Talk:It

About this line: Interestingly enough, It bears a remarkable resemblance to a Vok.

Can whoever added that, or anyone who agrees with it, elaborate? I've heard this a lot, and maybe it's just me, but I really don't see it. I mean, aside from It and the Vok obviously both being floaty-face-things, but I hardly think that qualifies as a "remarkable resemblance." --KilMichaelMcC 20:22, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I would say it goes beyond just being floaty-face-things. They are skull-like, with big eyes, scary teeth and wide cheeks. Still, I would personally call the resemblance more mild or "passing" than "remarkable". --Steve-o 21:13, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I thought it looked remarkably like a Quintesson. In fact, I think that's what I always assumed it was. --Sntint 21:30, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Same here. It was probably designed by Dery, too. -hx 23:53, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

There certainly are differences between It and the Vok, but they're still similar enough as far as things-within-Transformerdom go that I think it's worth noting. And for that matter, I think the Quint-face-of-Death resemblance is worth noting too. - Jackpot 00:13, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

The Quint face, yeah. The Vok, though... I still just don't see it. Different teeth, different eye structure, different overall shape, one has hair and the other doesn't. --KilMichaelMcC 00:20, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

How many other mystical-floating-skull-beings-that-have-some-enigmatic-connection-to-the-TFs are there? When I first saw the Vok, I remember thinking, hey, somebody must've seen the Return of Optimus Prime! - Jackpot 00:50, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

You really think two totally different takes on a stylized human skull are necessarily linked? And that "human skull" is a totally left-field design concept no two people could have hit upon without some relationship? --ItsWalky 01:16, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I remember thinking somebody must've played Doom.--Sntint 01:41, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Sigh. Sorry, I had a feeling "must've" would be a poor choice of words. No, I don't think there's a NECESSARY connection. I do think that if whoever came up with the Vok design saw TRoOP first (which, of all the G1 eps to see, is a likely one due to its being part of the series conclusion), then the similarity was probably more than a coincidence. But even if it IS a total coincidence, who cares? "It" and the Vok are the only two mystical-floating-skull-beings-that-have-some-enigmatic-connection-to-the-TFs in the whole mythos. To me, that seems worth a note. That's all I'm saying. - Jackpot 19:38, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I insist that you all stop sullying my beautiful It page with your petty human squabbles. -LV 21:48, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Rename?

This page is essentially un-findable to anyone who isn't already in on the joke. I've seen this character referred to as "Wireframe Skull Guy" or some variation thereof over the years; wouldn't that be a bit more useful? It worked for Hideous giant brain guy, who in the comic itself was simply called "collector" or something like that. Just a thought. --Thylacine 2000 13:29, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

It SHOULD be linked from his categories, and whatever relevant Matrix Bearer pages there are, and the relevant episode pages... --M Sipher 13:38, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

There's no "joke". The closest we have to a name for this thing is "It", which comes from a dialogue script, as noted in the article. So, the article should really stay where it is. On the other hand, there is nothing wrong with creating a redirect or two from likely search phrases like "wireframe skull", "wireframe skull guy", etc.. That would certainly make the article easier to find. --Steve-o 14:24, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Rename Redux

The script for TROOP2 calls this character "Ancient Autobot Leader". Which at least speaks to concrete facts about the character and is a helluvvalot better of a name than just "It," even if that does kill the caption jokes. I suggest a move. --Thylacine 2000 20:55, 11 August 2010 (EDT)

"Ancient Autobot leader" is way too general. - Starfield 02:27, 12 August 2010 (EDT)

I've always really dug just calling this thing "It". It's massively creepy and inhuman and... primordial? Like "It" is so old it was around before names. - Chris McFeely 05:16, 12 August 2010 (EDT)

Where's this script at, exactly? The dialogue script uses "It". --Monzo 08:20, 12 August 2010 (EDT)

And even if "Ancient Autobot Leader" shows up somewhere, "It" is clearly the better name for this page. I don't see why we'd move something from "It," which is evocative, to something entirely generic. --ItsWalky 09:56, 12 August 2010 (EDT)

I was working from the file at the Cybertron Chronicle, which I assumed came straight from the scripts. http://cybertronchronicle.freewebspace.com/cartoon-dossier/transcripts/the_return_of_optimus_prime_part_2_act_one-script.html Was I wrong? --Thylacine 2000 10:01, 12 August 2010 (EDT)

No, those are transcribed from the episodes themselves. They are not real scripts. (Rikk Bakke is pretty clear on that page that it's merely a transcript, and thus far "dialog only.") --ItsWalky 10:11, 12 August 2010 (EDT)

My mistake, then. Nevermind! --Thylacine 2000 10:37, 12 August 2010 (EDT)

Possessive confusion

There used to be a line in the notes section wondering what the possessive form of "it" was that I deleted because of this. The posessive form of "it" is "its" because "it's" is a contraction of "it is." However, since It in this case is a proper noun, it can be safely spelled It's. -LokitheGrammarNazi 16:41, 17 September 2010 (EDT)

Yes. We know. Thank you. But the notes section doesn't wonder what the possessive form of "it" is. It wonders what the possessive form of "It" is. See, it's a linguistics joke, and one that I'm not going to explain further. --ItsWalky 18:31, 17 September 2010 (EDT)

Oh, it was a joke. When something is written down, it is harder to get that feeling of nonseriousness out of it. I need a joke guide to this wiki... Wait, no. That is actually a joke that makes the writer look dumb. To quote the wiki itself:

De-snarking is necessary when excessive humor or sarcasm in an article interferes with the information the article is supposed to be delivering. Examples include: Sarcastic statements (saying the opposite of what they mean) open to being taken literally. [...]{{#if:|{{{quote2}}}}}{{#if:This wiki tself.|This wiki tself.{{#if:|, {{{3}}}|}}|}}

--LokitheGrammarNazi 19:52, 17 September 2010 (EDT)

This isn't an example of desnarking, it's an example of dumbing down. (Because, apparently, I guess you didn't notice the capital I? Because there's no way, if you actually read the sentence as-written, that it makes the author look dumb.) And it certainly doesn't interfere with any information on the page! Zero for two, there. --ItsWalky 16:47, 19 September 2010 (EDT)

It

I just want to put it on the record that if anybody here coerces an official writer or if they themselves writes an official story where we're given the "real" name of It, I will hunt them down. Do not mess with this glorious article title. There is already so little beauty in this world. --ItsWalky (talk) 20:04, 12 April 2021 (EDT)