Talk:Transformers: Universe (2003 franchise)

Universe "2" how do we handle it.

The first pictures of toys in the new "Universe" line packaging have started to show up so I thought it was a good point to ask how we want to handle that line. The old Botcon tied Universe line kind of ended a year or two back now but we've had a few entries still trickling out in that packaging (to clearence storres like Big Lots). I've still been considering those part of the old line even though the main line and fiction had ended.

Now this new Universe banner begins. Is it a seperate thing or a new phase of the old? DO we consider it a continuation of the old Universe franchise even though that's basically been defunct and its a fresh start that "fictionally" will be totally divorced from that line, serveing rather as a blanket label for any non-Animated release regardless of continuity/story matters? Or does the "new start" make it a new franchise necessitating its own page/label. --ZacWilliam 12:52, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Maybe we could use something like "Universe (2008)" for the new Universe line? Hm. --TX55 15:12, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Keeping it in the same place would, in some ways, be simpler... but it would muck up a lot of fiction ideas, especially things like the Universe characters category. Giving it a new name with a parenthetical will also muck things up, because we use franchise names to disambiguate character articles. I'd rather not have an article called, for example, "Prowl (Universe (2008))". So... I'm not sure. --Steve-o 16:05, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

So, have we decided yet? People (not me, I'm waiting) are beginning to add Universe 2008 toy entries, and I am concerned about where we should put them, either under the existing Universe banner or Universe 2008 for guys who have toys back in the original Universe line and the 2008 version. --FFN 03:22, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I think the new line Universe line should definitely be clearly separated from the old one at all times. The old one had a storyline, the new one is just a catch-all banner for toys that aren't part of the main line. They aren't the same thing at all. --KilMichaelMcC 14:37, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Same. We really should keep the two Universe lines separate at all times since they really are two very distinct lines. At the moment, I don't know if they're going to even have any new characters in the new Universe line, so I don't know if the above scenario Steve-O created is even likely to happen. If it does, I don't really have a problem with, say, "Prowl (Universe 2008)". --M Sipher 16:12, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't see a likelihood of too much overlap. I say treat the new Universe as a continuation of the old Universe, and handle any continuity headaches if (or when) a company such as Fun Pub actually gives them fiction.--Rosicrucian^Talk 16:23, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. 2008 Universe is not remotely the same thing as the first Universe, aside from being a "secondary" line to the main one. We don't have both "Classics" lines treated as if they were a single thing. And on that note, if you think for one second FP won't use the "Classics 2.0" guys in their Classics-based fictions.... --M Sipher 17:10, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh, obviously. However, the Classics 2.0 figures are obviously intended to be their G1 counterparts, so there's no danger of us having to create new pages for them. No continuity headache there.--Rosicrucian^Talk 17:15, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, that's never happened.

But that having been said, I actually don't have a problem with "Prowl (Universe (2008))" or "Prowl (Universe 2008)." Or even, in theory, "Prowl (Classics 2.0)" or just "Prowl (Classics)," since "Classics" was barely a canon designation to begin with. -- Jackpot 19:03, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

However, that may require us to move the pages with "(Universe)" tags to "(Universe (year Universe 1 came out))". Maybe "(Universe 2)"? If anything, we probably shouldn't make a final decision until Hasbro adds the line to their site (i.e. bios, logo pics).

Maybe someone can ask The Angry Aaron Archer at Botcon or ComicCon. After all, isn't that where we got the term "Unicron Trilogy"? --FortMax 19:17, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

The minutiae of the packaging might help us out too, since it's a size class, of all things, that lends legitimacy to the term "Classics." I don't see much need to ask Archer anything, since the Hasbro team has already given us "Classics 2.0."

I'm all in favor of waiting until the toys are out, the bios are up, etc. Anything that people decide to use in the Wiki now will probably end up changing, no matter what conclusion we come to with our limited evidence.

- Jackpot 19:24, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Character parentheticals are one thing- they go in their home continuity-family by first-choice, right? So if we got a 'Universe 2' Waspinator, since Universe is a G1 Continutiy Family line, that character would be "Waspinator (G1)", right? We'd only need a more specific designation if there was overlap- like if we got a Universe 2.0 Divebomb figure? -Derik 19:37, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

"that character would be "Waspinator (G1)", right?"

Uh, no. the new Universe line is not explicitly "G1 only". It's a "not the main line" line for whatever Hasbro feels liek making that isn't Animated (or Movie product, seemingly) and that's about it, as Hasbro said it was at BC07. (That wave 1 is all new-mold G1 guys is just how things worked out.) In fact, both the G1 and Beast Wars Robot Heroes have the new "Transformers Universe" packaging/logo. If we get a toy with a recycled name a toy that cannot be reasonably assumed to be any pre-existing character of that name, then we would have to determine what it goes under by if it has any sort of fictional setting attached to it or not. If we can't figure it out, it'd end up liekly having to be dismbigged by the line name. --M Sipher 20:35, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Yea, we msy even need the actual cases for some of this. Take the Classics Legends. The toy packaging makes not mention of "Classics", but the case (which was used to ship my Legends Menasor and Whirl, oddly enough) is labeled "TRA CLASSICS LEGENDS ASST WV 2 07". --FortMax 19:54, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

There was no need to rely on shipping labels to refer to the orignal Classics Legends as part of Classics, as they were referred to as such on Hasbro's website, along with everything else we think of as Classics that didn't use the name on-packaging. (Mini-Cons, Ultimate Battle two-pack, DVD 20th Prime) I think it likely we can expected the same this time around. --KilMichaelMcC 07:48, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Looks like the new Classics guys are more officially "Classics" than ever. I say we treat the "Classic Series" label as a continuation of the first Classics line, with no significant break for "Classics 2.0" or "Universe Classics" or whatever. This detour into Universe is worthy of at least a footnote, but I wouldn't call it out any more than that. - Jackpot 01:22, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

OK, So how do we do it?

Well Hasbro's given the New Universe line it's own page so really time to make a definate decision on this. It seems like the general concensus is seperate pages for the old defunct Universe line and the New one. Yes? Makes sense to me. So how do we want to go with the line's overal page? Universe (2008 franchise) is the best I can think of but it's admitedly awkward. If we do go with that then we need to rename/move this one to Universe (???? franchise) for whatever year it started, yes?

(edit- Oh and I just realized we may need as disambig page since we have the Marvel Universe profuile books too)

--ZacWilliam 12:39, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Universe Fiction

Where's the best location for the Universe comics to be located in the Fiction section of Character Pages? I've seen it as a separate heading, a subheading of the Cartoon, a subheading of Beast Wars, etc. --Xaaron 03:32, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Should be a subheading of "Beast Era," I believe wholeheartedly. --ItsWalky 04:04, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Even for characters that wouldn't have a Beast Era heading normally, like Sunstreaker, Trailbreaker, Big Daddy...? --Xaaron 04:14, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Walky, though I admit it gets tricky because we don't know what dimension Unicron is in, if he's in any pre-established dimension at all. To use your examples, Sunstreaker and Trailbreaker would certainly get "Beast Era" sections because their Universe backstory puts them in the BW/BM universe all along, simply offworld until they returned to the technorganic Cybertron. But Big Daddy showed up only within Unicron, so technically he may have never been in a Beast universe. I could see making exceptions for characters like him, elevating their "Universe comic" sections to top-level because the Unicron-dimension they're in isn't identifiable as any other universe. For simplicity's sake, I'd like to be able to say that Uni is still just in the BM universe, but I don't think there's any evidence for that. - Jackpot 17:24, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

So what about cases like Brawn? Here's a guy pulled out of the Generation 2 comic continuity and dropped into (supposedly) Beast Era cartoon continuity. So should he get a separate Beast Era heading, should the Beast Era be made a subheading under his Marvel Comics continuity heading, even though it would never be there on any other character's page or...ow. ow. ow. I think my cerebellum just imploded.

I guess as a more general question, then: if a character dimension jumps from one continuity family to another family or subcontinuity, are those new adventures listed under the reality the character is in or the reality the character is from? --Xaaron 22:22, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

The reality the character is in. Check out Sideswipe (G1) for what I consider to be a good example of how it's done. In most cases, you won't even need to specify which continuity the Universe comics belong in; they're just their own high-level header. If Sideswipe had ALSO had, say, a Beast Wars cartoon appearance, then there might be a need for an umbrella header for both of them. (In my sandbox on the subject, I suggested "Beast cartoon continuity". There, I also folded the Universe comic into a "3H comics" header. You probably don't need to be that nonspecific if all you're talking about is Universe, though.) - Jackpot 23:13, 3 June 2008 (UTC)