Talk:Overlord (G1)

Overlord vs. Gigatron

Is Gigatron really a different character than Overlord, or is it just another instance of two seperate names for the same Transformer? Dark T Zeratul 21:47, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Dreamwave's MTMTE guide went on to characterise him as an ancient mechanoid who first conceived the Powermaster process, so I'd say yes. - Chris McFeely 21:53, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Raising the inevitable question- is Gigatron UK Overlord, or are Gigatron, Overlord (UK) and VOerlord (MF) all 3 seperate characters? (Overlord (UK) is certainly not Overlord (MF), he's not even a Powermaster!) -Derik 21:55, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

This is a question I choose not to answer! :D (Although one might theorise that Overlord UK is the post-MF fully robotic Overlord Transtector.) - Chris McFeely 21:59, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Dreamwave also had Dai Atlas and Deathsaurus as ancient TF's. And it has Sunstorm (who is not generally a clone) as a clone, along with a bunch of other non-clones like Ricochet and Monacle. -Derik 22:03, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Mmn, but at the same time, they didn't change their names. "Same body, same names, different setting" would equal "alternate version of same character," moreso than "different name, different setting, same body" would. - Chris McFeely 22:04, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Isn't there also a UK comic character called Overlord? --M Sipher 22:08, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Yah, from "State Games," I think. But IIRC, that was a title ("The Overlord") rather than the bloke's actual NAME, for what that's worth. - Chris McFeely 22:10, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Last of The Overlords, who had once ruled Cybertron. I construed the ovelords were reponsible for the city-state clustering, having foudned them as personal power bases before dying off of old age... but there's nothign int he story itself to support that. They were a source of stability on Cybertronw hile they held power. After they died, planetary war broke otu almost imemdiately and never really ended. One cour argue this indicates TF's, which have a sort of inherited monarchy system, were not culturally ready for self-rule.-Derik 22:25, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Going by that logic, Derik, then every different G1 continuity should be completely removed from all the others as far as characters go. Skyfire and Jetfire (his Marvel version, anyway) are obviously the same character, yet their origins are just as different as Dreamwave's interpretations of Sunstorm and Gigatron/Overlord. And as I recall, this same discussion came up regarding Stepper/Ricochet. To me, it seems like we really need some solid criteria for deciding when an American name of a Japanese character makes it a new character, and when it's merely the difference between Prime and Convoy. Especially because expecting a new G1 continuity to be exactly the same as an old one is just ridiculous. - Dark T Zeratul 11:35, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

The point of me bringing up Sunstorm (whi in other continuities is NOT a clone) was to say "Dreamwave did somethigtn funky- but that does nto necessarily mean he's not one of the other Overlords." -Derik 20:15, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, I've gussied up the section to make the question a bit more open. - Chris McFeely 20:22, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Gingatron apparently take his QUOOTE from the UK Overlord, but his bio from his Japanese bio. (which wasn't much like wh was on the show, but there uyou go, that's why Gigatron's bio soudns so wierd.)

Based on that are we thinkign that Gigatron == Overlord UK == Overlord JP? They have to be at different points in his life-- energon figures are clearly not Powermasters or Godmasters, but are we confident in sayign hese 3 characters are in fact 1 character? -21:47, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

In different timelines/dimensions, sure. Jsut as how, as noted, Sunstorm can be a generic trooper, a super-powered clone, or a minion of Megazarak all at once. --M Sipher 21:56, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Hmn, y'know, you're right. I don't know WHY I thought it was based on his UK bio... - Chris McFeely 23:00, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, if you compare: Overlord's spec, Godmaster Ovalrolled's spec, and Gigatron's epec

You see all 3 actally cotain similar language, refering to the weapons plant in him.

So, if we assume the Dreamweave continutiy refers to Hic Gigatron (And I think it does, because we know they had plans for Gigatron from itnerviews) Then we have 3 warring interpetations of the character:

• Dreamwave: Ancient Transformer who made initial forays into what would (when later perfected by the Autobots on Nebulos) be known as Powermaster techology. Developed the technology for the original Decepticon push towards space. Powermaster.
• UK: Legendy Transformer who emerges from the shadows to wasge a one-man-war, with a promise of a full-scale invasion if he secures a beachhead. Armed with something similar to Powermaster technolgoy (dependign on what you think Energon figures are, they have to be power-related)
• Japanese: Undersea monster not seen until Masterforce's present, may have existed for centuries, but did not (based on all evidence) exist on Cybertron, or have a history there.

All 3 share elements of their tech-specs,t he weapons refinery. Two share quotes, 1 lacks a quote. They are Powermaster, Energon-figure and Godmaster.

I'm sayign 3 aspects of 1 character, with the MF version being odd-man-out because it lacks any real 'history' prior to MF.

And while the HoC Gigatron's conflict with PM Optimus was probably a reference;; to Masterforce, I thin had Dreamwave made it allt he way to Nebulos, Gigatron would have shown up there. -Derik 00:41, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Is there any canonical material linking HOC Gigatron to Dreamwave Gigatron? All DW ever officially published about Gigatron was his name and his anciently-powerfulness. No physical description, no image. James McDonaugh and Adam Patyk had said in some interview somewhere that they wanted Gigatron to be Overlord after all--but that development was never published. So does it count? If we start kowtowing to unpublished non-canonical material, don't we plummet into 'Dark Glass' territory?

My point is that given the Lioconvoy --> Leo Prime business, I think there is clear precedence to turn Overlord into Gigatron, and the DW published canonical material that gave Gigatron a different backstory never linked Gigatron to being Overlord in any way, shape, or form.

Again, though, there are TONS of instances of characters who are portrayed wildly different in different continuities. Take Marvel Grimlock vs. Cartoon Grimlock. Or Shockwave. Or Blaster. Hell, in Dreamwave's continuity, Scourge and Cyclonus are completely different robots rather than being reformatted from the seekers or the Insecticons. Should they get different pages, too? It's quite clear that Overlord and Gigatron are meant to be the same character, even if they were portrayed differently in different continuities. The same holds true for Leo Prime and Lio Convoy. - Dark T Zeratul 08:07, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I like the way this is done now with the UK story info from his bio IN the fiction section. A LOT of the toy bios actually have STORY in them when you come down to it and I don't think that story should be ignored or marginalized just cause of it's location. It's still Story and it is still something these entries should inform folks about. I think when warented Tech Spec story deserves its own entry in the Fiction catagory, such as it is here.

Sign your goddamn posts bitch. If you can't b bothered to sign in, do it manually. -Derik 03:48, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Combined Jet Mode

This is the first I've heard about it, and I can't seem to find any pictures. Anyone got any info on when this mode was used and/or pictures they can put up of the mode? --Nemesis Primal 21:58, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

I often wondered that myself. I finally found the answer here - basically, attach the tank halves to the jet mode. That's all.--Cyberman 07:33, 9 August 2010 (EDT)

Euro Overlord bio - dimension crossing

Is that the first official reference to what we now know as the TF multiverse? --FFN 10:35, 30 August 2009 (EDT)

Overlord (G1) vs Overlord (Masterforce)

Let me preface this by saying that I think the whole 'disambig by franchise' for the Japanese G1 series is very silly and I don't like it. That said, just because this guy LATER shows up in a G1 series doesn't mean that his franchise of origin isn't Masterforce, right? So shouldn't he stay at Overlord (Masterforce), as much as I'm not keen? Or am I overthinking this? --Jimsorenson 18:41, 14 September 2009 (EDT)

I suppose if we were being literal about it, yes. But I feel that it's just a dishonest descriptor - "Overlord (Masterforce)" is a lifeless robot controlled by two human begins, which could not be farther from what the other Overlords/Gigatrons are. "G1" just seems to encapsulate the variant version fo the character better.

(I am, incidentally, really, really not happy about this, as a result of my closeness with Masterforce, and godamimt, I just really want this to go to G1, so bloody well just let it stay there guys for god's sake I am a cauldron of rage . I shook Nick Roche vigorously when I found out about this at Auto Assembly to get him to call the character "Gigatron", but it was not to be. And I know you're grinning out there, Derik, stop it!) - }Chris McFeely 18:52, 14 September 2009 (EDT)

But I feel that it's just a dishonest descriptor - "Overlord (Masterforce)" is a lifeless robot controlled by two human begins, which could not be farther from what the other Overlords/Gigatrons are.

In which case, why are they on the same frigging page?! Have an [[Overlord (G1)]] (neé Gigatron) *and* an Overlord (Masterforce) if need be, but keep them separate. - SanityOrMadness 19:28, 14 September 2009 (EDT)

I...! Well.... that.... I... like the way you think! Hmn! - Chris McFeely 19:30, 14 September 2009 (EDT)

Technically, there could be up to seven separate character pages. The only real question is which pages should be combined.

1. Giga
2. Mega
3. Overlord—Giga and Mega's lifeless (multi-component) transtector.
4. Overlord—post-human Overlord #3 after getting a life of his own.
5. Overlord—the European toy that features two Energon figures.
6. Gigatron—the Powermaster.
7. Overlord—the IDW Transformer.

For the other Masterforce characters, their human component, lifeless transtector, and post-human living transtector all share the same page. Overlord has his two human components separated out. #5 is loosely connected to #4 due to a cryptic reference to dimension-hopping in #5's bio. #6 is loosely tied to #5 by virtue of looking alike and having a weapons factory in their bodies but the mechanics of their gimmicks are different and have different names. That means #4 is loosely connected to #6 because they are both loosely connected to #5. #7 is presumably going to be a completely re-invented homage of... somebody. If it were me, because the whole mess is so complicated I would probably have all seven pages. - Starfield 22:09, 14 September 2009 (EDT)

Well, on 3 & 4, we separate Teletran-1 and Omega Supreme (Animated)... - SanityOrMadness 22:42, 14 September 2009 (EDT)

Thus, you see, the reason I just put them all on one page - becuase there's so many variant versions, a lot of which don't really have anything to do with one another beyond looking the same and having the same name, but the lines between which are blurred just enough to make it an issue of debate, that it's just *easier*. Much as it rankles me, I think this is the simplest, smoothest way of relating the information. But so far as this notion goes, I'd just put 3-4 on the "Masterforce" page, and 5-8 on a "G1" page. - Chris McFeely 08:10, 15 September 2009 (EDT)

I see the problem. Due to dimension hopping, #5 could actually be the same character as #4. #7 is a G1 character but probably a re-imaged version of #3 and/or #4 with an ordinary backstory instead of once being two humans. So I agree it is least confusing to have them all on one page. - Starfield 12:29, 28 January 2010 (EST)

Overlord (G1) vs Overlord (Masterforce) revisited

OK, clearly, I'm not the only person who has a hard time wrapping their brain around this whole franchise-thing. I've been dwelling on it a bit and I think the issue is this - we have only one article per character per continuity family. So, that being the case, why on Earth are we disambiguating down to the franchise (i.e. the logo associated with it) level?

Let's really examine this. Shattered Expectations came out BEFORE Shattered Glass, so shouldn't ANY SG character who appeared there go by the Transformers Collector's Club disambiguation instead? There's no SG logo or insignia anywhere on that fiction. Also, wouldn't characters who appear first in the Transformers / G.I. Joe crossover books belong in THAT 'franchise'? It seems to me that we're adding in a whole extra level of complexity for no good reason that I can think of.

Well, that's not quite true. The Unicron Trilogy was lousy with repeat names for different characters. This was, and still is, a relatively rare situation for most other continuity families. We can get the maximum benefit, though by disambiguating to the continuity family level as a default and going by franchise when necessary. And, if two articles from the same franchise have the same name, then we can disambiguate further.

Every time I see a character who was introduced in RotF having that label, even though the whole movie-verse is one big universe, it just seems incredibly silly.--Jimsorenson 03:01, 15 December 2009 (EST)

Especially now that he's appearing in Last Stand of the Wreckers, I too throw in my vote for a move to Overlord (G1). -- Dark T Zeratul 14:37, 26 January 2010 (EST)

Even if we disambiguated at the continuity family level, there's another Overlord in G1, so in this case I'm thinking neither would get the G1 disambig anyway. --abates 14:58, 26 January 2010 (EST)

Given that he's a G.I. Joe character, I don't think he really counts. -- Dark T Zeratul 15:06, 26 January 2010 (EST)

It does still count, actually. Basically, there's two things with the same name in G1, thus they need to get disambiguated a different way. Actually, no, you might be right, I forgot about Crankcase (disambiguation) off the top of my head. --Jeysie 15:11, 26 January 2010 (EST)

Yeah, Transformers should always get dibs on "good suffixes" over non-Transformers. As for Overlord.... look, the whole reason he's in this comic at all is that TF fans like him, because he IS an "old-time" Japanese G1 character. This story is going to be his most widely-exposed fictional medium, and I am fairly confident when I say that I'm not expecting to see any organic humanoid drivers show up. The uniquely Masterforce storyline elements no longer really apply; the character role is all that matters. So I think he ought to be Overlord (G1). --Thylacine 2000 15:15, 26 January 2010 (EST)

And really, if we disambig'd the same character in different continuities of the same continuity family, we'd be splitting up a lot more pages than just this; Scorponok comes to mind most readily as being in roughly the same situation as Overlord. -- Dark T Zeratul 15:19, 26 January 2010 (EST)

Why is it that people have an immense problem with giving Japanese G1 characters their franchise of origin (which has always been our rule) as disambiguations while characters in Beast Wars II, Beast Wars Neo, Beast Machines, and Return of the Fallen all get their respective franchises without a complaint? As for him appearing in a IDW comic: So what? Why should we move articles based on the flavor of the month? We've adhered steadfastly to the "franchise of origin" rule (Sideways (RID) being a prime example) and you want to break it because some IDW miniseries is imaginatively "going to be his most widely-exposed fictional medium"? —Interrobang 20:38, 26 January 2010 (EST)

Actually, I did think (and still think, for that matter) that giving characters ROTF disambigs was really silly because the movies are all a single continuity/storyline, but I got voted down on that one. --Jeysie 21:14, 26 January 2010 (EST)

Franchise of origin is a terrible way to disambiguate someone, precisely because of the problems above. Disambiguation should be by the largest set appropriate. If a character, object, item, concept, place, or whatever has a unique name, no disambiguation is used. If there's more than one name but only one of the name shows up in a continuity family, then that's how we should disambiguate. If there's more than one name per continuity family but only one of a name shows up in a franchise, we should use that. If there's more than one name per franchise, then we should further sub-divide. Otherwise we are conveying mis-information. This all got started because of rampant reuse of minicon names in the UT ... there's no reason that to infect ROTF and G1 and whatnot. --Jimsorenson 21:53, 26 January 2010 (EST)

Seems to me that problems with general policy should be taken up in the community portal discussion. UT Mini-Cons are not the only example of massive name reuse within a continuity family—you completely ignore the Beast Era and G2 being part of the G1 continuity family. Your proposed system of disambiguation would require us to move every single G1 character whose name got reused in either one, since "G1" would be taken to mean the continuity family and not the actual franchise. Are you okay with "Megatron (original G1 Decepticon leader)", since BW Megatron is of the G1 continuity family as well? —Interrobang 22:17, 26 January 2010 (EST)

Perhaps the discussion should be moved. But I'll point out that, in your example, the guy we currently call Megatron (G1) would default to Franchise, which for G1 we've always taken to be .... G1. So he'd remain Megatron (G1), and the guy we call Megatron (BW) would remain Megatron (BW). I'm sure you CAN find a bad example. (That G1 is both a Franchise and a continuity family is clumsy, but there you have it.) All that would happen is all the ROC and Masterforce and Headmaster disambiguations would mostly default to G1, which is IMO a good thing. It'd mean some work on the ROTF disambiguations, but it's much better to do the work NOW, before it gets too big, than later.--Jimsorenson 22:49, 26 January 2010 (EST)

"Megatron (G1)" would become ambiguous. Someone at the Megatron (G1) page could reasonably assume he was the only Megatron for the whole continuity family. I would suggest "Megatron (G1 franchise)". The continuity family for the movie-verse is currently live-action film series. So what would the disambiguation be? My opinion is that disambiguation by franchise isn't broke so don't try to fix it. - Starfield 23:02, 26 January 2010 (EST)

Jim, but wouldn't you be "conveying misinformation" by implying "Megatron (G1)" is the only Megatron in the G1 continuity family? And logically, we would have to move characters like Cheetor (BW) and Randy (BW) to "Cheetor (G1)" and "Randy (G1)". —Interrobang 23:12, 26 January 2010 (EST)

Yes, that's what we'd need to do for Cheetor and Randy and whatnot, and I think it'd be for the better. And the G1 franchise / continuity family is an odd case but not one that I think anyone will find especially confusing.--Jimsorenson 00:47, 27 January 2010 (EST)

I don't think I could possibly agree with this any less. This seems like an absolutely ridiculous amount of work for zero benefit whatsoever and a large number of detriments. --M Sipher 01:49, 27 January 2010 (EST)

Yeah, that's what we said three years ago when we changed things from what you suggest to what we have now. "Hot Shot (UT)" used to be a page location! --ItsWalky 22:52, 26 January 2010 (EST)

Why ever did you change it? Hot Shot (UT) is both more intuitive and more accurate than Hot Shot (Armada). (I know, I know, assloads of mini-cons, but again, it seems like a shame to hold the whole brand hostage to those corner cases.)--Jimsorenson 00:57, 27 January 2010 (EST)

Because it was more useful and more informative to use the franchise-of-origin, rather than the more-obscure continuity family names. I see no reason to change it. --ItsWalky 01:00, 27 January 2010 (EST)

More useful how? Informative I'll grant, in that it conveys more information, but I'd contend that that's not the purpose of a disambiguation note. I mean, if that REALLY was the TRUE purpose, we'd put the franchise of origin as part of EVERY article's name, whether we need a disambiguation note or not.--Jimsorenson 01:09, 27 January 2010 (EST)

There are 2 different UT Ironhides, Prowls, Checkpoints, Cliffjumpers, Infernos, Thrusts, Sunstorms, Smokescreens, Knock Outs, Wreckages, Backstops, Armorhides, Blurrs, Laserbeaks... --M Sipher 01:45, 27 January 2010 (EST)

Correct, so those guys would go down to the franchise level ... and the literally hundreds of guys who DON'T have two incarnations per continuity family wouldn't.--Jimsorenson 10:06, 27 January 2010 (EST)

I'm with Jim, disambiguate by largest available grouping. The ONLY problem with this system is that G1 is a franchise and a continuity family, and that should really be changed. Khajidha 10:43, 27 January 2010 (EST)

Maybe the continuity family stays (G1) and the original franchise becomes (TF) since it WAS just called Transformers and the term G1 was a later creation?--76.28.76.206 10:47, 27 January 2010 (EST)

That would be good except there are later G1 characters introduced as part of an actual "Generation 1" franchise and not simply "Transformers". - Starfield 11:10, 27 January 2010 (EST)

That's ... surprisingly not terrible. And Starfield, ARE there characters introduced as part of an actual "Generation 1" franchise? I don't recall seeing a "Generation 1" logo anywhere.--Jimsorenson 12:17, 27 January 2010 (EST)

I see Jim's point. That is how the wiki itself is organized. Characters are grouped by continuity family. However, "continuity family" is a concept sorta made up by the wiki. It would probably be better to disambiguate by something more concrete. Plus I think Jim is underestimating the amount of tear-up. And the system isn't broken right now. - Starfield 11:10, 27 January 2010 (EST)

I think it's more broken than people think. The fact that these debates come up time and time again (Overlord, The Swarm, the whole ROTF thing) means that a LOT of our contributors don't really get the franchise of origin thing. All of those cases are theoretically really straightforward with our current system, and yet a LOT of people are uncomfortable with them. The root cause for this discomfort is the disconnect between how we disambiguate and how we organize. And "continuity family" isn't entirely made up by us, it's acknowledged by several official sources including the Transtech stories, the AllSpark Almanac and Alternity.--Jimsorenson 12:16, 27 January 2010 (EST)

Er, calling anything (TF) is a terrible idea, as I can see it confusing the heck out of non-editors and new folks not very familiar with our scheme. Plus, what would it mean for IDW and Dreamwave-only characters? Even the really obscure Primax identifier would be better than that.

And, uh. Considering that the original universal stream references in TransTech were written into the stories by wiki editors, the continuity family idea is essentially completely made up by us. --Jeysie 12:56, 27 January 2010 (EST)

Well, so what? It's not USED only by us, there is actual official Transformers fiction that acknowledges it. Who cares where the idea comes from? I'm not looking to debate semantics here, but to actually understand the logic behind the current system and just possibly see if a different approach might work better. Starfield's point was that the continuity family idea is not concrete, in universe, and I was showing that that's incorrect.--Jimsorenson 15:02, 27 January 2010 (EST)

Again, since the concept is, AFAIK, only used by wiki editors so far other than the Alternity stuff, saying it really means something outside of wiki folks technically isn't all that correct. It's like that situation a while back where a Wikipedia article made something up, a newspaper published the info based solely on the wiki article, and then the wiki article claimed the newspaper article was now a notable reference. I'm not saying it isn't official now anyway, I'm just saying you're kidding yourself if you think the concept really means a whole lot outside of the wiki circle.

That doesn't mean I don't wish we could disambiguate by continuity family, however, as it doesn't matter whether our categorization scheme has an official basis or not so long as it works for us. But didn't we already decide it didn't seem feasible?

Or is this a different enough case that someone should make a new sandbox to figure out exactly what changes would result and whether it would work better? I actually don't think the Beast Wars stuff would be a problem, as we treat "Beast Era" as a continuity family anyway, but that still leaves G2 up in the air. --Jeysie 17:48, 27 January 2010 (EST)

I think you've just hit on the heart of the problem. In some cases we treat "Beast Era" as a continuity family and in others as simply a part of the larger "G1" continuity family. Perhaps we should formalize this. Make "Beast Era" a separate thing, leave the rest of the "G1" continuity family at "G1", and state that the two are part of a larger "Primax" cluster. The Primax designation would NOT be used in disambigs. Khajidha 18:25, 27 January 2010 (EST) PS As I biologist I am seeing a parallel here with the cladistics/systematics debate in taxonomy.

Side note:

"Let's really examine this. Shattered Expectations came out BEFORE Shattered Glass, so shouldn't ANY SG character who appeared there go by the Transformers Collector's Club disambiguation instead? There's no SG logo or insignia anywhere on that fiction."

Er, SE was intended as a part of the SG franchise, so I don't see the issue here. --Jeysie 15:27, 26 January 2010 (EST)

Also, didn't we do it that way to start with and found it too confusing and hard to keep straight? Judicious use of the term "usually" can often improve the functioning of a rule.Khajidha 16:25, 26 January 2010 (EST)

I think there's been an enormous amount of words with very little said here. IF the system is by the first franchise they appear in, and not the one we think is going to be the most well known, then this whole issue is moot. Overlord's a guy from Masterforce. The end. All this arguing over semantics is giving me an arse ache. Here's a much bigger issue, why has no American started working on the LSOTW page/character information? Hop to it people. Cause I sure as hell can't yet USer:Eire 16.44 27 Jan 2010(UTC)

Hey, screw you! I've been working on LSOTW pages nonstop for over 24 hours! --ItsWalky 12:14, 28 January 2010 (EST)

I don't know if I can agree with this more. I'm really not sure what all this jawboning is trying to accomplish. The sheer amount of work for an incredibly vague payoff that applies to so few entries with some of the proposed ramifications of this change being so far from counter-intuitive that I have a hard time believing they were actually seriously proposed... don't we have much better things to do? There's still plenty of FP stuff to wiki! --M Sipher 19:54, 27 January 2010 (EST)

Jim wrote: Starfield's point was that the continuity family idea is not concrete, in universe, and I was showing that that's incorrect.

Okay, so "Optimus Prime (G1)" moves to "Optimus Prime (Primax)." Where would "Optimus Prime (Worlds Collide)" move to? While it's nice to know that there is an in-universe system exactly like continuity families... our disambigs are currently loosely tied to continuity-family designations-- an out-fiction concept. If we tied them to an in-fiction concept... not only would we be using a more confusing nonmelementure, the numeber of arguments about who goes where would probably tripple because having adopted such a system it would logically become imperative that the information it communicates be correct, and there are many characters for whom it's just impossible to say. What's Vector Prime's continuity-of-origin? Are we allowed to make assumptions and best-guesses? ...because we're now canonizing that guess as the name of the article.

Disambigs are not supposed to convey information. Because anytime we've seriously considered a system that did-- someone was able to come up with dozens of hundreds of system-breaking examples. strictly speaking, we sould probably disambiguate "Optimus Prime (1)", "Optimus Prime (2)", except that would be madness, and carries it's own problems involving Prowls and Catgirls.

• The purpose of the disambiguation tag is to keep articles on separate characters separate, not to convey information.
• The purpose of standardizing the tags (within our limited ability to do so) is to make our jobs easier by making them easier to remember, not to make them harder by adopting a complicated system.
• If name-reuse was not rampant in the UT, then UT would probably be the disambig. "(Movie)" used to refer to the continuity-family. We had to have a long argument (ending in a vote for formal purposes though IIRC there was general agreement) to fully-disambiguate the two movies liek the UT franchises are-- so characters who premiered in ROTF dont' get "(Movie)".
• Discussing how "really the cartoon and comics version of Optimus Prime should be separate articles" is neither relevant nor helpful.
• Pointing out that "Transformers (2007)" should actually be "Movie (2007)" if we were being consistent is wildly unhelpful Derik, why are you even bringing it up?
  • Oh, it's to point out that the overzealous pursuit of consistency will produce results which are incredibly retarded. That's why our standard disambigs are described as "consistently inconsistent", they are only as consistent as makes our lives easier. When doing so would make our jobs harder, they are allowed to remain inconsistent.

I also disagree with Jim's contention that the system is broken because many editors don't understand it, which resulting in arguments every few months. I argue that since editors are able to use the system despite not understanding how it works, the system is in fact super-operative. 95% of the time, grasping the broad pattern of how disambigs work is "enough" to work with the system. The actual rules are ungodly complicated and hinge on a web of shifting precedent. Requiring that casual and new editors know that system is impractical-- because even experienced editors struggle with and argue over its application in problem-circumstances. In the 5% of cases where the casual editor mis-disambigs a character, it's swiftly corrected with no real "cost." In the .02% of cases where it devolves into a huge argument... it was probably going to devolves into a huge argument anyway.

I mean-- for gods sake. We have Straxus-Galvatron as "Galvatron (G1)," grouped with his cartoon (and Ladybird, and Coloring Books) counterparts, and Megatron-Galvatron as "Galvatron II"-- who is for some reason considered a seperate character, and the Ladybird guys aren't "also him." It's a messy, stupid, imperfect system.

But trying to impose a less-imperfect system would cause chaos-- because sometimes the disambigs just need to be that stupid, because the reality is that stupid or convoluted. No smart or elegant system can possibly hope to cope with the dumb and inelegant knots Transformers sometimes ties for itself.

Frankly, I think 90% of these arguments would go away if we caved and gave characters infoboxes, in which case people would stop looking at the disambigs and defer tot he boxes. But we'd never be able to stick with a small infobox-- it would inevitably feature-creep into a monstrous creation that would mis-represent anythign which didn't fit into neat little categories. Transformers just isn't a 'tidy' fiction like that. -Derik 00:03, 28 January 2010 (EST)

As usual, Derik brings up some excellent points (he's right about the current system being super-operative) and, as usual, Derik misses some obvious ones (for instance, I'm not saying that the in-universe continuity family concept of primax, aurex, etc be used). That the idea of continuity families has some in universe support is not critical to my proposal. My basic thought process boils down to:

"The wiki is organized by continuity family, with one article per character per continuity family. Disambiguations, ideally, should work the same way when possible."

Everything else is just the nuts and bolts of how to get to this, IMO, highly desirable state. Is Beast Wars a continuity family? In universe, no, for the wiki, it's borderline. I'm really not worried about the work - we have only 10K articles, and a lot of them don't have disambiguations, and the majority of those that DO have disambiguations can be done by scripts. I'll do it by hand if I have to over a weekend.

So, I think the real question I'm asking is, do other people agree or disagree with the 'mission statement' that I laid out above. If everyone disagrees with it, it's pointless to debate the practical matters of implementation. If people agree with it, we could sandbox out possible solutions and see if they actually work. They may not! But if people disagree with it, then there's no point in trying and I'll bow out gracefully.

I'm not calling for a vote or anything, really I'm just trying to understand if my own intuition for how things SHOULD be jives with that of other peoples.--Jimsorenson 12:22, 28 January 2010 (EST)

Even though the wiki is organized by continuity family, that's not how we should organize names. I don't see why that should be so. Hasbro basically uses every new franchise as an excuse to reuse its stockpile of names, therefore our current way of doing things is more functional. Plus, it's not broken. --ItsWalky 13:05, 28 January 2010 (EST)

Why not just go ahead and do a sandbox of various examples? Last time this sort of convo came up, it was a good way to actually explore the idea and come up with more concrete examples of pro and con than just people's tastes. --Jeysie 13:00, 28 January 2010 (EST)

Ideally, yes I agree. However there is much I don't like about the implementation.

• I don't like "G1" as the name of the continuity family. It leads to weird situations like a G2 original guy being labeled (G1). The continuity family should be the official term (Primax) or something else entirely.
• What would the live-action film series disambiguation be? Please don't say "Movie".
• There are some characters with unknown continuity families. Mostly from Universe 2003 I think.
• We know how this system works. Questions over who belongs where have pretty much been settled. Even for this article. We all agree that this is where he belongs in the current system (see "Move" section below)—this discussion is whether we should change the system. The new system is somewhat unknown. It is unknown how many characters would have questionable disambiguations. - Starfield 13:05, 28 January 2010 (EST)

The system is fine as it is, and does NOT need to change. Even if we decided to move this ONE article, it should ONLY be done with understanding that we are making an EXCEPTION (Because allowing for exceptions where warranrted = A Good Thing!). I honestly don't care one way or the other about this article's title, but if moving this article meeans a system-wide change then I vote NO, NO, A THOUSAND TIMES NO. Also, I find even the suggestion we might start using (Primax) and the like to be absurd. We should be trying to be more friendly to the casual fan base, not less, and even amongst the dedicated fandom there are sure to be many people who have no idea what the hell a Primax is. --KilMichaelMcC 13:18, 28 January 2010 (EST)

Agreed. Even within the hardest-core fandom, probably almost nobody can recognize on the spot what "Tyran" is supposed to be. It's uninformative. And even if they did..... there's no difference! Replace "G1" with "Primax" and you have the exact same content with just one single-word disambig swapped for another. The in-story fuzziness would very much remain. As a rule--and a rule that I think ought to be a lot firmer than our other, mostly-guideline rules--I am against radical all-across-everything changes on this wiki. Most of the distinctions do make sense as-is.

I realize that I'm talking out of both sides of my mouth, since earlier in this cascade I recommended "Overlord (G1)". I have to keep reminding myself not to say shit like that here. I retract it thus. Leave things as they are. Nothing about Masterforce matters anymore, Overlord's "main" characterization from now on will have nothing to do with it.... but that's a unique case not important enough to justify this-and-that-and-the-other equivalent case that would pop up later. --Thylacine 2000 13:32, 28 January 2010 (EST)

OK, thanks to everyone who chimed in here. Since my underlying premise does not seem to be as 'intuitive' or as 'obviously desirable' to others as it is to me, I'll drop this line of inquiry.

I think that there ARE still some underlying oddities, and they mostly center around the use of G1 as both an umbrella franchise and a continuity family. But as much as perhaps THAT conversation didn't belong here, THAT conversation even more so doesn't belong here. --Jimsorenson 12:21, 29 January 2010 (EST)

Move

Completely separate from the above discussion about general disambig policy (and the "Star Saber (G1)/Star Saber (Victory)" debate which, amazingly, has not yet broken out there I contend that since Overlord was released, as Overlord, during Europe's original Generation 1 toyline (1985-1993) he is a Generation 1 character and should be disambig'd with "(G1)."

Since this unique circumstances AFAIK applies only to this character, and does not affect the larger debate about how to disambig Japanese G1 characters with mini-franchises... I'd like to call for a simple vote on this matter.

Given:

• That this article now represents all versions of Overlord/Gigatron in the Generation 1 franchise
• And that unlike any other JTF-exclusive character Overlord was released as part of the Generation 1 toyline

It is proposed:

• That "Overlord (Masterforce)" be moved to "Overlord (G1)"

Show of hands. Yea or Nea. -Derik 00:29, 28 January 2010 (EST)

No, because his European release was three years after his Japanese release. --M Sipher 00:33, 28 January 2010 (EST)

You may be on to something there. Transformer names are English-centric. If a Transformer has an English name it doesn't matter what name he had first, we use the English name. So if there was a Hasbro release it doesn't matter if the Takara release was first, we go with the Hasbro franchise. Yea. - Starfield 09:43, 28 January 2010 (EST)

Oh for the love of...Lio Convoy anyone? Anyone remember that little debacle? Just leave well enough alone. User:Eire 14.44 Jan 28 2010 (UTC)

Separate from the general debate above? Then no! It's not every continuity the dude appears in, it's the franchise of origin. The franchise of origin is clearly Masterforce. (Though this DOES help prove my point.)--Jimsorenson 09:55, 28 January 2010 (EST)

I'm with Jim here. --76.95.138.170 10:38, 28 January 2010 (EST) (Lonegamer78 not logged in)

Ayep. While I'd be amenable to changing to continuity family-based categorization if it's feasible, by our current standards this page does have the right disambiguation.

Now, if we were talking splitting the page as at the top of this page due to said several wildly differently portrayed guys being stuck on the same page currently... --Jeysie 10:54, 28 January 2010 (EST)

Absolutely yes. As Derik pointed out, the disambig tags are there for simplicity, not information. Most people, I think, are going to remember Overlord as a European/Japanese *G1* character, and not specifically that his fictional debut was in Masterforce. -- Dark T Zeratul 13:26, 28 January 2010 (EST)

This only proves how stupid using anything along the lines of "notability" is for the disambig. Jesus. Overlord was NOTHING to TF fandom outside of Masterforce for what, 15 years? All of a sudden, one comic and... jeez. Leave well enough the fuck alone. --M Sipher 22:42, 28 January 2010 (EST)

Yeah, I don't think anyone knew and/or cared that Overlord was also released in Europe for over a decade. He was just that guy controlled by those weird-lookin' dudes that beat the fuck out of God Ginrai. That was the sum of his fictional appearances for forever. "What's most notable" is incredibly fickle, and we should not be making our decisions by it. --ItsWalky 22:56, 28 January 2010 (EST)

We are not doing the disambig in the interest of providing information. We are doing it because we're consistent with "the franchise of origin" rule. This rule allows us to accommodate name reuses within continuity families. Overlord originated in Masterforce. The end. —Interrobang 05:30, 29 January 2010 (EST)

Featured Article for May?

Since Last Stand of the Wreckers ends in May, and this article is more or less complete, perhaps it would be fitting to make it our featured article for the month of May?--Rosicrucian^Talk 11:59, 5 April 2010 (EDT)

I support this idea. --Jeysie 12:25, 5 April 2010 (EDT)

Add another yea vote. --Khajidha 13:17, 5 April 2010 (EDT)

A very good idea. MrBlud 02:40, 10 April 2010 (EDT)

I can hardly disagree! - Chris McFeely 07:15, 10 April 2010 (EDT)

Brilliant. --Detour 07:27, 10 April 2010 (EDT)

That's a roger.--Jimsorenson 11:53, 10 April 2010 (EDT)

This is a brilliant idea and I see no reason not to go along with it except to be annoying, but I don't feel like being annoying today, so I'll just shut up now. ---Blackout- 11:57, 10 April 2010 (EDT)

If I was allowed, I'd say yes. I'm not so I won't. User:Eire 18.51 April 10 2010 (UTC)

Yay! Er, yea. -- Semysane 17:43, 10 April 2010 (EDT)

Gender?

Given the caption under the page's main image, would it be worthwhile to give Overlord a "Gender" sub-heading, similar to what Airazor (BW) has? Super-God Masterforce isn't a continuity area I know anything about, but it seems like a section giving a simple outline of what pronouns to use with which versions of the character might be useful. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bobcat2022 (talk • contribs){{#if:| {{{2}}}|}}.

I think you misunderstand the situation. Overlord always is a male, but the original/japanese incarnation of the character is mentally (see the Godmaster article) the teamwork of husband and wife Giga and Mega. He is male always, but the Mega-side of his original/Japanese character gives it a female edge. Geewunling 06:24, 24 December 2010 (EST)

Saying that I misunderstand the situation is a flatteringly courteous understatement. The gist I get with more reading is that the robot body (Transtector) is male (as much so as any other non-sentient giant robot, anyhow), but it does not become the being known as Overlord until is bonded to two humans, one male (Giga) and one female (Mega). So for pronoun purposes, am I correct to say that Overlord should be referred to with male (he), male/female (he/she), or genderless (it) pronouns, in that order of preference? Would a note to this effect on the main page be amiss? --Bobcat2022 17:36, 28 December 2010 (EST)

"He" would be the correct way. He speaks with Giga's voice, and appears in all respects to be driven by his personality. The only time I can recall in the cartoon that Mega spoke when they were combined in Overlord was when she needed to do something stereotypically womanly, and even then, they superimposed an image of her head over Overlord, rather than have him mouth her words. - Chris McFeely 17:42, 28 December 2010 (EST)

BotCon 2012 "Gigatron" instead of "Overlord"

Was it ever officially explained why Fun Pub chose to go with the name "Gigatron" instead of "Overlord" (but using that as a title instead of a name) for the BotCon 2012 toy? I ask since that would seem like something worth noting in the Notes section, given how it describes his naming history (as well as that I'm genuinely curious about why they chose that name). --Sabrblade 21:22, 19 March 2012 (EDT)

For the same reason the "Heroes of Cybertron" toy was named "Gigatron." Hasbro can't trademark "Overlord." --ItsWalky 21:28, 19 March 2012 (EDT)

And what of the comic story? Is Fun Pub obligated to use the toy's name in the fiction? I mean, the Animated Ironfist toy used his "Fisitron" name, but was "Ironfist" in The Stunti-Con Job. And Scorch and Slicer were "Turbomaster" and "Slice" in toy form, but still "Scorch" and "Slicer" in Generation 2: Redux (according to the comic's article, that is, since I haven't yet read it myself). Could they have still called him "Overlord" in the Invasion Prologue comic if they had wanted to? If so, why the "Gigatron" decision? --Sabrblade 21:47, 19 March 2012 (EDT)

Transphobic image caption

I know this wiki's official policy is that the funny stays and that you shouldn't touch anybody else's captions, but there's been precedent for caption replacement before in the form of Animated Drag Strip's article- where the talk page made a clear point of avoiding transphobic bullshit in the captions. With that said, I can't think of a different caption for the main image that's character appropriate. Can someone please help out with this matter, and get that crap off what is considered a Featured Article? Thanks. Sky Shadow (talk) 09:40, 11 August 2014 (EDT)

Feel more than welcome to point out shit like that. --ItsWalky (talk) 09:58, 11 August 2014 (EDT)

Thanks for that. There's some other captions that contain attempts at jokes that aren't great, but I don't just want to be somebody who complains about what other people are doing without doing much contribution myself. Mostly stuff like Minerva's "bad touch" captions. Any thoughts about potentially setting a formal "minimum tastefulness" policy instead of coming back to articles months later and changing them case by case? Sky Shadow (talk) 10:30, 11 August 2014 (EDT)

Classics Gigatron vs Dreamwave Gigatron

Just curious, is there a reason why Classics Gigatron is on this page but Dreamwave Gigatron is on the Gigatron page? I'd expect them to both be on the same page, regardless of which one that is, but I'm probably missing something. Omegatron (talk) 08:01, 5 December 2017 (EST)

Boy, here's an old one I'd long since forgotten about. I don't even remember what I said further up this page and I think I'd be too embarrassed to go back and look, but I think most of us would agree that things have changed - way back when there was an effort to draw a line through all of Masterforce and put the "Japanese versions" one side and the "Hasbro versions" on the other side, but in the case of Overlord, IDW and Fun Pub have blurred the line so thoroughly that at this point that we should probably just fold the puny little "Gigatron" page into this one entirely... - Chris McFeely (talk) 09:50, 5 December 2017 (EST)

I'd mostly agree with you, the only slight complication is that Ask Vector Prime and Beast Wars: Uprising both have a Gigatron that exists in the same universe as an Overlord so those two would theoretically have to remain separate. Omegatron (talk) 10:11, 5 December 2017 (EST)

If you look at the Gigatron (G1) page, that's what's been done. Everything on that page is about ancient characters that are not the Gigatron/Overlord from "now". It's kind of like the distinction between Predaking (COP) and Predaking (Prime). --Khajidha (talk) 10:26, 5 December 2017 (EST)

I get that, Dreamwave Gigatron doesn't have a modern counterpart though. Omegatron (talk) 10:40, 5 December 2017 (EST)

My thinking in filling out the "Gigatron (G1)" page was that AVP had finally given validation to Powermaster Gigatron being a separate and distinct Hasbro-original counterpart to Godmaster Overlord, and additionally coexisting in the same universe. Now with Classics Gigatron, that's more ambiguous because he is characterized as "Gigatron, the Overlord". I didn't think I would get any support in moving Classics Gigatron over, but if you are interested in debating this further, NightViper did share some behind-the-scenes unused story info on the Allspark that the unseen Classics Overlord was split up into "Gigatron and Megabolt". S.H.I.E.L.D. Agent 47 (talk) 11:00, 5 December 2017 (EST)

I would be interested in hearing that. Really though, the main thing that seems odd is how the notes section talks about how the idea of a counterpart of Overlord named Gigatron, who is a separate character, never caught on when there's just been a section about a version of Overlord named Gigatron. Rewording the notes section might be the easiest solution. Omegatron (talk) 17:26, 9 December 2017 (EST)

I have adjusted the note. S.H.I.E.L.D. Agent 47 (talk) 11:17, 10 December 2017 (EST)

Roller Car

Should the little roller car that came with Overlord's original toy get its own page? Like how Motormaster's roller car has one? LightningStudios (talk) 19:12, 19 November 2025 (EST)