cybertron for Millenia. Same schtick for Omega Sentinel, Omega Supreme, Jetfire... -69.88.91.218 14:14, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure the Aerialbots being in The War Within series is a reason Prime couldn't have created them on Earth. ...unless there's two sets running around. --ItsWalky 14:26, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

...thank you. You know that's the onyl DW mini I havent' re-read recently? -Derik14:53, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

No one knows how the Constructicon got to Earth, they just kind of appeared. The same thing for the insecticons. As for the Dinobots, they were created by Wheeljack and Ratchet on Earth after a series of quakes from the volcano helped the Autobots find dinosaur bones. Also, the Arialbots were built on Cybertron my Prime and company. Optimus said the Autobots were no longer going to be stuck on the ground or something like that. I think the Arialbot leader even said he was a bus or something before. -—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.25.104.199 (talk • contribs){{#if:| {{{2}}}|}}.(Jan 08)

That's the cartoon continuity. We're referring to the Dreamwave continuity, in which things happened quite differently. -- Dark T Zeratul 13:54, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

The Arialbot toys just haven't been the same since Hasbro changed their kerning. JW 15:00, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

PX PLZ K THX

• I've added pics, but this definitely needs more! Fulcrum 11:47, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Before I change it back, why was the Dreamwave Devastator pic changed to be center aligned rather than right aligned? Was it messing up formatting on people's machines? It looked okay to me. Fulcrum 14:14, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

movement

I was under the impression that when there were two article covered characters with the same name, both got tags in the name with the untaged page pointing to the more prominate group. However, there are three groups of COnstructicons, G1, Uni Micromasters, and the Build Team redeco, which tipicly has the untaged page redirect to a disambg page. --FortMax 00:13, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, isn't it kinda going against the usual way articles are titled to not have the (G1) in this one? --KilMichaelMcC 00:47, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

The move is consistent with the disambiguation policy in the help pages. Which, admittedly, I wrote. But I asked for comments on the help pages a million times. As stated there, the "untagged" article should redirect to a disambiguation page only if none of the meanings is significantly more prominent than the others. That is the case whether there are two meanings, or many meanings. However, there should be a Constructicon (disambiguation) so we can put the disambig3 template in all the appropriate pages. --Steve-o 01:23, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm a bit confused. "These are by far the most prominent Constructicons." But I didn't think that was how we determined such things. UT Hot Shot is by far the most prominent Hot Shot, but he still has (Armada) in his article's title. So, I would think there would be a (G1) in this article's, with perhaps a single Constructicon (Universe) article that would cover both the Micromasters and Build Team redecoes. --KilMichaelMcC 01:25, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

We definitely did not determine things that way initially, I agree. And most of the character articles we have up right now are still showing signs of our original scheme where we gave every single character article a "tag" even if it didn't need one. I imagine Hot Shot is an example of that. All I'm doing is following what's written in the disambiguation policy. If people don't like that policy, we can of course discuss changing it. I don't really care either way. My one concern would be that it should be the same whether the number of articles is just two, or more than two. It makes no sense to me to allow an untagged article based on the number of articles, even if all of those other articles are highly obscure. If you want to change the policy you should post about it to the community portal's talk page to draw more attention from other editors. --Steve-o 01:39, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

I was under the impression that we would have an untaged page regardless of the number of name uses, only what was on the page would change (1 use has the article, 2 uses redirects to more prominate use, 3+ uses redirects to disambuig) --FortMax 02:41, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

I thought I had no opinion on this, but I guess it turns out I do.

When you have multiple possible meanings requiring a disambig, the main, un-suffixed page shoudl re-direct to a suffix'd page. The actual 'content' should never be on the main page. Here's why;

If the 'most prominent' entry shoudl ever CHANGE, it becomes a big, messy deal to change links. And if the main entry is just 'constructicons', that encourages people to link to the un-suffixed entry. (After all, that is correct!) However, if 'Constructicon (G1)' was the main entry, when Transformers: Laser Agogo gives us a heroic Autobot called 'Constructicon' who, by virtue of staring in 3 seasons of the new cartoon and eventually becomign Autobot Leader (it's an example, the Constructicons, i admit, are hod to dislodge, alright?) DISLODGES the G1 'cons from their pre-eminent position... you now have to go back and change the hundreds, or possibly thousands of links that just go to 'Constructicon,' as well as sorting out which refer to which. And everyone will have been RIGHT to link to jsut the bare 'Constructicon', because that was actually the 'main' article.

But, if the article was actually 'Constructicon (G1),' most people (hopefully) would link to that, and the only links needing 'clean up' would be the ones that (improperly) linked to the bare 'Constructicon' (which would be re-directed to the most prominent instance.)

If you have multiple examples and one preeminent example, the unsuffixed article shoudl REDIRECT to the preeminent suffixed article. The article itslef shoudl not be there... because it will make future maintenence and upkeep much easier. You may disagree. -Derik 09:12, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

That stupid G2 release

Wasn't there one issue of Constructicons where they came without the Devastator parts? That was pretty stupid - almost as stupid as the Rescue Force. Takeshi357 01:07, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

European G1 release during the period that saw the Recue Force, the Turbomasters and the Predators. --FFN

Cartoon Origins

Why must it be so complicated? Who is to say that the ones who created Megatron are the exact same beings as Scrapper's team? We've had generics that look like regulars and characters appear in scenes who should not have done so, so why must Megatron's creators be the actual Constructicons?
Also in Heavy Metal War, can't we just say that Megatron built the Constructicons earth bodies; i.e. reformatted them from their Cybertronian bodies rather than building them from nothing? Megatron had no way to bring them to life in the caverns (and they're definitely smarter than the Dinobots Wheeljack created) so their earth bodies being built is a more feasible explanation. 84.71.65.127 19:41, 30 September 2009 (EDT)

No, because that's a fanon explanation attempting to reconcile continuity errors, which is not the point of this wiki. --M Sipher 19:46, 30 September 2009 (EDT)

Just because they were Decepticons in the sense of being descended from the "military hardware line", doesn't mean they were Decepticons in the sense of "evil beings trying to conquer Cybertron". It was the rise of Megatron that started the current Autobot/Decepticon war (see War Dawn). They could easily have built Megatron without realizing that he would be evil and without being evil themselves (at least until the robosmasher got hold of them).--User:Khajidha 10:13, 10 December 2009 (EST)