Talk:Constructicon (ROTF)

Naming conventions

Aarrgghh. I wished I paid more attention to these guys' names BEFORE I saw the film. I'm not putting any spoilers in here, but this page will need an ACCURATE revision. If any editor is reading this, please try to track the Cosntructicons in the Movie, and how many there are. I'll not see the film again before its US release. There may be an arguement for putting ALL the contruction vehicle Decepticons in here Drmick 09:56, 21 June 2009 (EDT)

Army builders?

Well, i noticed that some constructicons appeared in three different locations at once sometimes, so i've gotten the idea that allot of them just share the same body frame, and are therefore great army builders. Anyone agrees?--Sunjumper 10:48, 24 June 2009 (EDT)

Well, they also share the same name, at least Rampage does. "Rampage" is a Devastator component (as shown in the toys and DK guidebook) and Rampage is the guy running around after Devastator is formed (as revealed in the film). - Starfield 10:53, 24 June 2009 (EDT)

Reorganization

I move that this page be re-organized by "model," and we just mark the ones that form Devastator with a {{#if:red||}}†{{#if:red||}}.

It's the only way we're gonna make any headway in triaging the movie 'cons. -Derik 18:18, 25 June 2009 (EDT)

Didn't Overload form Devastator in the film? Shouldn't Scavenger be "orthodox"? - Starfield 23:08, 25 June 2009 (EDT)

Overload was part of the group of Constructicons who formed Devastator in the movies. SteamFan42 01:58, 26 June 2009 (EDT)

The constructicons issue needs addressed, both here and mentioned somewhere on the movie and toyline page. Don't we have two Rampages? The one that fought Bumblebee and the Devastator one? Can't we design a nomenclature system for them all? At least until it is addressed officially. Drmick 13:27, 1 July 2009 (EDT)

I'm a little confused by the table at the beginning of the article. Scavenger has a blue cross {{#if:blue||}}†{{#if:blue||}}, which has no defined meaning in the key. The green cross {{#if:green||}}†{{#if:green||}} is defined as a component of Devastator in the film, but the only character marked thusly is Devastator himself. Does this mean that we don't have names for any of the components of ROTF Devastator? If so, then maybe we should not have such a classification on this chart. Also, Scavenger is not marked. Wouldn't he be an orthodox Devastator unit? --Crockalley 10:02, 19 September 2009 (EDT)

TTK

Is there any confirmation that Trample, Tread and Kickback are constructicons? User:Eire 15.15 July 20 2009 (UTC)

Not explicitly. They could simply be Decepticons who took on construction-vehicle alternate modes when they came to Earth with the goal of bringing Megatron back to life. If they are not Constructicons, who is a Constructicon?

Seriously, it is a question that is bugging me a little. Who is explicitly named a Constructicon? Devastator is, in the toyline. The individual transformable toys aren't as far as I know. Is Devastator the only "Constructicon." Are the Devastator components Constructicons but not the duplicates running around? Is anyone with a construction vehicle alternate mode a Constructicon? This could use a little more documentation. - Starfield 10:50, 20 July 2009 (EDT)

I found one reference in the novel. The four Decepticons that accompanied Ravage and the Doctor underwater were called "Constructicons." - Starfield 11:17, 20 July 2009 (EDT)

"Cousins"

Should we mentioned Mixmaster and Long Haul's "cousins" just like Rampage's yellow cousins is mentioned on the member table? --TX55^TALK 11:52, 29 August 2009 (EDT)

I think we already do, just saying "there are sometimes more than one of him." Rampage is an unusual case as he is distinctly in two different colour schemes. --FFN 10:15, 19 September 2009 (EDT)

others

Is there any info about the constucticons with the saw and the crane in the gallery where the concept art of high tower and the little one?

No, since those guys we never saw in the movie only exist as concept art (as far as we know). --FFN 10:14, 19 September 2009 (EDT)

Split out all Constructicon character pages?

Given Hasbro's October 2009 answer to Unicron.com, should we split out all of the individual Constructicon pages (have two Mixmaster pages)? Hasbro is saying they are separate individuals. The problem is that we don't know if the Mixmaster that revived Megatron went on to form Devastator or fight individually with the Autobots, so the revive Megatron part should be in both articles with a note saying it could be the other guy. Also, with the exception of Rampage, we only know for sure the names of the combining Constructicons. - Starfield 11:46, 22 October 2009 (EDT)

I say let's not. That sounds like a clusterfuck. --ItsWalky 11:51, 22 October 2009 (EDT)

Well, it is a clusterpfargtl and we just sort of gloss over it. If we have two Mixmaster pages we can say things like: we don't know for sure this guy is named Mixmaster, we don't know if this voyager toy represents this character or the other one, etc. - Starfield 12:01, 22 October 2009 (EDT)

I'd say that a more useful approach to the articles would be to rework them a little so they are about the "type" of Constructicon first and foremost. "'Mixmaster' is the name shared by multiple Constructicons who each transform into a concrete mixer. The most prominent of these units..." or something like that. - Chris McFeely 12:37, 22 October 2009 (EDT)

What Chris said. Otherwise is more work than it's worth. —Interrobang 12:40, 22 October 2009 (EDT)

I'd do it, but OK. - Starfield 12:41, 22 October 2009 (EDT)

Insignia

it seems The Studio Series toyline has given them a unique insignia for the group if my copy is to be believed that was purchased at a local retailer https://www.tfw2005.com/boards/attachments/voyagers-box-png.28215970/ should help whom ever is in charge of insignias on this site Chaosomega (talk) 15:04, 28 February 2019 (EST)