Talk:Multiversal singularity

Multiversal hand-wringing.

Personally, I think we may be spazzing out a bit too much about supposed "inconsistencies" in the Multiversal Singularities theory. It's getting to the point where we're editorializing about it in articles, and that I think is the time where we ought to step back and take a deep breath. Being a multiversal singularity obviously doesn't mean that the same events have to occur in every universe, nor that what happens in one universe to a singularity has to affect their presence in all other universes. Certainly Omega Terminus is highly divergent from Vector Sigma, even though it's a singularity. Certainly Primus has been devoured by Unicron in some universes, while he persists in others. So all the hand-wringing over whether The Fallen will wreck this seems a bit overblown to me, and certainly gets a bit too speculative to be included in the articles themselves..--Rosicrucian^Talk 14:03, 14 April 2009 (EDT)

Now that Hasbro's given an answer

Is it okay to put up some fanwank-y analysis anywhere on this wiki (outside of articles), like on this talk page or my user page? Item42 12:46, 15 March 2010 (EDT)

What? --ItsWalky 13:06, 15 March 2010 (EDT)

What I mean is, if some user (like me) can put up some analysis on what this answer meant and what it (along with other related stuff) means and implies, in both real-world and in-story context. I don't think one should put something like that in an article since it is just analysis and speculation. Like a lot of the stuff on Talk:Sari Sumdac. Item42 04:00, 16 March 2010 (EDT)

No. Get a blog or go to a forum. —Interrobang 04:27, 16 March 2010 (EDT)

The One et al

The One's story makes it pretty much necessary that he's a MS. Should we include him on this page, or wait until we get official word? (Hell, Prima's never even been actually confirmed as one of the 13, and we include him without question) Also, what about the Chronarchitect, a member of Primus' pantheon? Kaje 19:37, 12 May 2010 (EDT)

Prima HAS been confirmed as one of the 13, in the Ultimate Guide. --ItsWalky 20:04, 12 May 2010 (EDT)

Reference Request

I know it was established somewhere (FP? or toy bio?) that Unicron and Primus function differently as MSings: Primus existing in all realities at once while Unicron only exists in one at a time and jumps between realities. That should be added here but I can't remember where its from and don't see it refrenced on Unicron's page (which I think it should be) any help on the ref? --ZacWilliam 09:58, 6 July 2010 (EDT)

Balancing Act certainly seems to establish this pretty firmly.--Rosicrucian^Talk 11:32, 6 July 2010 (EDT)

Proof, pudding, etc.

So my rewrite was based on all the evidence I could scrape together by re-reading the source material and Googling for creator commentary. As far as I know I got everything, but it bugs me that nowhere did I find a real starting point for the "multiversal singularity" phrase or its philosophical foundation.

It's like.... the fiction started saying that Unicron was all about dimension-hopping and destroying universes in sequence, but it ignored the inevitable consequence of parallel Unicrons crossing paths. Then Ramjet dropped the "one universe at a time" bomb, which suggested that there weren't ANY Unicrons except the one in the then-current Cybertron universe, which in turn implied that all of them might be somehow the same dude. But the same storyline claimed that Primus does have multiple incarnations, and there are these other dimension-hoppers who may or may not have a similar nature, but none of the dots are connected for the reader, and then there are two Unicrons simultaneously anyway because of the hastily-established end to Universe...

And then suddenly the fans are talking directly to Lee/Hasbro about "multiversal singularities" as though that's an established idea that applies to several characters in a coherent way. Where did that come from? Was the answer to the BC '09 "SG Fallen" question the first time the phrase "multiversal singularity" appeared? All of the Lee/Hasbro stuff is actually limited to The Fallen, so why do we assume anyone but him is an MS?

Basically what I'm getting at here is that I can't find any evidence that MS-hood isn't mostly a giant load of fanwankery. We know from Lee/Hasbro's comments that it applies to The Fallen, but that's it. The rest of what we have is just Primus and Unicron being all ineffable and "beyond," plus a storyline with a handful of ancient dimension-hoppers and some runaway implications. Like I said in the Notes section, we've already got pan-dimensional beings who have somehow stayed immune from the MS business (and I didn't even bring up The One or the Chronarchitect). What makes this certain group of characters so special, and why do we think MS-hood applies to them at all?

- Jackpot 02:42, 11 February 2011 (EST)

No argument here. I would also question how canonical those kind of behind-the-scenes answers to fan questions are if they are never backed up by fiction. Especially now since the behind-the-scenes word is that the new modern continuity, which is supposed to be the continuity going forward, isn't tied to the multiverse at all. - Starfield 13:56, 11 February 2011 (EST)

Solus Prime

Solus Prime's addition confuses me. Doesn't she only exist in a continuity that doesn't have a multiverse? - Starfield 15:49, 12 June 2011 (EDT)

You ought to discuss it here, but largely it seems no one cares. Alientraveller 15:56, 12 June 2011 (EDT)

Sorry. I categorically have no comment on the topic of splitting character pages of those characters who appear to have a version of himself that does not relate to the multiverse. - Starfield 16:10, 12 June 2011 (EDT)

I think it's Hasbro's intent that all the members of the Thirteen are the same across each version of Transformers though, just as Optimus and Megatron lead the Autobots and Decepticons. I myself took the lack of replies indicated an unwillingness to split articles and treat them like the ones that cover a concept across the entire franchise. Alientraveller 16:15, 12 June 2011 (EDT)

Time travel = Trans-Dimensional Travel

The easiest way I can even hope to begin explaining the inconsistencies that are confounding me is that not only can characters like unicron time travel, but there's alternate time lines.

Thus they are using the "time stream" theory. This theory is pretty much synonymous with multiverse theory... 75.84.122.182 09:33, 22 October 2011 (EDT)

Prime Spark

Characters from at least two dimensions simultaneously share the Prime Spark. It is possible that the Prime Spark as a thing is a multiversal singularity. - Starfield 17:09, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Alpha Trion?

I'm not sure that Alpha Trion belongs on this page in that list of the Thirteen. Although A3 is a member of the 13 in the "Aligned" continuity family, that family seems not to be part of the multiverse. Although other members of the 13 in the multiverse do indeed seem to be singularities, there is significant (if anecdotal) evidence that the various Alpha Trions we've seen in the non-Aligned multiverse are not so connected, and thus he may not even be one of the 13 in the non-Aligned multiverse.--G.B. Blackrock 20:02, 17 July 2013 (EDT)

The war over the Multiversal and Aligned Thirteen is still being waged over on the 13OTFs page, but if you want to fix it here, maybe no one will notice and we can present it on the 13OTF page in a year as a fait accompli. -LV 20:08, 17 July 2013 (EDT)

Ask Vector Prime

So, uh, none of the Ask Vector Prime stuff, in which the base definition of multiversal singularity is totally upended, has been added to this page yet? Is there a deliberate choice somewhere holding off on this, or is just no one willing to be deal with it yet? --KilMichaelMcC (talk) 13:57, 2 July 2015 (EDT)

Jim has intimated there's something else to come out of the TFCC this year that's going to fundamentally alter singularities, so I think we're waiting on that. - Chris McFeely (talk) 14:02, 2 July 2015 (EDT)

Okay, but Singularities have already been fundamentally altered. Non-singularity Unicrons and Primus-free Cybertrons now exist, for example. I checked this article today specifically to see how it was documenting that stuff, and was surprised to see no edits have been made to it since back in Feburary. Ask VP/Sideways stuff is being added to other articles, but not this one, and I am finding that odd. Note that I am not at all the person to make any such additions, since my brain's reaction to it all is just "HAAHAHAHAHAHAH why" and don't at all know what to make of it. --KilMichaelMcC (talk) 14:07, 2 July 2015 (EDT)

For my part I haven't been doing anything with this page because I tend to focus on events while this page is more about scientific properties than events, if you get what I mean. S.H.I.E.L.D. Agent 47 (talk) 14:30, 2 July 2015 (EDT)

Okay, so, if this article is being held off on or whatever, perhaps some kind of "changes pending" template could be created? Or some other sort of note added? Because seriously, major changes to the multiversal singularity concept have been made yet this article hasn't been updated to reflect them. The last edit was back in Februrary and just added that quote, which isn't entirely accurate any more given that non-singularity Unicrons are a thing now. --KilMichaelMcC (talk) 17:36, 11 August 2015 (EDT)

Thoughts? I considered trying to just update the article for the AVP stuff myself, but I started looking it over and my eyes kinda glazed over trying to figure out how to tackle it. Something needs to be updated on this page, though.--KilMichaelMcC (talk) 13:45, 12 August 2015 (EDT)

no more singularities

Now that there are no longer any multiversal singularities, are we going to split everything or leave everything the way it is? We already have separate pages for the Aligned Thirteen, are we going to have separate pages for the Aligned Primus and Unicron? Aligned Primus kinda already has a separate page as the Core of Cybertron. Instead of there being just one Unicron page, will there be a Unicron (G1), Unicron (RID), Unicron (Armada) etc. Or are we just gonna save ourselves the trouble and just keep everything the way it is? Freakertron (talk) 20:01, 8 November 2015 (EST)

I've always been of the opinion that even if they were separated, they should all be kept together, like the sacred implements or Energon. Escargon (talk) 20:05, 8 November 2015 (EST)

There is a big discussion about this on community portal. --Giggidy (talk) 20:16, 8 November 2015 (EST)

RG1

It's worth mentioning that RG1 also used this concept.--Primestar3 (talk) 15:54, 7 April 2017 (EDT)