Talk:Transformation cog (biology)

I can't get started on doing it right now as I'm just headed out the door, but - this thing is called a Transforming Cog. - Chris McFeely 18:20, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I think the only time it's called a Transforming Cog is by the narrator in the recap montages. IIRC, every TF that mentions it calls it a Transformation Cog. (Actually, before today I hadn't noticed that the narrator said "-ing" until I rewatched the recap for pt2 just now.) - Ducktimus 19:23, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Perceptor introduces it as a "transformation cog" in FFoD Part 1, and Mixmaster and Sky Lynx use the term once each again in Part 5, but all the other characters throughout Part 5 (funnily, it's not referred to by name in parts 2-4) and everyone in "The Ultimate Weapon" call it a "transforming cog." - Chris McFeely 20:25, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

So we have two equally acceptable terms. Note the existance of the other term in the article. But I think the article itself should say 'Transformation Cog' because the cog itself does not transform. (And thus the article title obviates one possible point of confusion for someone who's unfamiliar with the concept.) -Derik 20:59, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Yeeeeah, but it's called a "transformation cog" three times, and a "transforming cog" more than triple that number. Well, up for a vote, I guess. - Chris McFeely 21:06, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I prefer "transformation." Just sounds better. And, as Derik pointed out, it's not as potentially confusing as "transforming." - Jackpot 21:54, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I also prefer "transformation" for both of the reasons Jackpot gave, but I made an edit mentioning both that could easily be switched around if the majority opinion is for "transforming" instead. - Ducktimus 00:36, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Just to note it: Nitrostreak calls his a transformation cog. --KilMichaelMcC 06:31, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Slugslinger's Ambition

Does the Transform Super Cog from Slugslinger's Ambition need a page of its own or should it just be a section on this page? --Khajidha (talk) 07:50, 12 August 2018 (EDT)

Amalgamous Prime’s artifact split?

Should we split Amalgamous Prime’s Transformation Cog to its own article? It’s kind of weird that there’s an Artifact of the Primes on the same article as a transformer biological component. I know they’re called the same thing, but in-universe, Amalgamous’ cog is more on the level of the Enigma of Combination or the Lenses than Brain modules or Sparks. Especially with the new AOTP toy including it, as well as the influx of Transformers One related merchandise at about the same time, I feel like there’s room for confusion. Cylasbreakdown (talk) 19:10, 27 July 2025 (EDT)

For future proofing and given that its being released as part of AOTP, they probably should be separate. I know there's a few redlinks scattered across pages that link to an Amalgamous specific t-cog so others have had the idea to make it its own specific page. The only reason I haven't is because so far, the most notable mention of Amalgamous's T-Cog is the story involving the Mutacons in The Covenant of Primus. Amalgamous is probably the most underused of the 13 thus far so it makes sense why there hasn't been a page made yet. Dayton Hammon (talk) 20:09, 27 July 2025 (EDT)

"Transformation Cog (Amalgamous)" in the vein of Star Saber (Prima) and Requiem Blaster (Megatronus) strikes me as reasonable. --AzimuthAcolyte (talk) 23:28, 27 July 2025 (EDT)

You know, there was some informal talk awhile back on the Discord about streamlining the disambigs for the Thirteen's artifacts as "(Thirteen)", so like "Star Saber (Thirteen)", "Requiem Blaster (Thirteen)", etc. instead of "Star Saber (Prima)", "Requiem Blaster (Megatronus)", etc. So Amalgamous's cog would be at "Transformation Cog (Thirteen)" in this setup. --Sabrblade (talk) 23:44, 27 July 2025 (EDT)

I could get behind that as well, it is always better to standardize where we can. --AzimuthAcolyte (talk) 23:48, 27 July 2025 (EDT)

How about "Transformation Cog (Artifact)", "Star Saber (Artifact)", "Requiem Blaster (Artifact)" and so forth rather than just (Thirteen)? - Singularity (talk) 00:13, 28 July 2025 (EDT)

That was previously suggested in the aforementioned informal Discord talk, and like I said back then, that doesn't work as succinctly because the Star Saber and Requiem Blaster of Armada are likewise considered artifacts. "(Thirteen)" is more straightforward and to the point. --Sabrblade (talk) 00:21, 28 July 2025 (EDT)

I think "(Thirteen)" works, but it would only really apply to Prima's Star Saber, Megatronus' Requiem Blaster, Amalgamous' Scythe (weapon) and this page. The other artifacts wouldn't need it, though I suppose they could always be retroactively applied if needed later on.Dayton Hammon (talk) 00:49, 28 July 2025 (EDT)

"(Thirteen)" works for me. --Broadside (talk) 19:35, 5 August 2025 (EDT)

Likewise. - IGEBM13 (talk) 06:32, 11 August 2025 (EDT)

Proof of concept: User:Cylasbreakdown/Transformation Cog (Thirteen) -Cylasbreakdown (talk) 21:31, 28 July 2025 (EDT)

Looks pretty good to me! --AzimuthAcolyte (talk) 01:49, 29 July 2025 (EDT)

I have uploaded an image from IDW2019 and put it on my sandbox to further sell the concept. Though, was there an image in the Covenant? I’m guessing not, right? Cylasbreakdown (talk) 14:04, 31 July 2025 (EDT)

I do not believe so. The Covenant doesn't really have a lot of devoted Artifact images beyond the Triptych Mask and whatever the Primes happen to be holding in their portraits. --AzimuthAcolyte (talk) 14:57, 31 July 2025 (EDT)

It’s been a couple weeks and there’s been no dissent; am I good to move ahead with the split? Cylasbreakdown (talk) 21:09, 9 August 2025 (EDT)

Go for it. --Broadside (talk) 07:37, 11 August 2025 (EDT)