Talk:Insecticon swarm

Parenthetical

I really think this should be at "Swarm (IDW)". No one is ever going to say "Which Swarm? There's the Swarm from G2, and then there's the Swarm from G1," they're going to say "There's the Swarm from G2, and then there's the Swarm from IDW." --KilMichaelMcC 13:46, 9 January 2009 (EST)

I think it'S best to keep it here as who knows these guys might be picked up by another publisher in future.Dead Metal 13:48, 9 January 2009 (EST)

I find it highly unlikely that any new concept introduced in All Hail Megatron will be utilized by a later publisher.--Rosicrucian^Talk 16:34, 9 January 2009 (EST)

The point of the parentheses is to disambiguate, not to convey specific information. That's what reading the article is for. —Interrobang 14:40, 9 January 2009 (EST)

I think KilMichaelMcC has an excellent point, though. Swarm (IDW) is closer to how people conceptualize this version of the swarm. Also, G1 is somewhat ambiguous. G1 as a continuity family includes G1, G2, BW & BM, no? So, in that sense, the G2 swarm (which also in Beast Wars) *IS* a G1 swarm. Whereas the IDW swarm appears only in, well, IDW. As to Dead Metal's point, we can burn that bridge when&if we come to it. --Jimsorenson 14:45, 9 January 2009 (EST)

Then "Swarm (G1)" be moved to "Swarm (Marvel)". After all-- it's not like they've ever been mentioned again in a non-Marvel work! TF never references things from the past ever again. Once they've gone it once, it's over! -Derik 14:50, 9 January 2009 (EST)

For further information, see: Grindcore (G1)

Your analogy isn't apt. The movieverse is not part of the G1 continuity family as we have defined it. G2 (and BW) demonstrably are. So, Swarm (G1) could well refer to the swarm from the G2 comics / Primeval Dawn comic. Ergo, it's a bad disambiguation. Nothing in your argument addresses that point. It's a bad idea to create real logical problems now in an attempt to avoid possible problems in the future. --Jimsorenson 15:50, 9 January 2009 (EST)

Why are you comming up with the Movieverse? The idw Swarm is from All Hail Megatron which is part of idw G1 comic and not the Movie comic.Dead Metal 16:10, 9 January 2009 (EST)

There's a Movieverse Grindcore. Jim's point is that we can call the IDW Grindcore "Grindcore (G1)" because the other Grindcore is from the Movie and therefore could in no way be considered a G1 character. The separation between "(G1)" and "(Movie)" is as firmly unambiguous as you can get, as far as we've defined our continuity families. Whereas the two Swarms both exist in continuities that can be put under the G1 umbrella. So calling one of them "(G1)" makes for potential ambiguity, which of course is the antithesis of a disambiguation.

I don't have a strong stance on this instance, but as I see it the crux of the problem is that there are two different "G1"s here: the franchise and the continuity family. The franchise, strictly speaking, encompasses only the pre-G2 stuff and its un-subtitled derivatives. Every offshoot with its own subtitle (G2, BW, Alternators, Classics, Universe Classic Series, etc.) is technically in a different franchise. So by that definition, the two Swarms can be called "(G1)" and "(G2)" with no problem. However, all of those subtitled franchises DO belong to one big continuity family, often called "G1" for lack of a better term. (I prefer "G1 / Beast Era", but whatever.) So it's a good idea to discuss here how this applies to things like disambig parentheticals. Especially since we're starting to see another example of this start up, with the "Movie" and "Revenge of the Fallen" franchises being considered two different animals grouped into one "Movie" family.

- Jackpot 19:15, 9 January 2009 (EST)

I'd prefer the (IDW) parenthetical, as the G2 swarm was part of the G1 continuity family, and later influenced Beast Wars (even if that influence was barely mentioned in canon). But I can see how the IDW comics also being G1 would be problematic... I don't like the idea of a (Marvel) parenthetical, though, because of the Swarm's influence on the Vok in the 3H stuff.. Any other ideas? --Martonimos 19:31, 9 January 2009 (EST)

Seeing as how we acknowledge that IDW has its own separate continuity from the rest of its G1 brethren, I don't see (IDW) as a weird parenthetical. If it gets used in a non-IDW continuity, we can worry about it, but for now I agree with Jimsorenson, basically. The IDW swarm so far is not a part of G1 as a whole, but only part of IDW. --Jeysie 19:59, 9 January 2009 (EST)

...but Marvel Comics also has a separate continuity from the rest of its G1 brethren. So does the cartoon, the other comics, the storybooks... what is your point? --ItsWalky 20:11, 9 January 2009 (EST)

I guess it's that, to me if something's labeled (G1), that means it's a concept common to G1 as a whole. Whereas, not only has the IDW Swarm only shown up in IDW so far, but, as others have pointed out, it's the G2 Swarm that's actually been a factor in more than one G1 story.

So... again, I don't see why Swarm (IDW) is a bad thing. It also does the job of disambiguating, and it doesn't cause any potentially confusing implications the way Swarm (G1) does. It's the G2 Swarm that is the Swarm "associated" with G1 as a whole, not the IDW Swarm. --Jeysie 20:41, 9 January 2009 (EST)

We don't have "Straxus (Marvel)", "Scrounge (Marvel)", "Alpha Trion (Sunbow cartoon)" and the like. Why? Because they're all just G1, just like IDW is. IDW is just one continuity within a larger franchise, and we name folks after the first franchise of origin, not based on their publisher. IDW's Swarm is a G1 Swarm, and since there is no other G1 Swarm, then it should stay at "Swarm (G1)". Distinguishing IDW from the rest of the G1 continuity family for no real reason is arbitrary and against our protocol. --ItsWalky 21:18, 9 January 2009 (EST)

Sooooo.... the whole "but, as others have pointed out, it's the G2 Swarm that's actually been a factor in more than one G1 story" and "It's the G2 Swarm that is the Swarm 'associated' with G1 as a whole, not the IDW Swarm" bits are irrelevant? Personally, I think Jackpot's raising some good questions down yonder about overlaps. --Jeysie 21:40, 9 January 2009 (EST)

Whaaaat? The G2 Swarm originated in a G2 story. G1 Swarm originated in a G1 story. End of! --ItsWalky 21:47, 9 January 2009 (EST)

Okay, the logic is beginning to jell for me: Parentheticals refer first and foremost to franchises, so if you have two identically-named articles, you start with their franchises of origin, and if there's no overlap there, you call it good. In this case, G1-the-franchise and G2-the-franchise are separate and fine. The fact that "G1" is also the name of a continuity family doesn't matter. By the same token, it's not as though Soundwave (Cybertron) should be changed just because "Cybertron" is also the name of a planet that other Soundwaves have come from. - Jackpot 23:52, 9 January 2009 (EST)

Well, for me, honestly... basically, when I see a label like (G1), I then instinctively think of the thing being labelled as a concept that applies to G1 in general. I don't think of the IDW swarm that way, and indeed, as others have noted, it's the G2 Swarm that (weirdly) fits better in that sense. It sincerely has never occurred to me before now to think of a label as meaning nothing other than "originated in that whatever". That just seems weird and uninformative to me (if not outright misleading in some cases). --Jeysie 23:56, 9 January 2009 (EST)

Appealing to common sense and intuition will get you nowhere when it comes to this subject. Rules and pedantry are supreme. (Meaning, I'm with you in spirit, but this is a very uphill battle against an established order.) - Jackpot 00:26, 10 January 2009 (EST)

"Common sense" is such a bullshit argument. Whose common sense? Why IS it common sense? When I first saw the Swarm namedropped, I thought, "Hey, a G1 Swarm." Either I just don't have common sense, or this is just one of those subjective things. And, frankly, pleas to "common sense" really rub me the wrong way. It used to be "common sense" that singlehandedly supported any number of terrible things that society has since abandoned. It is what you cling to when evidence is not on your side. So, please, support your arguments with something other than "because" with a special implied "your head is up your ass" a la mode. --ItsWalky 01:23, 10 January 2009 (EST)

I don't know if you're telling me to support my arguments, but you know me well enough to know that I always do. When I said I supported Jeysie "in spirit," I didn't mean that I explicitly agreed that this article must not be "(G1)" - in fact, the only conclusive argument I've presented here has been in FAVOR of "(G1)". What I agree with Jeysie on is that this diehard reliance on a single arcane rule can be unsatisfying and somewhat troublesome. I'm glad that common sense actually DID win out for the Shatteredverse characters, who used to be a hodgepodge of "(Timelines)" and "(Shattered Glass)" but are now all the latter, and not because any rule demanded it, but because it just satisfied people's intuition. That having been said, I don't know how to formulate the ideal guidelines, and I appreciate the value of following existing rules for the sake of having some kind of common ground. So I'm not going to put up a fight here, though I would certainly be interested to see if someone else can translate their intuitive misgivings into a coherent revision to the system. - Jackpot 01:54, 10 January 2009 (EST)

The fact that the IDW Swarm doesn't exist anywhere else yet is kind of immaterial. As I understand it, the first choice for a parenthetical is the franchise of origin, which is why Optimus Prime (Armada) isn't "(UT)" instead. Yeah, he showed up in every corner of the Unicron Trilogy, but "(Armada)" is still preferred. Likewise, if we were to decide now that "(IDW)" is the right parenthetical for this article, future appearances elsewhere wouldn't change that. What matters in this discussion is how much we care that "G1" can refer to not just the franchise, but also the broader continuity family. - Jackpot 20:31, 9 January 2009 (EST)

"So calling one of them "(G1)" makes for potential ambiguity, which of course is the antithesis of a disambiguation." Again, the only point of the parentheses is to separate two things that have the same name. It is not there to remove "potential ambiguity". That's what the notice at the top of the page is for. (Are we going to move Afterburner (G1) to "Afterburner (Technobot)" because of the existence of Afterburner (G2)?) —Interrobang 20:27, 9 January 2009 (EST)

If the only guiding principle for parenthetical-content was the separation of pages, then we could put anything in them. Numbers, for instance. Or, more germaine to this conversation, we could arbitrarily decide that, say, one of the Nightsticks is "Nightstick (G1)" just as long as we come up with different terms for the others. But we don't - if a disambig-term overlaps multiple characters, we discard it entirely and use more specific ones for ALL the articles concerned. The question here is, how much relevant overlap does "G1" have? Like I said, I don't really have an opinion one way or the other, but I want to make clear what the core of the argument really is. - Jackpot 20:46, 9 January 2009 (EST)

I will just re-iterate my original point. No one is ever, ever, ever going to think of the IDW Swarm as "the Swarm from G1" or the "G1 Swarm." I know "Swarm (IDW)" isn't entirely consistent with our usual naming scheme, but I don't care. It is what makes sense, to me, where calling this article "Swarm (G1)" does not. --KilMichaelMcC 00:08, 10 January 2009 (EST)

I think of it as a G1 Swarm. "What I personally think of" is a terrible naming plan, and sticking to our existing rules is much less arbitrary. Some people don't think anything after the movie is G1! Should we accommodate them? --ItsWalky 00:18, 10 January 2009 (EST)

It is not about "what I personally think of." The point that I am laboring to make is: if one mentions the Swarm on a TF forum, and someone asks "Wait, which Swarm are you talking about?" I have a hard time imagining anyone answering that question with "the Swarm from G1" or "the G1 Swarm," rather than "The IDW Swarm" or "the Swarm from All Hail Megatron." --KilMichaelMcC 00:37, 10 January 2009 (EST)

I think we should accommodate what people who visit the wiki and just care about the articles and not the nitty-gritty of our rules are going to think, basically. (I mean, heck, I edit the wiki, and I still didn't think about this the way you are thinking about it, I thought the way KilMichael did...) While rules are very good as a general principle of consistency, I think the occasional exception for the sake of clarity is possible. --Jeysie 00:23, 10 January 2009 (EST)

Is changing our rules on a whim going to really be any more user-friendly than being consistent? This just muddies the waters and confuses things. It sounds like we're declaring IDW to be its own franchise when that is totally not the case. How do we explain this to people? "We name things based on their franchise except for when we don't?" Based on your criteria here for moving it to IDW, what argument do we have against some random dude who moves "Insert Marvel-UK-only dude here" to "Marvel-UK-only dude here (Marvel UK)" simply because he doesn't think of it as G1? This is a very very VERY subjective thing you're demanding we make the site kowtow to. --ItsWalky 00:44, 10 January 2009 (EST)

Personally I like Rosicrucian's idea below at this point. But since you bring it up, I do think of IDW's G1 as a series, a la Beast Wars or Armada or what have you. It's a single storyline, with the same ongoing set of characters, that's separate from the other G1 storylines/series, and has its own continuity. And if Drift ever gets made, then we'll actually have IDW G1 toys. So... *shrug*? Would we be having this argument if the IDW storyline was a TV series instead? --Jeysie 00:57, 10 January 2009 (EST)

*facepalms* "has its own continuity/separate from other G1 storylines/series" IS NO DIFFERENT FROM ANY OTHER VERSION OF G1. I've explained this above already. That is what makes G1 a CONTINUITY FAMILY. There are MULTIPLE separate continuities WITHIN one continuity family. Marvel G1 is its own continuity separate from other G1 stories/series. Sunbow cartoon is its own continuity separate from other G1 stories/series. The coloring books are their own continuity separate from other G1 stories/series. IDW is not unique at all in this regard. It is no different than any other version of G1. If a cartoon of the IDW stories were made, then I'd still consider it G1, because they're all still based on toys from G1. Even the toys that started out their own different-but-inspired-by designs eventually drift back to G1 bodies. It's just another G1. So when the Swarm showed up, I thought, "Hey, a G1 Swarm." Not "Hey, a IDW Swarm." That makes us different, apparently, but I'm not sure why your "common sense" overrides mine and the structure of this wiki. --ItsWalky 01:16, 10 January 2009 (EST)

OK then, guess all those articles with (Armada) and (Energon) and (Cybertron) need to all really be (UT) because the continuity is always the modifer, never the series. Got it. --Jeysie 01:37, 10 January 2009 (EST)

Addendum: Plus, isn't this the same group that just got done advocating things like Superion (ROTF) even though that character would have originated in the Movie continuity? So much for consistency... --Jeysie 01:40, 10 January 2009 (EST)

Okay, we've got... [counts fingers]... FOUR concepts here, which I will list from most general to most specific:

• Continuity family
• Franchise
• Continuity
• Series

Though Walky didn't use the word, when he referred to the IDW characters as "based on toys from G1" he was saying that they are therefore in the G1 franchise, and THAT'S what's important by the current guidelines for parentheticals. Continuity family is considered too big to be useful (not to mention seldom officially-named to begin with), and continuity and series are considered too specific for ordinary use. "(ROTF)" follows the franchise rule, as does this article being "(G1)". It's actually quite consistent.

- Jackpot 02:06, 10 January 2009 (EST)

Then what about Beast Wars and Beast Machines, which are part of the G1 continuity? Why is it say, Blackarachnia (BW) and not Blackarachnia (G1)? And... what also confuses me is that it's stated in several places that we are not a toy site, so why do how the toys are grouped take presence over how the fiction is grouped? The two usually coincide, but not always. And what about all the (Armada), (Cybertron), (Energon) articles instead of (UT)? Since series can be used as qualifiers, obviously, I don't see the problem. And what do we do about the Defiance comic, which is branded as ROTF but is going to deal with the origins of Cybertron in the Movieverse, thus possibly placing parts of it before the first movie?

...my head really hurts... --Jeysie 02:30, 10 January 2009 (EST)

"Branded" is the key word. "Beast Wars" and "Beast Machines" and "Armada" and "Energon" and "Cybertron" are Hasbro brands applied to fiction AND toys. That's what makes franchises a handily universal denominator. Hasbro never applied any "G1" label to Beast stuff - we did when we came up with the notion of "continuity families," and since it relates ONLY to the fiction, its relevance to the toys is debatable. Since our articles DO deal with both, it's fair not to let fiction override EVERY concern. Plus in almost every case, franchises have very clear, official names generated by Hasbro marketing, which are always nicer to rely upon than quasi-canon terms like "Unicron Trilogy" or wholly fan-made ones like "Beast Era." As for the Defiance comic, well, it's branded ROTF, so that'll be its parenthetical if it needs one. The fact that its continuity relates to others is irrelevant, by our current rule. - Jackpot 02:48, 10 January 2009 (EST)

So why does Ravage have BW info on his G1 page, then, if G1 and BW are separate franchises? And, if Defiance does sets up the origin of the Movieverse as a whole in the same storyline as both movies, then saying it has to do with ROTF and not the '07 Movie too is silly and confusing, IMHO.

I guess it's just... if this *was* a toy site, I'd say, yeah, we separate it out by toys and deal with the rest. But we primarily deal with the fiction here, so IMHO when the toys and the fiction don't coincide, the fiction should win out, so as to keep stories that are of a single storyline grouped in that single storyline.

(Maybe it's just because I watch TF as a scifi show, basically, so when I think of how things are grouped I think of it in terms of series and storylines.) --Jeysie 02:59, 10 January 2009 (EST)

That last sentence, I think, nails it exactly. You're applying fiction-centric logic to our title-suffix schema when the rule we're going by is based only on Hasbro marketing. And I can see why that disconnect is frustrating. Your example of Ravage is a very good one for showing how each article pertains to a single continuity family, no matter how many franchises, continuities, and series it may comprise. So why, in coming up with parentheticals, do we not default to continuity families instead of franchises, since the families are what form the actual basis of the articles? I came up with a few answers above, but I've never seen it conclusively explained. (And if we were to change our rule to families instead of franchises, then this article WOULD have to changed away from "(G1)" because the G1 family includes G2. Not that I think that's going to happen, but I'm amused that this article has stayed germane despite our digressions.) - Jackpot 03:20, 10 January 2009 (EST)

If we simply must have this article, we could move it to Insecticon Swarm and sidestep all of this. Of course, those reading below can tell that I don't think this article needs to exist particularly.--Rosicrucian^Talk 00:29, 10 January 2009 (EST)

I like that idea, actually. Or Swarm (Insecticon) if we really gotta have a parenthetical. Problem solved, IMHO. --Jeysie 00:37, 10 January 2009 (EST)

Disambigs do not exist to convey information. If they did we would have Spike Witwicky (G1). We could just as easily number these characters based on their appearances "Grindcore (1)" "Grindcore (2)", or do years- "Swarm (1994)", "Swarm (2008)". But we find parenthetical to be easier for users to remember, because they're usually one of a very small finite set (Bw, G2, BW, BM, RID, Armada, Energon, Cybertron, Movie, Animated) that almost never deviate from that model (unless adhering to it causes overlap.) Thus, "I know what Swwarm I'm looking for, what disambig will it be hidden at? Well, it was a G1 comic, so it must be at "Swarm (G1)"." This system isn't structured this way convey information-- it is structured for maximum simplicity and convenience. Randomly adopting dozens or hundreds of "more specific" disambiguations sucks, because it makes everything harder on everyone, especially the editors, that now have to remember all these things, and then if I'm looking for (say) "Grandus," I have to search my memory-- "Okay, some anal-retentive pedant didn't think he should go at Grandus (G1)," so now I have to try and remember the incredibly stupid non-standard Grandus (G1) disambig despite RoC being part of G1 and there being no other G1 Grandus for the name to conflict with. You made the system suck and hard to use in the name of making it "simpler."

And frankly half the people in the this entire whiny "Nooo, call it IDW!" argument neither understand nor care how Disambigs are supposed to work- they're just pushing the same "IDW shouldn't be considered part of G1, it's so different''''!" agenda of buttache and fail and using this debate as a proxy to re-open that issue no one wanted to talk abotu before, using the widely-established G2 Swarm as an emotional wedge issue.

Fuck you all. You are going so far to Hell they will have to build a NEW CIRCLE for this failure. -Derik 04:51, 10 January 2009 (EST)

Re-reading this, it occurs to me that this might come off as a little harsh.

Today was a bad day. I like- met someone, and we totally connected! We talked about cognitive psychology, slime mold colonies, personal conceptions of God, humansism, Vin Diesel, mad cow disease, real dolls, flow states, wikiality, unhealthy models for human social interaction and firemen. It was totally awesome, and before either of us knew it 9 hours had passed, just talking... this intense deep human connection out of nowhere!

...why can't I ever have conversations like this that aren't with girls? *sigh* so ronery...

Anyway, I'm sorry Interrobang, I didn't mean to call you an anal-retentive pedant in public like that. That's the sort of thing you're only supposed to say about someone behind their back. Doing so was super rude of me.

I'd also like to apologize to Hooper X, for forgetting to use the much funnier (and more accurate!) term "anal-retentive autist" which he coined. I shall attempt to do better in the future. -Derik 05:14, 10 January 2009 (EST)

Bah, sure, take the bite out of my repsonse... XP

Basically... I guess it's because you all "think wiki", for lack of a better way to put it. You've worked with the continuity families for so long you've memorized what goes where, so it makes perfect sense to you to disambiguate them that way.

Whereas, if I'm looking for a concept from IDW (or Beast Wars, or whatever), I'm going to think of it as that series first before I remember which continuity family it's supposed to be a part of. (And because I watch the fiction more than I play with the toys I'm going to further think of the continuity family before the franchise, though I know I'm weird in that among TF fans.)

So yeah, I do think of IDW as being different because it is different and separate from Marvel, Sunbow, etc. Grouping it with the other G1 things that share the same archetypes is useful a a general thing, but I think of it first as "IDW", not as "G1".

So... I'm sorry to be a pain, but I basically think as a reader, in the sense of "If I was looking for info on X, what would I expect it to be under based on the storyline it's in?" --Jeysie 05:24, 10 January 2009 (EST)

That's me, somehow managing to be a bigger asshole by apologizing.

You want to see screaming fits about disambigs? If Hasbro or Takara ever produces a character called Sideways that's not the original? Our system tell us we're supposed to move the Armada/Cybertron Sideways article to Sideways (RID).

(Fortunately Sidweways is a dimension-hopper. Any future toy called Sideways is likely to BE him.)

And I go back to Spike Witwicky (G1). He's a G1-only character- but he has no disambig. If disambigs were there to provide information- every G1 character would have them, and every BW character would have them regardless of whether or not there was any overlap. "Snapper (BW)" But they're not. In fact, in many cases disambigs are anti-informative... Hot Shot (Armada) appeared in more non-Armada episodes than he did Armada episodes. The information you want to provide with disambigs cannot be provided by disambigs-- or the entire system rapidly collapses into incoherence. That information is provided by the italicized statement that begins the article. Spike Witwicky is a human in the Generation 1 continuity family. That is that atatement's job. The disambig's job is not to do what the italic statement's job is. The disambig's job is to allow us to have two seperate articles about characters with the same name.

The job you want the disambigs to do, they would perform badly. And in the process of performing that job badly (a job, I remind you, the very first sentence of the article already does well,) the disambigs themselves would become much more cumbersome to work with. That's really the long and short of it.

(My earlier ire aside- I'm not really irritated about this subject. (irritation is just mose fun to type!) I was in on the OTHER side one of the first times we went around on this subject, and other mroe rational minds managed to convince me to come around to their way of thinking.)

In this case, the people arguing for the way we do thngs now basically just coming up with case examples. "Well what about ..." and they kept being able to come up with example after example that would be HELLISH to try and settle on a single disambig (or would be constantly moving) under almost any system except the one we use now. I freely admit the 'semi-standardized' disambig system we us is draconian and not very good... but it's at least usable. The same system can be applied to every single article on the wiki this way. We have SEVEN THOUSAND articles. You can't have two or three standards with that many articles-- you need ONE standard that works (however awkwardly) ALL THE TIME. Hell, the article structure we have standardized, with it's fiction sections and such... it a terrible way to address some subjects... but it's at least a system we've been able to AGREE on-- one that's always more-or-less right, even if it's not perfect... because any other standard (or multiple standards, or NO standards) for article structure rapidly results in the articles devolving into an unholy mess.

And FYI, I was on the other side of your argument- iw as arguing that the Movieverse was another iteration of G1 and should be included within that continuity family. I lost that debate too.

That's all you can do-- argue strongly for your own beliefs and try to convince others. There's lot of stuff on this wiki that I don't think is the best, or I'd rather we did different-- but given a choice between arguing over it and never getting it done, and getting it done in a manner that's somewhat not to my liking... I choose the latter. (Doesn't stop me from being an asshole and pointing out every time something that supports the way iw as arguing for on talk pages though-- I'm just petty that way!) -Derik 06:08, 10 January 2009 (EST)

Er, I think you're misunderstanding me here.

Nowhere did I say I want to stick disambigs on every article, because that's silly. If there's only one Spike Witwicky, then he doesn't need a parenthetical because there's no one to mix him up with.

What I am saying is that if we do need to stick a parenthetical on something to disambiguate it from being something else with the same name, then the disambig should be as clear and logical as possible, so you can easily find which of the same named things is the one you're actually looking for.

That's all I was getting at. Really.

To me Swarm (G1) and Swarm (G2) is confusing, because G2 is a part of G1 and the G2 Swarm has been referenced in G1 stories, so what's this new G1 Swarm supposed to be then? Whereas Swarm (G2) and Swarm (IDW) is more like, ah, OK, the first is the Swarm from the G2 stories, and the second is the Swarm from the IDW stories.

So... disambiguations as labels all the time? No, of course not. Disambigs as specific labels when two or more things need disambiguating? Yes. --Jeysie 06:28, 10 January 2009 (EST)

So- Disambigs should be a means of conveying information, not simply a way of lettign tow article have the same-but-different title. And once disambigts are conveying information-- shouldn't ALL articles have that information conveyed?

When do you picture someone actually getting the information you want to put int he disambig from the disambig? If they had an incoming link pointing them to "Swarm (G1)" then they know they're at the right article, because the link was pointed to this specific swarm. If they're following an external link someone posted on 4chan-- well chances are it's ebcause someoen was discussing Insecticon clones. In both cases the information they get from readign the artlicle should not come from the parentheticical, it should come from the first sentence.

The only time (that I can see) where the parenthetical conveying information does any good is on the Recent Changes page, because there you don't get to see the first sentence like you do in every single other scenario where you are viewing this page. So as an editor monitoring RecentChanges-- it'd be nice to be able to know what article is what just by it's disambig.

The problem, of course, is that your solution of adopting dozens of new non-standardized "specific disambig actually makes things much harder for editors whiel at the same time making it easiert to follow the RecentChanges page. The trade-off is a net negative.

Disambiguations are designed to, well, disambiguate. If there's no reason to disambiguate, then no, every article should not need the parenthetical because there's no chance of mixup.

Again, if there's only one Spike Witwicky, no parenthetical is needed because he's the only one you gotta deal with. You go "Hey, I wanna know about this Spike guy," you do a search for Spike, and his article comes up. You don't need to know at first that he's G1, because he's only got the one page to worry about, so that's what you end up on.

But if I want to search for info on this Ratchet guy I've heard about... hey, what's this? I put Ratchet into the search box and all these articles with the same name and different parentheticals pop up. Well, shoot, which one's the one I had in mind? Hmm, do any of these parenthetical labels look like they match the Ratchet I wanted?

Or we could go with me being a slightly more advanced reader who wants to type in the URL for the Ratchet I wanted, so I have to try and guess at the right parenthetical.

I also don't see how your way makes things easier. I mean, I could remember all of the weird rules for disambiguating that, as your Sideways example shows, sometimes put articles in confusing places... or I could go, "Hey, this Swarm shows up in the IDW G1 series and nowhere else, so let's call it Swarm (IDW), especially since the G2 Swarm is what's shown up in other G1 stories." To me Swarm (G1) is counter-intuitive and makes things harder for me as an editor.

So basically 1. I do honestly understand what the purpose of disambiguation parentheticals is and 2. I just don't follow how "my way" is supposedly harder. But then, maybe it really does boil down to what I said earlier... I still partly think like a reader, while you think solely like an editor. --Jeysie 17:44, 10 January 2009 (EST)

We have a list of 9 standard disambigs. You think replacing that with dozens more disambigs is simpler. You think a system where an article about a Generation 1 character cannot be reached using a (G1) parenthetical-- where an article can 'live' in multiple disambigs is more straightforward than a system where it falls hard into a single one. I disagree. -Derik 18:35, 10 January 2009 (EST)

We already have dozens of disambiguations... everything from (G1) to (ROTF) to (Armada) to (Autobot) to (Pretender) to, etc. So, no, I don't see how disambiguating a character or item according to what story it's in vs. having to remember the whole wiki hierarchy of naming is harder. If something is in more than one storyline, then it makes sense to bump it up to the next most generic level of disambiguating it according to the continuity family. Or, if there's more than one thing in a single storyline that has the same name, bump them all down to a more specific level of disambiguating it according to what it is.

You'll end up with a variety of disambiguations, yes, but they'll be fairly logical ones because they're named after the storylines. So it doesn't matter if there's lots of them because you don't have to memorize them. (Not to mention that, as I said, we already have a variety of disambiguations.)

I think someone reading the wiki should be able to look at a list of search results with parentheticals and have a good chance of telling which one is the one they want without having to memorize our naming and category rules first. That's what it boils down to. We can agree to disagree if you like, but you're not going to sell me to your POV. --Jeysie 19:00, 10 January 2009 (EST)

The biggest immediate problem I see there is that that makes parentheticals open to a lot of change as characters get repurposed. Plus figuring out what best applies can still be tricky - Sideways has been brought up before: He started out in RID, starred in the UT, and even showed up in Robot Masters. There is no blanket term for that wide a spread. And in the other direction, how finely do we need to distinguish the "storyline" a virtually-unknown character belongs to? For instance, Downshift was originally just part of the S.T.A.R.S. continuity, so if he didn't show up in comics too, would we be forced to call him "Downshift (S.T.A.R.S.)"? Wouldn't that be more arcane and obfuscating than "Downshift (G1)"? Like I said below, if you can refine your thoughts into a coherent system, go for it - I'd be intrigued to see a viable alternative to what we have. But right now, it doesn't seem like this notion would do us any better. - Jackpot 19:25, 10 January 2009 (EST)

Well, someone who shows up in multiple continuity families is always going to be tricky... I agree there's no hard and fast rule for such a thing. But the majority of characters who show up in more than one series/storyline have it where all of those series/storylines are still in the same continuity family, so you can just "bump up" with no problems.

As for your Downshift example... if he's really only showed up in the S.T.A.R.S. continuity, then anyone who's heard of him is likely going to have heard of him from that storyline, yes? So I don't see a problem.

Now, if we disambiguate a character via a series and he then later shows up in another series, then we may have to move him. (It would depend on the series' relationship, since, for example, Armada, Energon, and Cybertron are all sequels to each other, so having someone labeled (Armada) who then shows up in Energon probably doesn't warrant a move, since it's all the same storyline.) But since we already move pages from one parenthetical to another if the parenthetical ever ends up no longer making sense, it's not like this would cause a problem we don't already have. --Jeysie 19:49, 10 January 2009 (EST)

The thing is, under the current system, the multiple-continuities thing isn't "tricky" at all, because continuities don't factor in. And, yes, we already move parentheticals when new conflicts arise, but your system would just increase the amount of constant change. Anyway, this conversation has far outgrown its ostensible subject, so I've started up a new topic over on Help talk:Disambiguation. Let's continue over there. - Jackpot 21:02, 10 January 2009 (EST)

Maybe what you want is a redirect. If "Swarm (IDW)" existed as a redirect page, it would show up in the search drop-down, but take you to "Swarm (G1)". (Or, well, "Insecticon swarm," as the case currently is.) The core problem, as Derik has said, is that ultimately there are numerous parentheticals that could work for any given article, but the article can only BE one of those, so the point of a hard-and-fast rule is produce an answer without it being a judgement call every single time. As I've said above, I'm not sure franchise-of-origin is necessarily the BEST rule, so if somebody can come up with a better system that accounts for situations like this where a significant number of people feel ineffably squidgy about what the current rule is producing... then by all means, share. I wish I could come up with one, but I haven't yet. - Jackpot 19:08, 10 January 2009 (EST)

I guess it's that, since this is a wiki that focuses on the fiction, I feel we should be disambiguating according to series wherever possible, with continuity families being the next higher step, and only using franchises when something is toy-only.

Since 99% of the time series name and franchise name end up being the same thing, I don't see it as being a big problem... it's just that the other 1% where they aren't the same thing, I think we should favor the fiction. (Now, if this was a wiki where the toys took precedence, then I would favor disambiguating according to the toys.) --Jeysie 19:24, 10 January 2009 (EST)

Good lord, I'm seeing length warning on a talk page due to a discussion of whether to change a two-character parenthetical to a three-character one. This is incredibly sad/hilarious. After looking over all the arguments again (I think my favorite part is where Walky characterizes the simple expression of an opposing opinion as "demanding we make the site kowtow to" said opinion.) I hereby apologize for starting this whole thing in the first place. --KilMichaelMcC 06:37, 10 January 2009 (EST)

Eh, it's not you. We're all guilty of re-fighting earlier wars and really addressing stupider arguments that other people have thrown at us in previous go-rounds ont he subject. The thing you have to remember abotu David is that in west Philadelphia where he was born and raised he'd spent most of his days on the playground just chilling out, maxing, relaxing (all cool!) and maybe shooting some b-ball outside of school. But then it's like- a couple of guys who're "up in no good" start making trouble in the neighborhood. And there's one little fight and someone's feelings get hurt and it all gets dragged out into public and suddenly there's liek threads on the Allspark- "Wiki is an Authoritarian clique that doesn't value my opinion about how they should adopt a system that reflects my values instead of the needs of their 7000 articles, they are all Transformers NAZIS."

And 7 or 8 pages later, he's pretty ready to say hey- "fuck you." -Derik 07:25, 10 January 2009 (EST)

o_O So can we get rid of that move to box in the article now?Dead Metal 07:55, 10 January 2009 (EST)

For what it's worth, Kil, I think you were right all along. --Thylacine 2000 14:01, 10 January 2009 (EST)

Me too, I think of the G2 Swarm as the G1 Swarm because it's within the same Marvel G1 Universe. I don't know if that's "right" or "within the rules" but just how I approach the issue. Some people agree some don't. --MrBlud 14:35, 10 January 2009 (EST)

Due to the size and scope of this debate, it is recommended further discussion be taken to Help talk:Disambiguation.

Merge to Insecticon (G1)

Seriously, what separates "The Swarm" from the swarms of Insecticon clones found in the G1 cartoon?--Rosicrucian^Talk 16:12, 9 January 2009 (EST)

They're not 'just' identical copies of existing characters, that's what. Shothole is a distinct Insecticon clone, and Shothole has his own page. -Derik 16:16, 9 January 2009 (EST)

Plus they are failed attemps at creating Insections making most of them older then the 3 main Insecticons.Dead Metal 16:17, 9 January 2009 (EST)

Neither of those points are anything that can't be covered under the IDW section of the G1 Insecticon article. Shothole is distinct because of having a toy.--Rosicrucian^Talk 16:30, 9 January 2009 (EST)

the way I see this is that these guys are very different from anything Insecticon related we've seen till now. And if the Insectrain gets it's own article then these guys should keep theirs as they will get more fiction then that thing.Dead Metal 16:33, 9 January 2009 (EST)

Different how? Their origin is already mentioned in the G1 Insecticon article, because it's also the origin of the main trio. Speculating that they're somehow "older" is just that, speculation. Mindless hordes of Insecticons isn't a new concept.--Rosicrucian^Talk 16:36, 9 January 2009 (EST)

DM seems to be going by the logic that they made all these flawed clones in order to arrive at these 3 good ones. But it's flawed logic- they tried to make LOADS of them-- they just didn't work out, and when they were done they were left with just 3 good ones. They might have been left with 16 good ones out of hundreds of clones-- their goal was not "keep cloning until we have 3 clones" (which would make at least one of the trio the youngest clone produced) but simply to create cloned warriors. For all we know Shrapnel was the firt clone out of the tank and the rest that followed were failures, no data on their relative age vis-a-vis the Swarm is given. -Derik 16:43, 9 January 2009 (EST)

I get where you're coming from Derik. Ok then if they don't deserve their own article merge this with the insecticon article, but only if the Insectrain gets moved there too.Dead Metal 08:12, 10 January 2009 (EST)

You're giving me a headache, Dead Metal. Insectrain gets an article because it's a combined form of a combiner team, which we do give their own articles. The comparison is not really apt.--Rosicrucian^Talk 08:15, 10 January 2009 (EST)

The Insectrain isn't a normal Combiner, it's their alt-mode.Dead Metal 09:16, 10 January 2009 (EST)

Some combiners have vehicle combined forms, rather than super robots.--Rosicrucian^Talk 11:49, 10 January 2009 (EST)

Why the move?

Why was this article moved and given the unofficial name tag box? Tehy have an official name, their official in fiction name is Swarm. Why the change to Insecticon Swarm completely ignoring their official name?Dead Metal 08:09, 10 January 2009 (EST)

"The Swarm" is not a proper name in this case. It is something they've been referred to as. They've also been referred to as "the others" and dare I say it... Insecticons. This is an effort to sidestep all that parenthetical caca, and really you're continuing to make this concept more than it is.--Rosicrucian^Talk 08:14, 10 January 2009 (EST)

Which issues have they been refeard to as "the others" and Insecticons? So that I can check and see for myself.Dead Metal 09:17, 10 January 2009 (EST)

As in Skywarp and Thundercracker were talking and wishing they'd dumped the main trio back on Cybertron with all the others. So the "swarm" are Insecticons, just the ones that were non-sentient and/or otherwise nonviable. They don't really have a proper name, they're just referred to by the Autobots as the "swarm" because... they're a swarm.--Rosicrucian^Talk 09:22, 10 January 2009 (EST)

....so, that entire huge conversation above was all for nothing, then? Wow, that makes it even more sad/hilarious. --KilMichaelMcC 11:36, 10 January 2009 (EST)

Mountain out of a molehill. Then again, I do place some of the blame on McCarthy for trying to make them seem more dramatic.--Rosicrucian^Talk 11:48, 10 January 2009 (EST)

Mountain Dew out of a mole hill, fuck year1 Best. Moles. Ever. -Derik 13:49, 10 January 2009 (EST)

Then They ment with "others" just the swarm like in saying "hey mum where are the others?" But they have been called the swarm twice up and till now I think that if they are called The Swarm consistently over the next issues we should rename the article back to Swarm but keep the current name till we know for sure. I just fucking hate AHM and it's damn knack of breaking the idw continuity. Sorry if I sounded harsh or what ever on the current comments but this whole thing kinda reminded me of trying to upload the classics Soundwave concept. Dead Metal 03:39, 11 January 2009 (EST)

Er, I'm more saying that even "the swarm" isn't a proper name but a description, and I do not want to touch the disambig parenthetical fight with a ten foot pole.--Rosicrucian^Talk 15:32, 11 January 2009 (EST)

I wouldn't want to touch that myself. But if they are constantly addressed as "The Swarm" I think it would be a no-brainer to call the article that as well as that would be what people will be searching for.Dead Metal 09:57, 12 January 2009 (EST)

So....Any Images Uploaded Yet?

What do these guys look like when they're busy attacking supposedly helpless Autobots?

Reason for Insecticons being special in AHM?

Was there ever any story given as to why the Insecticons were super special and took 3000 tries to get right? Or from where the material for those 3000 was derived? I mean, I read the article and I don't get the reasoning behind their existence in AHM at all... Is it just standard AHM garbage writing or did I totally miss something?--MCRG Again 12:54, 6 November 2009 (EST)

I'm guessing it was an attempt at mass-producing troops, which apparently failed, but managed to produce three viable specimens that Megatron considered worth the effort.--Rosicrucian^Talk 13:19, 6 November 2009 (EST)

It's confirmed it was done to create someone like Bombshell. It wasn't mass-produced troops, he was after a mind like Bombshell's. USer:Eire

The material concern isn't an issue since the Decepticons had all of Cybertron to harvest, and the fact that Megatron had the Matrix might explain where the 3000 of them got their life. The low success rate might also explain why Optimus never used The Matrix to bulk up his army.

Merge

Absolutely against a merge. Insecticon clones are very specifically created by the Insecticons themselves as mass-produced clones, while the Swarm is the result of experimentation by others. Escargon (talk) 19:26, 15 February 2021 (EST)

As to the Virulent Clones, they are very specifically Deathsaurus' attempt to reverse engineer the part of the Insecticon genome that allows them to clone themselves, and so are made in vats instead of by Dirge and Buzzclaw. Escargon (talk) 19:42, 15 February 2021 (EST)

"Counterpoint: IDW2 shows Shockwave building the clones manually"-and are specifically based on the three Insecticons. The Insecticon Swarm is not. Escargon (talk) 19:43, 15 February 2021 (EST)

I agree here. The two are superficially similar but fundamentally different concepts, which we have plenty of in this franchise. (And this article needs a rewrite more than it does a merge.) Saix (talk) 19:45, 15 February 2021 (EST)

I guess that I’m approaching this topic from a fundamentally different perspective than you—the way I see it, the larger meta-subject of the “Insecticon clone” article is basically about how the Insecticons replicate themselves, and the methods by which this is achieved seems immaterial compared to the primary “thrust” of the article. From an out-of-universe perspective, things like the Insecticon Swarm from All Hail Megatron or even the Descent into Evil stuff are very much a product of the writers taking the self-replication powers from the original cartoon and reinterpreting it through a different lens.

Now, obviously we should wait and see how Escape handles them before we go crazy, but by the looks of the covers and solicits it seems like they’re going to incorporate a mix of traits from both the cartoon and the previous IDW continuity. Given that, it makes more sense to simply expand our preexisting “Insecticon clone” article—which already covers every other time the Insecticons made copies of themselves, whether through cloning pods, being built by Shockwave, eating stuff and pooping out more copies, whatever—to incorporate the comparative outlier. But, if nothing else, the main “Insecticon clone” page should absolutely include a IDW1 fiction writeup that links out here.Grum (talk) 20:55, 15 February 2021 (EST)

The Groundbridge is a later adaptation of the original space bridge concept. We do not have them on the same page. Escargon (talk) 20:59, 15 February 2021 (EST)

I think Loco's right. These are all Insecticon clones—the specifics vary, but no more than for concepts like Cybertron or Energon or Titans. A merge will be able to provide a more "complete" historical overview of different interpretations of this singular facet of these characters. A suite would also be an acceptable solution, but honestly the other two pages are small enough that I think it should just be rolled together. —The Wadapan (talk) 11:00, 16 February 2021 (EST)

I absolutely disagree. Those are far more general concepts; the Insecticon clones are a very specific thing. We don't put say, Arms Microns on the Targetmaster page just because they turn into guns for their larger partners, because they have different backgrounds. And this situation is more akin to that. Escargon (talk) 11:19, 16 February 2021 (EST)

Feel like I'm with Grum and Wads on this one, in regards to a merge, though if the aim is to create a larger conceptual article like Energon or Titans, perhaps "Insecticon clone" isn't the most representative title, as I feel there'd be a need to incorporate the later cross-media/continuity handling of "Insecticon" as a species/hive/swarm, which is fundamentally as much a derivation of the cartoon's "clone swarm" idea as IDW's handling of the idea is. - Chris McFeely (talk) 11:40, 16 February 2021 (EST)

Yeah, I can get behind "merge at a new title". Definitely feels like one of those cases where there's more to be gained in terms of accessibility and improved context by providing a big-picture overview of the concept, than there is from drawing dividing lines based on story specifics. Jalaguy (talk) 12:36, 16 February 2021 (EST)

If that is the way it is going to be, fine, but I am absolutely against merging the Virulent Clones in here. We wouldn't merge Zaptrap, Salvo, and Shothole. Escargon (talk) 13:17, 16 February 2021 (EST)

Also, I fail to see how this improves accessibility. People looking for "Insecticon swarm" are going to search up swarm, not "insecticon clones." Escargon (talk) 13:31, 16 February 2021 (EST)

That's why Chris suggested having a more representative title for a merged article. When I mentioned accessibility, I was talking about accessibility of information, not literally just reaching the article. The IDW Insecticon swarm, for instance, are one step along a conceptual evolution that originates with the cartoon clones and ends with the modern 'standardised' idea of Insecticons being a species, but as it stands, this article obfuscates that by presenting the IDW swarm as a standalone concept. There's lots of times where the wiki has to, for reasons of organisation or clarity or whatever, draw artificial lines between stuff, place things into artificial boxes, etc. But personally I think this is one of the cases – like energon, Titans, etc. – where it's possible to avoid that and provide the reader with a more complete picture of the concept at hand that acknowledges its real-world developmental history. Jalaguy (talk) 14:02, 16 February 2021 (EST)

I do not regard the Insecticon clones and Insecticon swarm as being placed in artificial boxes. The Swarm is inspired certainly by the swarm of Insecticon clones, yes, but they are not literally the same thing as the Insecticon clones. That's why I brought up the Groundbridge article from earlire. Escargon (talk) 14:18, 16 February 2021 (EST)

Oh, I actually considered that "Insecticon clone" might not be the best title! If anything, it's like... the core concept is just "Insecticon". There's a "swarm" of them—originally that manifested as a cloning power, but we don't have a page for, say, "Reflector clones"—it's all just writers trying to reconcile the fact that they have three specific toys to sell with the fact that, fictionally, there needs to be way more than three. I also thought to myself "and the Energon/ROTF/Prime/etc Insecticons should go on the page too, but I guess by-continuity splits are just part of the wiki's structure", so if people are down for that I'd love to see it. —The Wadapan (talk) 14:53, 16 February 2021 (EST)

I am against adding ROTF or Energon as they were marketed as individuals or are individuals in some continuities, just like BW Insecticon. The Terrorcon concept and what not can be mentioned, but I feel they should remain their own thing, same with the Scrapmetals. Fanofcoolstuff27 (talk) 15:00, 16 February 2021 (EST)

Absolutely not on merging in Energon Insecticons and the Movie Insecticons. They can be linked out and have a condensed summary but those articles are going to keep existing independently. Escargon (talk) 15:02, 16 February 2021 (EST)

To bridge off of Riptide's idea on Discord, what about a collective page that bridges off into the different uses of the swarm/clone idea. So like a page with brief write ups of the various concepts and then have {{main}} template links to the pages with the in-depth descriptions? Fanofcoolstuff27 (talk) 15:16, 16 February 2021 (EST)

How about a title like "Insecticon (species)"? --Sabrblade (talk) 22:10, 16 February 2021 (EST)

What about a suite to link these variations on the G1 Insecticons/Insecticon clones that aren't outright Insecticons? So like Insecticons is the main page, then Insecticon clones, Virulent Clones and Insecticon swarm, plus whatever else comes along or anything I may have missed, that way they are all equally easier to find in the one place and they don't have to be merged. Just a thought. Fanofcoolstuff27 (talk) 21:48, 15 February 2021 (EST)

We don't need a suite. We can just put a "see also" at the end of the page. Escargon (talk) 21:52, 15 February 2021 (EST)

If this is still under discussion I think a general Insecticons (G1) page would do, especially since (excluding the rarely appearing Deluxe Insecticons), the main three and the clones are always wrapped up in the same events. I don't think we're quite at the "Insecticons (concept)" stage, but if we get Scrapmetals or Virulent Clones alongside traditional clones/swarms I think it would need to be discussed. This "swarm" is just the IDW conitinuity's very different take on the clones, but they're definitely aspects of the same idea. If religious supervillain Star Saber is still the same as the hero in Victory, I say these are definitely the same concept. TransFormersfan1 (talk) 14:37, 22 September 2021 (EDT)