Talk:Seeker (body-type)

Additional Pic

Full catalog page scan.

Does anyone have the page that ran OPPOSITE this one? (It had a GoBots ad, IIRC.) -Derik 20:20, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Older Stuff

In my opinion, both "Seeker" and "Skyraider" should be capitalized, since both are the formal names of subgroups. In fact, the article itself mentions that "Seeker" is capitalized in the JCPenney catalog, which is the only primary source for the term in which capitalization is even distincted (as opposed to the all-capitals use in TWW). -LV 00:44, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, you're right. I got carried away with my de-capitalizing things thing. --Steve-o 01:05, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Starscream-types in Armada are known as Seekers too, according to page 13 of the DK Reader 'The Awakening,' ISBN 0-78-94-9741-7

What about something about how the coneheads have radicly different character modles becuse they were desinged by Floro Deary, and not by the takara guys that did the Season 1 designs? --X-BoB

I wouldn't call the coneheads "radically" different, but, sure. I'll toss that in. Also, about the paragraph you inserted:

I'm not sure what "according to 3H" is supposed to mean. Are you referring to a statement that Glen or Tengu or somebody made, or do you just mean that the Seeker characters who appeared in 3H's comics happened to have the same design as BM Jetstorm and his drones?

--Steve-o 04:49, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

I remember Glen or Dan saying that Wreckers Skywarp's body is a common bodytype to the Beast Era, but 1) I'm not sure they said anything about it belonging to the remaining Seekers, 2) I'm not sure it has any relevance to the entry, and 3) the toy Jetstorm looks NOTHING like the show Jetstorm, so I have no idea how one would be based on the other. I'm removing it for now, with the additional note to whomever is consistently misspelling "based" to cut it out. --ItsWalky 05:11, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

If the Jetstorm toy is the Beast Era Seeker body then that means that within fiction it came before the Aerodrones.X-BoB58 19:10, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Oh cool, I didn't know that. I just assumed he' was one of the smaller-drones who was gonna be associated with the Vehicon General body Megatron made for Cyclonus. (That is right, right?) -Derik 11:48, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Didn't Cryotek make Cyclonus' body? -XBob

IIRC, Cyclonus' bio says that he was a botched plan of Megatron's to make him one of his Generals, but his boxart depicts Cryotek. --ItsWalky 19:29, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure I agree with the bits about Seeker "going back to being a fan-term" when DW folded. Especially since it is followed by a remark that it HAS been used officially since. Once something IS an official term, it can't return to being a fan term. Official is official and "Seeker" is now such.

could they be clones

Dreamwave's Summer Special explicitly referenced "Air Warrior Clones" who were generic Seekers. So some Seekers are clones. It's unclear whether they all are, though it's strongly implied in MTMTE #8 that at least some redeco characters are clones. --Andrusi 21:17, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes. Sunstorm and ricochet are both clones... in Dreamwave continuity. In non-Dreamwave continuities they're NOT clones. (We even got an explicit origin for one of the TDU incarnations of Sunstorm that mentioned his powers coming from a manufacturing error.) Dreamwave was clone-happy. -Derik 21:21, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I was referring to the Summer Special story, where Megatron goes to Beest to find the Predacons and takes a bunch of purple Seekers with him. The title page for that story lists them as "Air Warrior Clones." (Either that, or I'm losing my mind.) --Andrusi 21:24, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Right, that's the Air Cavalry set- the 3 purple PVC's we got as botcon exclusives. But AFAIK, they're supposed to represent 3 survivors (or at least zombie-like salvages) from the hordes of seeker clones in The Age of Wrath. -Derik 21:28, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Strike Planes

I remembered Seekers being called 'Strike Planes' in catalogues when they first came out in the UK, and finally found something that backs up my memory - see http://www.transformertoys.co.uk/content.php?/transformers-image/toysheets/g1/uksheet01/1.jpg/image.html . Is this worth a mention in the article?

Interesting! I'll stick it in the article. --Steve-o 05:01, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I've just found some old clipping of several 1985 UK store catalogues from 1985 that call the Seeker toys 'Strike Planes' so presumably this was in the Hasbro marketing blurb. Would these be of use or is there enough evidence already? J'mie 14:08, 28 August 2010 (EDT)

Another one is the extremely descriptive "Jet Plane" which can be seen in the 1985 Argos catalogue (also look out for a Conehead Skywarp). As some of the other names/omissions are seen in other early UK adverts (e.g. Soundwave being nameless) there's almost certainly a Hasbro influence in the descriptions. Note also the use of "Trans-Formers". Timrollpickering 14:10, 11 April 2011 (EDT)

Move

I do think that this should be moved to an article title with SOME form of parenthetical disambiguation. Since there IS another "Seeker" that is a separate concept that DOES have a PD. I'm not wild about "group", but lacking a better term... --M Sipher 23:03, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I dunno, I think this would be the primary term people would think about when you give the term "Seeker". The minicon is definitely less well known, so I think it could just be noted at the top of this page "for the minicon named Seeker, please see..." --MistaTee 15:09, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Except that's inconsistent with everything else that requires a disambig on this wiki. Most people think of G1 Prime when you say "Optimus Prime", but he still has the (G1) tag. --M Sipher 15:15, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that G1 Prime is comparable, as many other Optimus Primes have plenty of history and backstory. Energon Seeker is a easily forgotten toy that I think should actually be at the bottom of the main Seeker page, as it doesn't have a lot of info on its own. That being said, if the G1 seekers need disambiguation, how about "Seeker (subgroup)" --MistaTee 15:42, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree this should sit in a Disambig (and because there are only two of them, let "Seeker" direct to this one.) But the Seekers aren't a 'group,' they're a classification. I'd say "Seeker (jets)", but the mini-con is a jet already. "Seeker (type)"? It looks kinda weird, but it's... really clear. -Derik 15:33, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

The page should be moved to be consistent with our revised disambig rules, and plain old "Seeker" should redirect to it. Picking a parenthetical for the page is not trivial, though. The Seekers aren't really an official subgroup (unless they've been declared that recently in some random ad copy someplace) so we shouldn't use that (and I'm going to take that category away). "Group" and "type" are a little vague, but, something clear like "common body type" is too awkward. As soon as somebody as a good idea, I'll be happy to move the article and update all the links with my bot. --Steve-o 22:09, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

"classification"? "body-type"?

Also... "Energon Seeker is a easily forgotten toy that I think should actually be at the bottom of the main Seeker page, as it doesn't have a lot of info on its own."... that is a profoundly bad idea. Joe-Stalker isn't on the Predator-Stalker page, and all three Flashes are separated. He's not a Seeker. He's not even a Decepticon. And as an individual character, no matter how little he does, he should get his own page. Stuffing him on a page completely unrelated to him makes no sense whatsoever, and would make the categories the page appears in REALLY screwed up. --M Sipher 22:19, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Animated

Would it be appropriate now to start a section on the Animated Seekers, or do we have to wait for "Fistful of Energon"?KrytenKoro 05:38, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

We're probably going to wait until they are actually CALLED Seekers. --Detour 06:40, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, we at least know that there are going to be characters along the same concept. Even if they don't end up being called Seeker's, I think it would be correct to add that a similar group exists in Animated.KrytenKoro 21:19, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

SPOILERS, GODDAMMIT. --M Sipher 22:05, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

...err, no. The actual episodes which introduce the Seekers may have yet to air, but that Starscream clones/twins will appear in the series was announced a while ago. Besides, we have a "Spoilers" tag anyway.KrytenKoro 16:54, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Movieverse Seekers

In The Reign of Starscream issue 2, Starscream refers to himself as having "Seeker attributes" on page 7, and refers to Thundercracker as a Seeker on page 20. Although the synopsis has yet to be written for the comic, since it has been released, should this info be added to this page? Just wanted to make sure, since there's been such a freak-out over spoilers lately. --Nightshade83 00:53, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Defiance issue 4 also uses the term Seekers to describe the folks sent to blah blah blah way way back at the dawn of time. Seems to include Jetfire. --ItsWalky 22:57, 19 April 2009 (EDT)

Questions about the toy section:

Are we only counting molds that were redecoed into multiple characters during a franchise or are we including molds that have been in multiple toylines as different characters? For example: the Armada Thrust mold was released as Universe Sunstorm, but this is nowhere mentioned on the page. Also, Cybertron Thundercracker was redecoed as Movie Divebomb.

Movie Dreadwing and Overcast share a mold, but neither is a name that was previously identified as a "Seeker"; do they belong here or not? They are a "family" of jet-mode Decepticons, after all. Khajidha 14:03, 22 April 2009 (EDT) Adding on another question: What about the 3" Titanium Starscream and Thundercracker? They DEFINITELY should be here, but I'm not sure if they would go under Toys or Merchandise. Khajidha 14:12, 22 April 2009 (EDT)

A second '84-era use of "Seeker"

http://pleasesavemerobots.com/vstp/tf84/84_k25nov_zayre.jpg Courtesy crazysteve, here's a November 1984 Zayre circular listing "Decepticon Seekers" for $11.99 a pop. This definitely supports the theory that "Seeker" was used at some early stage, and if the JC Penney catalog and a fairly large regional department store chain both used the term in their advertising, it makes sense that other retailers did too; it's just a matter of finding the evidence. (crazysteve, being crazy, finds these by spending hours in a public library on microfiche readers. i do not have the time for that sort of thing.) Hooper_X 07:47, 19 May 2009 (EDT)

I can't seem to get the darn thing to load.... --Detour 02:31, 20 May 2009 (EDT)

I added a question mark to the end of the URL and well... an image loaded alright, but it wasn't a Zayre circular listing. It appears to be a three-way Beast Wars sex act. -- Semysane 04:28, 20 May 2009 (EDT)

I can see it, but then I've got an anti-anti-hotlink filter. Copy and paste the link. *tells MediaWiki not to render text as a clickable link* - SanityOrMadness 10:08, 20 May 2009 (EDT)

Is that 2 YELLOW Cliffjumpers in that picture? Or is the robot mode one actually Bumper? Either way it's an interesting use of non standard toys in the ad.Khajidha 15:21, 8 August 2009 (EDT)

This should work. Text is reproduced on the page, which should help to find it easily.--Nevermore 19:28, 1 December 2009 (EST)

Interesting. Perhaps Seeker was an assortment name? It's the only reason I can think of that different stores would use the same uncommon and specialized terminology. --Tigerpaw28 22:57, 1 December 2009 (EST)

Looks like you were right: Link 1, link 2 --Nevermore (talk) 02:54, 24 February 2016 (EST)

(G1)?

Why has this been moved to Seeker (G1) when it contains non-G1 stuff? Is the article going to be split? Is that really necessary? --KilMichaelMcC 22:19, 23 May 2009 (EDT)

I agree that the choice of parenthetical doesn't make sense, and came here to the same point as you on that - but the plot of ROTF involves "Seekers" that have no connection to Starscream & co, so it needs a parenthetical.

But (G1) isn't it. - SanityOrMadness 19:49, 24 May 2009 (EDT)

"(G1)" is correct by the standards. It is the first franchise appearance. See Sideways (RID) and Cryotek (RID) - Starfield 17:21, 26 May 2009 (EDT)

Sideways and Cryotek are the exact same character in the multiple continuities, so it makes sense to label them with the first continuity they showed up in.

However, this is just a similar concept in multiple continuities. The Movie Seekers may have a similar concept to G1 Seekers, but the Movie Seekers as a specific group showed up first in the Movies, not G1.

But I guess the operative question is, do we have any other non-character multiple-continuity-spanning articles with parentheticals to study as a precedent? Energon (G1) got moved to Energon (fuel), and that's the only one I know of right off the top of my head. --Jeysie 17:36, 26 May 2009 (EDT)

The ROTF "Seekers" have a very specific function which is unrelated to body types. Not the same thing as Starscream/Thundercracker/Skywarp/etc at all.

And a concept should have a parenthetical after the concept, even if it's something basic like "Seeker (jets)". Not after a franchise. - SanityOrMadness 17:47, 26 May 2009 (EDT)

You say it should, but I fail to see why the system that works for characters doesn't work here. The Movie and ROTF Seekers are to be split out because they are not the same thing as the G1 Seekers at all. Ditto for Shattered Glass Seekers. That leaves almost completely G1 material, with one Armada reference. —Interrobang 19:57, 26 May 2009 (EDT)

The modern use of Movie seekers (the elite unit including Starscream and Thundercracker) could probably stay here. - Starfield 20:01, 26 May 2009 (EDT)

Well, that's not going to be the MAIN use of "Seeker" in the Movie continuity family, but it's a valid use and should probably stay on this page if it's referring to "Starscream clones".

And that's the main use of this page, to refer to reuses of the Starscream body-type in various continuities and continuity families. Given that this page includes at least four continuity families (G1, UT, Animated and Movie), I fail to see how Seeker (body-type) would be less vague and open to confusion, since it explicitly ties in to an existing article. Especially since it very clearly disambiguates from the ROTF use of "Seeker".

I certainly don't believe that disambiguating by franchise always works for characters as well as Interrobang alleges, especially for franchise-jumpers like Sideways (whose whole claim to be an "RID" character is based on a case the article admits is "not airtight" involving an obscure Wal-Mart-exclusive toy with the same name and some Japanese-exclusive publicity material - hell, on that score, given the Japanese Car Robots retcons, it should probably be Sideways (G1)...) - SanityOrMadness 21:39, 26 May 2009 (EDT)

"Seeker (body-type)" seems a bit vague, since there are multiple body-types. How about "Seeker (classification)"? That sorta straddles a border between body class and function, which seem to be how Seekers are used. -Derik 21:45, 26 May 2009 (EDT)

Movie Seekers could be a "body-type" that can cross interstellar space. They could also be a "classification." How about "Seeker (J.C. Penny wishbook)"? - Starfield 22:20, 26 May 2009 (EDT)

Merge or delete

Is it really necessary to have separate articles for Seeker (SG), Seeker (Movie), and Seeker (ROTF) in addition to the coverage given those uses of the term here? Two of the three are only stubs, and even the ROTF article is fairly short. It would seem that either the relevant material should be removed from this article or those articles should be deleted. Khajidha 11:33, 12 August 2009 (EDT)

The answer is in the discussion right above you. Namely, it was decided that this and the other Seeker types are all completely different concepts rather than minor variations on the same concept. The amount of info available has no relevance on the question. --Jeysie 11:38, 12 August 2009 (EDT)

Addendum: Plus that reminds me that the SG Seeker page really should be on my list of SG articles to update. *adds* --Jeysie 11:42, 12 August 2009 (EDT)

Then why retain so much about the Unicron Trilogy and Movieverse seekers on this page? If they are separate enough to warrant their own articles, they are separate enough NOT to be in this article. The disambiguation link would be enough.Khajidha 12:01, 12 August 2009 (EDT)

Is it really necessary to have a page for Optimus Prime for each continuity? YES! The word "Seeker" has different definitions to SG, Movie and ROTF.

Propose renaming this article to Seeker (G1)

Given that there are now articles for [Seeker (SG)], [Seeker (Movie)], and [Seeker (ROTF)] as well as [Starscream clone] and a section on "hunter-seeker skyships" at [Ferak]; I propose that this page be renamed (and slightly redone) as Seeker (G1). Much information here would remain as is. However; sections 3 (Unicron trilogy), 4 (Live-action movie), 5 (Shattered Glass) and some parts of section 8 (toys, specifically 8.3, 8.10, 8.11) would be transferred to the appropriate pages. This would necessitate the creation of 1 new page: Seeker (Unicron trilogy). Toy section 8.7 would be modified to mention that the Legends of Cybertron mold was used for [Ramjet (G1)] despite being used primarily for characters from other franchises. Toy section 8.6 is somewhat unclear as to whether the characters mentioned are all G1, all other franchises, or a mixture of the two. The note in the first paragraph (and also the Decepticons in later franchises such as Armada where similar "families" of jets appear) would be changed to a simple statement that the G1 group inspired similar groups in later franchises, with the disambiguation page serving to lead readers to these other pages. Much of the information is already in place on the other pages, this process would simply insure that nothing was lost. The disambiguation page already seems to effectively treat this page as Seeker (G1). Changing the name would serve to clarify the distinctions between the similar groups. Also, this would prevent "drift" as data relevant to other lines would be placed on those pages entirely and not haphazardly here or there or both randomly. Opinions? Khajidha 23:03, 23 August 2009 (EDT)

NO.--Rosicrucian^Talk 23:06, 23 August 2009 (EDT)

Haven't we already covered this twice on this very page? --Jeysie 23:31, 23 August 2009 (EDT)

THIRD TIME'S THE CHARM I GUESS. --ItsWalky 23:41, 23 August 2009 (EDT)

It just seems strange that this page contains information on similar groups from multiple continuities including some with their own pages already. It seemed to me that that was what disambiguation pages were for. I had made this proposal because I felt that Jeysie had misunderstood my previous one. That happens to me fairly often. If no one else seems confused, I will not press further. Khajidha 23:56, 23 August 2009 (EDT)

That said, shouldn't Seeker (Movie) (not to be confused with the ROTF Seekers) be merged into here, while the stuff about the SG Seekers should be removed from this page entirely? A touch of cleanup couldn't hurt. - SanityOrMadness 21:12, 24 August 2009 (EDT)

For consistency, I think you're right. Khajidha has a valid point, that right now the situation between all the various "Seeker" pages is confused. In fact, between this page's description of the Movie Seekers and the Seeker (Movie) description, I can't tell if that "Seeker" is really a body-type designation or just indicating membership of a team. Does anyone have that issue of the comic and can give us some hard quotes?

But while I'm basically in agreement with you in terms of status-quo maintenance, I'm not sure what the ideal content and title of this page ought to be. For one thing, I'm leaning towards the "(G1)" side because this article only talks about other franchises in relation to G1. The "Unicron Trilogy" section openly brushes aside that universe's definition of "Seeker" just to talk about how the toy designers made some G1 homages. The SG stuff, as you say, has no place here. And the Movie Seekers, while officially Seekers in the traditional way, don't really add anything of substance to the concept. They seem to be just another parroting of the G1 idea, albeit with more in-fiction backup than their UT equivalent.

So, if it's correct to say that this article is essentially G1-focused, then the question arises of what non-G1 stuff actually belongs here. I'm.... not ready to say Seeker (Movie) really doesn't deserve its own page. I think it depends on how much meat can be found in that comic issue. My instinct is to prune the hell out of the non-G1 content until it's just a few sentences and a bunch of "See this other article for more info" notes. But that's more an idle thought than an actual proposal.

Overall, I agree with those above who have said that "(body type)" is an awkward, possibly-inaccurate parenthetical. But it's an awkward article, and I feel like streamlining it will help settle the titling question.

- Jackpot 23:54, 24 August 2009 (EDT)

You don't need to read anything above. Just read this: Naming this page Seeker (G1) is a ridiculous idea, considering that it describes the Seeker body-type in all continuities, not just G1.

The 'Lady in Purple'

What or who is it? I've never heard of a possibly female Seeker in g1--91.113.121.205 19:10, 4 March 2010 (EST)

There wasn't any female Seekers in G1. The "Lady in Purple" was apparently from some fan fiction. - Starfield 19:19, 4 March 2010 (EST)

There's a vaguely female-looking seeker in one shot of MTMTE part 3, which fanon has retconned into being female. --abates 19:30, 4 March 2010 (EST)

I know which "character" it is, but that's only because I accidentally found that information on another site long ago. Perhaps someone more in the know could write a short article for the character/add the remaining information to this article? Because as it is now, I find the mention of something that's supposedly "infamous" yet seemingly surprisingly obscure confusing. Geewunling 01:42, 5 March 2010 (EST)

There is no "character" for an article to be written for. We don't have articles for single generics who don't do anything but fill out group shots. --KilMichaelMcC 12:18, 5 March 2010 (EST)

She's a "Raksha-creation", right? A trivia note on Raksha's page to link to would be all needed. That, or the info on LiP should be outright deleted since it's only confusing like this. Geewunling 12:33, 5 March 2010 (EST)

Slipstream is not fan fiction. She is in Generation 1 video games. This wiki is not just about the cartoons and movies.

This is from 3 frickin years ago, they're talking about someone else. Sign your posts. Escargon 18:39, 18 September 2013 (EDT)

"Origin of term "Seeker""

I don't think it's that odd that the JC Penny catalogs could've started the trend among a whole legion of Transfans. I remember those catologs being in heavy rotation. You were mailed them quite often. I also remember the "seeker" term from far back even before the internet. I definitely picked it up before then so it was probably from the book Riddlerj 13:58, 27 April 2010 (EDT)

Also, those of us not rich enough to afford the toys often held on to the catalog pages for long periods of time. --Khajidha 14:05, 27 April 2010 (EDT)

The Section on G1 Seekers

I notice that the G1 section is essentially a list of the different categories (Coneheads, Skyraiders etc), whereas the sections on other continuities go into what being a seeker actually is. AHM and then the Ongoing (esp. Issue 4) gave us a more detailed look at the meaning of this term (in the IDW G1 continuity anyway), with why they all look the same, what their purpose is among the Decepticon army and other various intricacies explored. Should we have a section on this? It seems quite pertinent and I feel that the G1 seeker section is lacking in information (it seems like more of a list if I'm being honest). --SharkyMcShark 01:10, 12 July 2010 (EDT)

I've added a section under the G1 seekers heading for the IDW comics continuity. --SharkyMcShark 23:53, 12 July 2010 (EDT)

Toys

Should we maybe add Armada Thrust, since he was redecoed into a Sunstorm? Also maybe G2 Skyquake/Machine Wars Starscream since Botcon 2009 has Skyquake as a seeker. And fore that matter Energon Starscream got redecoed twice for Botcon 2009, with both Skyquake and Leozack being seekers there for sure--BlackStarscream 19:50, 15 July 2011 (EDT)

"Classic Pretender" Seekers

Do these guys count? Was flicking through some old comics the other day and the green Starscream leapt out at me. --Emvee 17:40, 12 August 2011 (EDT)

Wow. I've looked at that pic plenty of times and it never occurred to me that we were seeing a squad of alt-colored Pretender Starscream there. I'd vote for counting them.--76.28.76.206 19:12, 12 August 2011 (EDT)

Where is the "Go" image for this page from?

The Seeker in the image doesn't look like it's listed on this page. Just to make it easier for people to answer me, here is the image. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by RavenG (talk • contribs){{#if:| {{{2}}}|}}.

Is that Dirge?192.249.47.196 12:07, 12 December 2011 (EST)

I'm curious about this too. Antimatter 23:39, 27 December 2011 (EST)

I thought it might be from Sticker Adventures, but apparently not. Just a really close clone: [1] --ItsWalky 23:55, 27 December 2011 (EST)

It's from a punch-out book. I have big scans of it somewhere... --Monzo 08:42, 28 December 2011 (EST)

I've got scans I downloaded from somewhere (quite possibly from your site, Monzo). There's also a grey bodied jet with red wings. --Khajidha 13:38, 28 December 2011 (EST)

Comic-Magazin Seeker.

I added the the Seeker from the German comics. This is my very first contribution to the wiki so I hope everything is acceptable. --RavenG 05:23, 12 December 2011 (EST)

Classics mold

I've just gone through and redid the section on the Classics Seeker mold. If no one objects, I plan on removing the never ending list of redecoes and retools from the individual pages and simply inserting a link to the Classics section on this page. This should help keep the various pages from getting out of date to varying degrees. --Khajidha 16:51, 14 March 2012 (EDT)

Another 1984 use of "Seeker"

Interestingly enough, it's also in the earliest known newspaper ad for TF products - April 29, 1984. It's SO early that the ad copy has to explain THESE ARE THE GOOD GUYS AND THESE ARE THE BAD GUYS. This is REALLY early ad copy, so someone, somewhere, had this "Seeker" thing very very early on. Crazysteve (who knows these things) says this actually predates Hasbro employees' recollections of when the toys hit shelves (the general consensus was "sometime in May.) Interesting! -hx 09:02, 1 August 2012 (EDT)

And the mini-cars are described as "drones". Weird. --Khajidha 09:15, 1 August 2012 (EDT)

Chrome Seekers on Spacebridge Facebook Page

"The Spacebridge" just revealed samples of 4 unreleased shiny repaints of the Diaclone mold, one of which was the Takara 'book-reissue' Starscream with Megatron gun. They were potential retailer-exclusive contest prizes...I didn't quite understand it myself. This naturally means new entries to Screamer, Thundercracker, and Sunstorm's toy sections, plus the the 1984 toy section for this page, but the all silver one I'm not sure about. Is there a precedent for that? Unless/until they find documents confirming he was supposed to be an established character, should he have his own page: "Silver Chome Seeker" + unofficial-name tag? Or does he just become a footnote here? Bumblevivisector 20:38, 9 July 2013 (EDT)

Aligned continuity Seekers

This page should be concentrating on the Seeker body-type. The Aligned continuity section of this page contains all the members of the Energon Seekers, a team of jet-based Transformers. Not all members of this Seeker team are of the Seeker body-type. We should be spending time to determine which ones are Seekers and which ones are just in the Seeker team. -- Dreadwing has never been of the Seeker-body type in previous continuities. In the Prime cartoon, he is a part of the Seeker TEAM but if he were truly of the Seeker BODY-TYPE, why isn't his TWIN a Seeker too? -- Jetfire has never been of the Seeker body-type in other continuities and in Aligned, he does not resemble any of the other Seekers. -- Nacelle and Contrail have never existed in other continuities, and Contrail does not appear to be of the Seeker-body type. -- The Ace Vehicons (silver Jet Vehicons) are considered Seekers by Starscream. It is not sure whether they are called Seekers under a different definition. If Ace Vehicons are of the Seeker body-type, why aren't the standard purple Jet Vehicons also Seekers? -- All other Seekers in the Seeker team are definitely of the Seeker body-type. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Leo1452 (talk • contribs){{#if:| {{{2}}}|}}.

A) Sign your posts, and B) Aligned Continuity Seekers are basically "any flying Decepticon who has a jet-like altmode." Or at least, that's how it was both during and before the Great War. By the time of TF: Prime, though, the term has apparently become more selective (with only specific individuals having belonged to the Seekers since the group no longer officially exists in the present day), but still not tied to any specific body design. --Sabrblade 18:36, 18 September 2013 (EDT)

Nnnooo. If it's called a seeker, it's a seeker. Escargon 18:37, 18 September 2013 (EDT)

This page is for the BODY-TYPE. The word "Seeker" can refer to many things, some of which are not the BODY-TYPE. Which Seeker from the Energon Seekers are of the Seeker BODY-TYPE? I know that the Energon Seekers is not tied to specific body-types. I'm just saying that we should determine which characters of the Aligned continuity are of the BODY-TYPE. User:Leo1452 18:45, 18 September 2013 (EDT)

Look, the body type diambiguation really only applies to the G1 and Animated versions. Escargon 18:47, 18 September 2013 (EDT)

Since the movies, it's been less a "body type" and more a subgroup, I guess. Seekers don't even need to fly, since some of the movie seekers turn into cars. Maybe this article just needs to have a new parenthetical? --abates 18:48, 18 September 2013 (EDT)

Or maybe it needs to be split as I've suggested before. There is a need for a page about the term Seeker which this page is sort of trying to fill but it is buried in what Seekers are in each continuity family. --Khajidha 19:28, 18 September 2013 (EDT)

Movie has 3 definitions for Seekers, ONE of which is a team of Decepticons of the same body-type. User:Leo1452 18:49, 18 September 2013 (EDT)

I understand that body-type in Seekers has become less important over the years. The Unicron Trilogy definition for Seekers is any jet-based Decepticon, but there were still come Seekers of the same design (Starscream, Skywarp, Thundercracker). It has been said that Aligned Seekers often, but not always, have similar designs. Can't we spend some time to determine which ones in Aligned are of similar design? User:Leo1452 18:53, 18 September 2013 (EDT)

That's easy, but still, not going to change the facts. Escargon 19:03, 18 September 2013 (EDT)

What facts? User:Leo1452 19:11, 18 September 2013 (EDT)

That the Seekers of the Aligned Continuity do not all share the exact same general body design despite their all still being Seekers.

Also, this term "Energon Seekers" you keep tossing around is nothing special. Starscream's claim of having been the leader of them just refers to the entire Seeker Air Command itself. Any claims of "Energon Seekers" being anything different from just "Seekers" in general (strictly regarding the Aligned Continuity that is) are fanon. --Sabrblade 19:50, 18 September 2013 (EDT)

Not fanon. He refers to them as Energon Seekers. Even though that isn't the principal name for it, I'm using it to help differentiate. Anyways, although the term Seeker is becoming less of a body-type and more of a team, almost in every continuity Starscream has followers identical or similar in body-type to him. G1 has the Seekers who are of the same body-type as him. Beast Wars Terrorsaur(who provides a similar effect as G1 Starscream on the series)'s Cybertron mode is identical to Waspinator's Cybertron mode. BWII Starscream has his fellow Jet Warriors Dirge and Thrust. Armada Starscream has Skywarp and Thundercracker with identical body-types to him. Movie Starscream has his team of nearly identical Seekers. Animated Starscream has his clones. What does Aligned Starscream have? I remember that he once had a squad of clones but that was only in 1 episode of Prime. That can't be it. Are the Ace Vehicons meant to give the same effect as the Seekers he leads in G1? --User:Leo1452 21:41, 18 September 2-13 (EDT)

The silver Vehicons are referred to in multiple episodes as seekers, ISTR. --abates 21:50, 18 September 2013 (EDT)

Thank you. Are they meant to give the same effect as the Seekers that G1 Starscream leads? And do these Ace Vehicons have a similar design to Starscream? I understand that they also transform into jets and they have a similar paint job but is the body-type the same? --User:Leo1452 21:57, 18 September 2-13 (EDT)

They transform into the same alt-mode as the regular jet vehicons (essentially a car with wings) so they're not Earth jets like Starscream is, no. --abates 22:18, 18 September 2013 (EDT)

Do the Ace Vehicons appear in Prime season 1? Also, are they lead by Starscream? Is the name "Ace Vehicon" the official term? Was the term ever used in the Prime cartoon? --User:Leo1452 22:47, 18 September 2013 (EDT)

The term "Ace Vehicon" is from the toy; they were referred to exclusively as "seekers" in the cartoon. They only appear in season 3. --abates 23:15, 18 September 2013 (EDT)

The Seekers of Aligned continuity, excluding Starscream, include the Ace Vehicons, Blitstream, Contrail, Dreadwing, Hotlink, Jetfire, Nacelle, Skywarp, Slipstream and Thundercracker. Out of these Seekers, only Blitstream, Hotlink, Skywarp, Slipstream and Thundercracker can be confirmed as of the same body-type of Starscream (if no one disagrees with this then it should be noted in the article). No direct indication is needed to know that. They bear the same names as their G1 counterparts, whom they are influenced by. -- Dreadwing has never been of the same design as Starscream in other continuities (unless you consider the Movie continuity Dreadwing a Seeker, though that is still under questioning), and even though he transforms in a similar way to Starscream, he doesn't resemble him at all in Prime. He probably isn't of the same body-type as Starscream. -- Jetfire has never been of the same design as Starscream in other continuities. He doesn't resemble Starscream so he probably isn't of Starscream's design. -- Nacelle and Contrail do not exist in any other continuities. I've seen Contrail and he looks nothing like Starscream, and he definitely doesn't transform in a similar way. He probably isn't of the same design. Nacelle, I've never seen. -- The Ace Vehicons have the same paint job but definitely not the same body-type as Starscream. -- Am I right to assume that in the Aligned continuity, Dreadwing, Jetfire, Contrail and the Ace Vehicons are not of the same design as Starscream? User:Leo1452 23:45, 18 September 2013 (EDT)

Out of curiosity, have you even watched the show, or played any of the games, or read any of the books or comics? What makes one a Seeker in the Aligned Continuity is their having been called a Seeker. All of the individuals listed under the aligned continuity section of this page are Seekers because they have been said to be Seekers, regardless of whether they look like Starscream or not. --Sabrblade 09:21, 19 September 2013 (EDT)

That appears to be the entire point of the discussion: This article is titled Seeker (BODY TYPE), so why is a section of it listing non-body-type-sharing Seekers? Something probably needs to change, either the title or the content. --KilMichaelMcC 10:14, 19 September 2013 (EDT)

I think this article suffers by trying to be a grab-bag of every instance of "Seeker". Wouldn't it be better to split it up by continuity family? (Have the UT characters even been called Seekers?) Mimi 10:40, 19 September 2013 (EDT)

Sabrblade, are you having trouble understanding what I am saying? I only asked who is of the same body-type. I have stopped asking a loooooooooooooong time ago which of the Aligned Seekers are of the Seeker body-type because now I know that Aligned has no body-type called "Seeker." I am watching the Prime cartoon as it is airing. I have done my research and what I ask in this discussion is what I cannot find through this research. The reason that it seems that I am asking stupid questions is that my initial question that started this discussion may have appeared stupid to YOU, so affecting the way you look at any words I say. You have been nothing but condescending. You have shown disrespect to me only for asking what others' opinions are on various subjects. I have not stated any false information while you have. (Not ANY jet-based Aligned DECEPTICONS are Seekers. The Energon Seekers have existed long before the formation of the Decepticons. Not all Seekers joined the Decepticons; some are Autobots. Also, there are MANY non-Seeker jet-based Decepticons who aren't Seekers. -- ALSO, you called something that you didn't know "fanon.") The "hugeness" of your interest for Transformers does not determine the credibility of your information, nor does it justify judgement of "lesser" fans. I am sorry for pointing this out. I only want this discussion to be a friendly debate, not a chance for you to hit down a fellow fan's ideas. I understand that discussion pages are not for personal subjects but this is an exception that needed to be make this talk a more insightful one. --User:Leo1452 17:03, 19 September 2013 (EDT)

KilMichaelMcC, I understand what you mean. Even though the body-type of Aligned Starscream isn't called "Seeker," we should try to only list Transformers of the same body-type as Starscream in the Aligned section. Then, maybe, we could have a separate page for the Energon Seekers (team) composed of those jet-based Transformers who look for Energon. --User:Leo1452 17:11, 19 September 2013 (EDT)

Look, Energon Seekers are the exact same thing as regular Seekers. If it's called a seeker, then it's a goddamn seeker. Also, Sabrblade is just showing that what the fiction is saying. We don't go agaisnt the fiction. And he's not exactly hitting you're ideas. Just pointing out the facts. Escargon 17:36, 19 September 2013 (EDT)

I think if Starscream's bodytype is not what makes him a seeker, then we should not be listing it as a seeker bodytype. IMHO that only increases the argument to rename this "Seeker (subgroup)". I don't know if I agree with splitting it by continuity family, but that's another option. --abates 17:40, 19 September 2013 (EDT)

Yes, subgroup does sound a lot better. Escargon 19:23, 19 September 2013 (EDT)

Escargon, Sabrblade was not pointing out facts. If you paid attention and research what he said as well as pay attention to DETAIL in the articles of multiple wikis and guides, you'd know that he has only said ONE fact: that the Energon Seekers are currently non-existent. You are not showing what the fiction is. You are assuming and creating your own fiction. I am only asking questions for things that the fiction has not been clear enough about. The Energon Seekers are NOT THE SAME THING as the Seekers you incorrectly called "regular." Time and time again, you have either ignored or misunderstood that THE TERM SEEKER HAS MULTIPLE DEFINITIONS. A character can be called a Seeker and not be of the body-type. Once again I say that THIS PAGE IS SUPPOSED TO FOCUS ON THE BODY-TYPE AND ONLY THE BODY TYPE. Please do not argue further with this. Know the facts. Know the fiction. -- Now, we can already be sure that Skywarp, Thundercracker, Slipstream, Bitstream and Hotlink are of the same body-type as Starscream. The Ace Vehicons, Dreadwing, Jetfire, Nacelle and Contrail are still under questioning. We'd need to turn to more reliable sources outside of this wiki to determine if they are of the same body-type as Starscream. Also, WFC on DS features Dirge and Thrust. Why were they not listed? --User:Leo1452 18:29, 19 September 2013 (EDT)

Dirge and Thrust are not listed because they we're never called seekers. It's fanon if you think they we're. Plus, we don't know if what holds true for a G1 universe (Hotlink and Bitstream sharing Seeker body types) even means they look like Starscream in Alinged.

Also, I'd support a move to Group, over Body type. Escargon 18:35, 19 September 2013 (EDT)

There are hundreds of Air Warriors in the background of comics and cartoons without names. They were never referred to as Seekers. It is implied. If Dirge and Thrust truly are not Seekers in Aligned, which I am not saying is impossible, we need to prove it. If we cannot prove it, we'll need to at least mention them. For example: "Dirge and Thrust were featured in both Autobot and Decepticon versions of War For Cybertron on Nintendo DS, though they have never been directly referred to as Seekers." Or something like that. And yes, I am only assuming that Bitstream and Hotlink are Seekers. We'd need to prove that they are of the same body-type as Starscream. --User:Leo1452 18:47, 19 September 2013 (EDT)

This is starting to sound a lot like fanon. We only use what we see in fiction, and for now, that means Dirge and Ramjet (not Thrust.) are not Seekers. I say we just move this thing to Group already.

You have to understand that isn't fanon to mention that certain characters who perfectly fit under the category of Seekers, but have never been referred to as Seekers, isn't fanon. It's simply noting something to DECREASE assumptions. For example, on disambiguation pages, there is often a "not to be confused with" section of the page. --User:Leo1452

Why do you keep saying Bitstream and Hotlink are the same body-type as Starscream? Also, why do you think there is any body-type called a Seeker in the Aligned continuity besides the WFC "Energon Seeker" that we only know three people had once millions of years ago? -LV 19:39, 19 September 2013 (EDT)

Are you serious? Are you kidding me? I only said that Bitstream and Hotlink were of the same design as Starscream ONCE, and was corrected. I said that we need to prove that they AREN'T the same body-type as Starscream. And I did NOT say that there is a body type called "Seeker" in Aligned. I said that there ISN'T and that the term "Seeker" in Aligned refers to the team, NOT a body-type. And Energon Seekers isn't a body type and it is clear that there are far more than 3 NAMED Energon Seekers from years ago. I don't know what you were on when you read what I wrote and your sources for your "facts" are probably ComicVine and Fanfiction.net. Know the facts. Know the fiction. We have already established the things you are bringing back up long ago. --User:Leo1452 21:31, 19 September 2013 (EDT)

The day we have to prove that characters we've never seen aren't the same body-type as other characters is the day cretins like you overrun the wiki. -LV 21:49, 19 September 2013 (EDT)

Can we please keep the discussion a bit more civil? --abates 21:51, 19 September 2013 (EDT)

This whole argument was unnecessary. In the Aligned continuity, the term "seeker" does not refer to a body-type, but a group. Although the term is very ambiguous in this reality, it is definetly not a body-type. Aligned continuity seekers should have a page separate from this body-type page. User:Leo1452 10:31, 23 April 2014 (EDT)

Personally I'd tend towards renaming this article to "(subgroup)" since that seems to be the most common way "Seeker" is used. Starscream, Thundercracker and Skywarp don't even share a bodytype in IDW any more, but ISTR they're still referred to as "Seekers". --abates (talk) 22:41, 23 April 2014 (EDT)

Seeker (group)

So I'm thinking that we really need to rename this page Seeker (group). Given the discussion right above this one, as well as a few others on this page, it's abundantly clear that outside of G1 the Seekers don't necessarily share a body type as the page would suggest. Additionally, the concept of a Seeker body type would not be lost, as the identifying factor of being a member of the Seekers within G1 is their body anyway, so this page innately represents both the group and the body type. This would also legitimize the mention of the SG Seekers since they are the mirror universe equivalent of the usual jets, and more odd groups like the movie and Alligned Seekers.--BlackStarscream (talk) 04:20, 31 January 2014 (EST)

"(subgroup)" might fit more in line with the typical TF terms, but yeah this title might fit better than it currently is. --Sabrblade (talk) 08:23, 31 January 2014 (EST)

I should note that the parenthetical doesn't have to include every iteration listed on the page. Parentheticals are more about the original usage than the inevitable drift. We *can* massage the page title to be more inclusive, but it is definitely not necessary by wiki law or anything. --ItsWalky (talk) 12:46, 31 January 2014 (EST)

So I guess years after I brought this up from my old name, a few people finally came around. Back then, these guys kept going in circles saying I was committing fanon and insulting my intelligence. "If it's called a seeker, then it's a goddamn seeker." Yeah, but the term Seeker has different meanings than just the body-type. Won't name names, but this person since wrote for Ask Vector Prime. This kind of attitude practically defines the fanbase nowadays. I was a lot younger when I first got into Transformers forums, but in retrospect, just wow. Scroll up to the topic right above this one and have a read if you're into unproductive, boring bickering. I don't want to be chastised for bringing personal history into this, but my character was attacked multiple times back then just for raising the simplest questions and nobody did anything about it. I think it's reasonable that you allowed me this minute to "clear my name." All I said was that Aligned Seekers aren't all the same body-type, so this page is a misnomer. Not really pushing the envelope there. That's just a fact. If those hogging the page are too stubborn to change it, then that's their prerogative. JohnStartop (JohnStartop) 6:46, 23 October 2019 (EST)

"Red Wing" character model

I don't think this should be here. For starters it isn't actually Red Wing, it's one of the models Derik made made for his "squinting at blown up pixelated background characters" Roadblocking Rainmakers articles (which can be found here http://deriksmith.livejournal.com/). Now I'm not sure if those seekers should be added to this page or not, but the red guy should definitely not be here labeled as Red Wing.RavenG (talk) 22:11, 7 February 2015 (EST)

Nacelle

Is NightViper posting something vague on the Allspark somehow not "authorial intent" for assigning Nacelle to be a character he resembles in virtually no way whatsoever, or is the fact that the bio explicitly calls out his "new wings" good enough? This isn't meant to be quite as snarky as it sounds, but I have to admit it's hard not to be snarky about. -LV (talk) 13:23, 9 April 2015 (EDT)

Slaughterhouse

Would it be inappropriate for the wiki to note the fan name "Slaughterhouse" for the Onslaught-colored Seeker from "Five Faces of Darkness, Part 4"? As someone else wrote on the page for RID #12 "City on Fire", it's a pretty danged cool name. S.H.I.E.L.D. Agent 47 (talk) 13:37, 17 July 2015 (EDT)

Kreons

Anybody feel up to adding the Kreon Seekers to the toy section, 'cause it's giving me headaches even thinking about it. --Khajidha (talk) 09:53, 13 February 2017 (EST)

Should we make a new page?

There is no page on this wiki for Tetrajets, this is the closest I could find. I was wondering if we should make that a page? I mean, it is a Cybertronian vehicle seen semi-frequently. Even if it has no official name, we could still make a page for it. I just don't want to step out of line if it's not something we want. Cylasbreakdown (talk) 17:05, 26 April 2019 (EDT)