Talk:The One

I argue that The is part of The One's formal title, and should remain.

I will probably be outvoted, but I still think it sounds dippy alone. -Derik 14:17, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree. --KilMichaelMcC 14:21, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Quick, let's change it back before Steve-o gets back from botcon!

"Well, we held a vote, it's too bad you weren't here..." It's Assistant Editors Month on the Wiki!-Derik 17:28, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Mmn, yes, I'd vote for "The One" too. - Chris McFeely 20:02, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Passed unanimously! --Suki Brits 22:55, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

DAMMIT!!!!!! --Steve-o 05:06, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

I vote for "The One" also. But, how about some content first? --Crockalley 23:33, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm not really sure it's a vote-on thing. It's like voting on how to spell actual words. Proper protocol calls for "One." It sounds dippy, but that's just how it's done. --ItsWalky 00:09, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

But is "that's just how it's done" really a good enough reason when 1) it DOES sound dippy (for The Fallen too) and 2) it makes it a bit Harder for folks to find things, as people doing an info search will almost certainly search "The One" not just the word "one". I mean, is there a real reason for doing it that way other than made up "protocal" because if not I'd say it's just buracratic silliness to stick to a rule that doesn't help and actually confuses matters a little. I add my vote for "Names that are actually titles" to include the "The". ZacWilliam 00:28, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

You are aware of the existence of redirects, yes? Interrobang 00:50, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree with most of the people posting here. The article really should be "The One," as "The" is part of its name. Just like "The Fallen." I mean, can you conceive of any possible situation in which it would be called "One" instead of "The One"? - Dark T Zeratul 01:21, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

"Hello, One." "You're never going to get away with this, One!" Unless you say stuff like "I'll get you ice cream, the boy." or "Damn you, the Joker." Interrobang 01:29, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, in *adressing a character with a title-name personally* you might drop "The" as in calling out to The Pope, by saying "Heya, Pope! Overhere!" But when talking about such a character you would pretty much always use "The" as in "Boy The Fallen sure knows how to warm up a room." and given that these entries are not personal adresses to the characters but us talking about them for other people, using "The" for title-names is just much more natural. Again, any actual reason not to? ZacWilliam 02:38, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Because it's more natural for me to have the titles not have an article at the beginning unless it's the name of a work? That seems to be equal to your justification. Interrobang 02:43, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Is the Fallne's Titanium toy called 'Fallen' or 'The Fallen'? I mean, if the toy iself is sodl with 'The' in its name... -Derik 03:28, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

How about "One, The"? (And likewise, "Fallen, The"). It's a little doofy, but not as doofy as leaving it out entirely. And it does follow a proper indexing protocol.

There is no reason to worry about indexing or searching. With a redirect at The One, anybody typing "the one" into the search box will be sent to The One and immediately redirected to One automagically. "The" is not part of this entity's "name". If anything, it has no name at all, which is why it's referred to descriptively. When referred to in the article, it will presumably be as "the One" with "the" included. Even in the first sentence when the term is bolded, I would recommend bolding "the". But I see no real reason to include it in the article title. --Steve-o 06:16, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Real reason to include it in the article title is because it sounds right --Crockalley 11:13, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

But there is an indexing concern: how it gets listed here, among any other categories it may eventually be put into. I agree that having it filed under "T" for "The" feels wrong. But "One, The" seems a good compromise to me. - Jackpot

[[Category:Whatever|Something, The]] would list a "The Something" article under "S". We already do this for humans, both real and fictional, to index them by last name. --KilMichaelMcC 18:01, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Oh, well in that case, hell. My vote DEFINITELY goes for calling the article "The One." If we're looking for a "real reason," then it would be that so far the name has never been used without the "The" in any fiction. And "One" is such a common word that it helps to distinguish it as a name/title. And, above all, it looks just plain doofy without it. - Jackpot 18:20, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Here's the best way I can sum up the case for "The One": Imagine seeing it on a category-page and being unfamiliar with it. If it's just the word "One," it comes across very strangely and vaguely. One what? You don't even know if it's a noun per se. But if it's listed as "The One," it immediately comes across as a name or title. And every other reference to it will have the "the," so it seems counterintuitive that the one instance of omission would be the TITLE, of all things. So which is more important: reduced obfuscation, or hard-and-fast adherence to a stylistic rule? - Jackpot 19:01, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

The article itself says "The One is Unicron's and Primus' daddy." Since the title of the article is "One," shouldn't this sentence read, "One is Unicron's and Primus' daddy."? I'm being facetious. But really, would you say that? "One is here to pick up the kids." "Oh, I saw One at the grocery store today." "Primus and Unicron were created by One." Would you say that? --Crockalley 20:04, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

That's a really awful argument. By that logic nearly every subgroup, and possibly the factions as well, should have a "The" in their article titles. --Steve-o 22:35, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Not necessarily. "Constructicons built the city." "We're being attacked by Stunticons." "Oh no, Dinobots!" Personally, I agree with moving this to "One, The." - Dark T Zeratul 23:00, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Almost every group name CAN have "the" attached to it, yes, but the key difference there is exclusivity. "Combaticons" or "the Combaticons" - both usages are in common parlance. Whereas we've NEVER seen "One" without a "The." Moreover, as I stated above, "One" by itself is such a common and ambiguous word that its specific meaning here is needlessly obscured if there's no "The." You admit, "When referred to in the article, it will presumably be as 'the One' with 'the' included. Even in the first sentence when the term is bolded, I would recommend bolding 'the'." So if every other reference to it has a "The," then why should the title be awkwardly different? - Jackpot 23:06, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Probably because froma data-searching standpoint, this would be filed under the O's. That's why, for years libraries would call this One, The, when it should be The One. This was the way thigns were done prior to associative filing, when things needed to fit in ONE PLACE in a hierarchy. (In that case, the Alaphabet.) -Derik 23:54, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

See KilMichaelMcC's point above; we can title the article "The One" and still have it categorized under O. - Dark T Zeratul 00:21, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

BRILLIANT! -Derik 03:19, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Surely even wiki standards must bow in the face of an overwhelming 'ick.' That's why we have the suffix system we had today, it's a mixed standard that recognizes that sometimes imposing standards actually hurts the material's presentation. -Derik 22:55, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the move. The One's name is not "One," nor is it neccessarily "The One," but is always adressed as "The One." I disagree that it hurts the material's presentation, and in fact move that it hurts it WITHOUT it. Similar with The Faller; The is part of his title (as stated below) and it would make things a lot easier if we got rid of all the redirect pages with "The" that point to pages without "The." -King Starscream 23:06, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Move to The One

Wikipedia, which also shaves 'the's off nonethelesess has an article for The One, that being a gnostic uber-god from which all lesser gods were emanated. If Wikipedia sticks a The on an emanating monad God, I suggest we do to. -Derik 23:29, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I still agree. Also, I submit that the fact that we retain "The"s in the titles of fiction should carry over to titular names like this one and "The Fallen," which have never appeared without their "The"s. - Jackpot 23:48, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I disagree, just because it won't be as funny when I make the eventual and inevitable "Landmine has taken his speech, taken his sight, taken his hearing" joke. -hx 23:39, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Passing off a disambiguation page as an actual article is a little deceptive, Derik. And since when have we given a shit about what the fuck Wikipedia does? Ignash edits all of the Transformers articles over there. Should he edit our articles, as well? —Interrobang 00:46, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

...disambiguwhoa? *looks* Huh, it is. sorry- I was thrown by the mini-article at the top, didn't realize it doubled as a disambiguation page. Honest mistake. Still think we should move it, but like you say- investigating the logical basis for the move- like what determines a proper noun- wouldn't hurt. (It'd actually probably save us grief since we'd be setting a precedent.) Uh- when a decision is come to, make sure the logic make it into our Naming Conventions article. (assuming one exists.) -Derik 03:27, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree that Wikipedia's standards are not and should not be ours, but I appreciate Derik bringing this up just as an example of how it looks when this controversial topic IS played out the other way. If you don't think the disambig page is relevant enough, check out The All. I've already spelled out my reasons for keeping the "The", but seeing it in action just reinforces my belief that it ought to be that way. - Jackpot 01:03, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

By the way, here's the reason WHY Wikipedia puts a "The" in that title: "A, an and the are normally avoided as the first word (Economy of the Second Empire, not The economy of the Second Empire), unless part of a proper noun (The Hague)." I don't know how to determine what's "part of a proper noun" when it comes to this, but it sure seems like "The One" and "The Fallen" are applicable. Does anyone with a more grammatical background know how to dissect this? - Jackpot 01:15, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

In simple terms, if you capitalise the "The" even in the middle of a sentence (e.g. "We're taking a trip to The Hague."), then Wikipedia includes it in the title.

So, if you want to use that as an example, all uses of "The One" to refer to this should always capitalise the "The" (e.g. "Primus' daddy The One is de big cheese"). [all-caps, like most comics speech bubbles, obviously is no help one way or The Other]. - SanityOrMadness 15:40, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Before the dawn of time, Order and Chaos existed in perfect harmony within a self-contained entity called The One.{{#if:|{{{quote2}}}}}{{#if:Transformers: the Ultimate Guidep53|Transformers: the Ultimate Guide{{#if:p53|, p53|}}|}}

-Derik 18:34, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Outstanding. It's parsed as "The One" mid-sentence twice on that page. Also, from the inside cover of War Within: The Dark Ages #2: "Into this melting pot comes The Fallen, an ancient member of the TRANSFORMERS with dark designs on the planet." This usage also appears again in the same passage.

I fully support adopting Wikipedia's practice on proper-name "The"s in article titles. I think it should be incorporated in our style guide and used on "The One" and "The Fallen". Everybody: for/against?

- Jackpot 21:27, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

• Go for it. - SanityOrMadness 22:11, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm all for it. --KilMichaelMcC 06:27, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Having contributed nothing to the discussion, I say do that thang. - Chris McFeely 09:57, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Inside, my soul weeps over capitalized articles. —Interrobang 02:29, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

The Vok's "One"

Okay- this is what I've got... I think the Vok's one is a separate thing.

They guard the formation of the One, in the future. (Primaeval Dawn part 1) They reference The Plan, which seems to be Primus's grand plan- and are makign corrections in many universes to suit their interpretation of that architecture. They envision a future which they call "The One... and the All," which is a unity of worlds, timelines and dimensions, all synchronized. (PD3) The PD1 prologue specifically checks language of attonement and balancing the cosmic scales... I think they're trying to create a 'One' where all the fracture universes, at some point in the future, are in balance, planned harmony in accordance with The Plan (which they have seen the full design for, unlike anyone else) and when Bad Things Happen in oen world, they make a Good Thing happen to balance it out. (The experiment on Earth was supposed to be one such Good Thing.)

The Vok also say they are 'the source of the core,' both of which are words used to describe Energon, Primus, or the sentient core of the universe which created Primus. (The latter has been retconned- but other parts of that origin that would seem to contradict make it in according to The Ultimate Guide in a slightly altered fashion.)

So, where am I going with this? Oh yeah- I think this might be the Alternity. (Or rather, I think the Alternity might have been meant to be a reference to the perfect future or purity and goodness that "The One and The All" speaks of.)

Regardless- The One and The All doesn't seem to be The One spoken of here- even allowing for a radically circular timeloop where the Vok are created by Primus, and then create The One who creates Primus who... it doesn't really fit. It's just another of the half-dozen meanings ascribed to the phrase 'til all are one' that are simultaneously valid.

Uh... I'm fishing for thoughts on this, I'm not sure how to deal with it int he article. -Derik 21:39, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I'd say keep the intro as nonspecific as possible, then separate all specific information into as many fiction sections as necessary ("DK Ultimate Guide" and "3H comics" are the only two I can think of). Because of the woo-woo metaphysical nature of all this, not to mention the paucity of data, I think it's safest just to put all information about things called "The One" into a single article.

As for your specific thoughts here, I don't know enough about the various elements to comment (like what the Alternity is, for instance). But, assuming the links you make are relevant, I'd say write up the facts in the fiction section, then link to all the related topics, noting that any connections are speculative.

- Jackpot 22:42, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

The Alternity is a Binaltech concept. The Vok's One is some minor plot point in a convention-exclusive comic. They're not connected, no matter how much Derik wants to shove fanon into articles. —Interrobang 23:41, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

You and I are probably never going to stop butting heads over this sort of thing, but I really do think that when any TF fiction presents itself as meta-continuity, its nature demands that we somehow acknowledge where it rubs shoulders with other meta-type fiction, whether the authors meant it to or not. What I envisioned for Derik's suggestion would be, say, "The Vok use the term "The One" in reference to Primus' grand plan, which blah blah blah insert all other The One facts from the 3H comics here. Note: There's this other concept in another continuity called "the Alternity," which is similar in such-and-such way."

I'm still kind of figuring out where your personal line between helpful connections and baseless speculation is. But presenting it in that fashion seems kosher to me, especially if kept brief.

- Jackpot 04:09, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Toss it in a trivia section and I'll live with it. I'm grudgingly fine with it as long as it isn't within the in-universe text and presented as "this is similar", not "this is probably the same thing". I do think the Vok stuff should be on a separate page, though. The two Ones aren't the same thing. —Interrobang 04:46, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually, After writing this- I went back and read the new BT story pages- the ones produced after the Alternity was intro'd in #17, and #18 refers tot he alternity as a direct evolution of the Binaltech Transformer. There's... some reasons that could still fit, depending on how metaphorically you make that statement, but I'm probably gonan drop that line of speculation. (I do want to pick DrDpengeler's brain on the original phrasing used though, since he helped with the translation.)

Really, the main reason ti appealed to me is-- Ichikawa-kun picked up on all sorts of stuff, especially obscure stuff, for his BT stories. And I coudl see him choosign the name 'Alternity' as a dual reference to the Alternators and 'The All'. -Derik 05:23, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't mind seeing a "The All" article that focused on the Vok's "unity of worlds, timelines, and dimensions." From there, it could grow into a repository for all in-fiction references to the multiverse. The continuity article seems to be our default go-to for that topic, but I think it'd be nice to have another one for the specific times when the fiction refers to itself as a multilinear collective.

And incidentally, I do still think that the Vok's One should be in this article too, as my edits ought to make clear. When the Vok first talk about The One, it's very much in line with what Furman would write years later in the Ultimate Guide.... but like the Earthforce stories, it's paradoxically when Furman took over Primeval Dawn that the Vok's One became contradictory.

- Jackpot 01:26, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Earthforce makes perfect sense unless you're in denial about there being two timelines. I mean-- it's fairly explicit... Galvatron II even arrives in different circumstances in Earthforce. -Derik 11:08, 10 May 2009 (EDT)

Multiversal Singularity

He is one, yes? Kaje 18:49, 11 May 2010 (EDT)

They've never expicitly said so but I don't see how he could not be given his nature and story.--76.28.76.206 22:03, 11 May 2010 (EDT)

Daiakuron as The One's analog

So the Transformers/GI Joe story with Daiakuron has been out for a bit. Obviously the involvement of the Quintessons conflicts with the usual multiversal origins for Primus and Unicron but seeing as Multiversal Singularities are nullified after the Shrouding event, perhaps Daiakuron should be mentioned as a possible analog for The One in that particular story. It did create Unicron, Primus, Atlas and potentially other members of their pantheon. It would also be the first actual appearance of The One with an actual body or form that doesn't look like a galaxy-nebula-thing.--Iustitia (talk) 17:23, 26 January 2018 (EST)