Talk:Sideways (Armada)

Main image

Hey, wasn't there a different Sideways profile pic at some point? One that wasn't just his head again, which is really redundant with the headshot of him just a further bit down the page? --ItsWalky 21:27, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Fixed! --ItsWalky 21:47, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

I changed it earlier because the original pic there was total crap and tiny. Oddly enough I was going to use the Armada cardart (which has exactly the same pic you used), but I was warned against it for some reason. --FFN 05:11, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

RID Sideways = Armada Sideways

I'm gonan throw out this interesting nugget-- RiD Sideways is the same character. Even JAPAN thinks so. Their Robotmasters page lists Sideways 1st appearance as RiD (or was it CR? It's been awhile, and it's moot for the purposes of this Wiki.) The POINT is, Armada is the SECOND toyline Sideways/Doubleface appeared in, not the first.

I noticed this as well. Also, I noticed that Axer`s page claims that he is the ONLY character to physically cross over from continuity to continuity. Based on the information from the article this is not likely true. Any objections?--Autobotx1010 19:39, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Okay, Sideway's page does indeed already say that R.I.D. sideways is the same person, and ditto with the Robot masters version. Scroll down, it's all there in the toy section. Sideways doesn't appear in the fiction for R.I.D., just the toy line, so only the toy was mentioned.

Plus, Axer's page says he's the first character to cross continuity, not "only."

You're joining an argument that is seventeen months old. It's been resolved for a while. --Atomic spaceman 21:55, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

If you assume that RM Sideways is the same character as Armada Sideways (a fair assumption) then it logically follows that RiD Sideways probably is as well. (he's no further removed from the Unicron Trilogy than is the Sideways in Robotmasters version of G1.) The fact that RiD sideway's packaging-partnet was another continuity-hopper lends credibility to this approach-- but the Takara stance that he 1st appeared in the line before Armada is the real clincher for me.

Disagreement? -Derik 05:31, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

I had the RiD toy listed on this page in the beginning, but thought instead to just suggest on both pages that they are probably the same guy. Believe me, I agree with you. But if there's enough support, back in here the RiD version goes. --ItsWalky 05:35, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

RID Sideways was not a Japanese release. RID has no ties to Armada, either. It's a name reuse, as the reused bio for RID Sideways was saw in Armada does not even relfect the same character. A ninja? Don't think so. RID Sideways was also an Autobot hero. Totally seperate character. Also want to point out that the character is named Doubleface in Japan, severing the ties to any "Sideways" name use for a toy that is US only. --Bodycount

Hrm. Well for reference here's my post on the subject back in the day exploring the issue- the Takara site said CR BTW, though I don't have a link. (It's probably still up, but I have no idea where Takara's RM site is, so...) -Derik 05:41, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Bodycount- read the damn post I linked to.

• Takara says it's the same character, even with all the renaming.
• Though it didn't come through int he cartoon, Armada Sideways WAS suppsoedly a ninja
• Eat me

-Derik 05:44, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Takara also recognized Galaxy Force as part of the Micron Trilogy and lists the characters as the same ones from the previous two shows. Do you also accept that idea? Oh, and I would eat you, but I don't think I can fit that much geek into my stomach.

Man, 2005 used to be the FUTURE, now it's already "back in the day." Anyway, I would agree with Derik the RiD Sideways is most likely the same guy. Unicron can dimension jump after all, and have his servants do the same. --KilMichaelMcC 05:46, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Oh, crap, Derik! I totally forgot about Takara listing RiD Sideways as RM Doubleface's first toy. Thanks for reminding me, and that's certainly enough to join the two probably-the-same guys into the same page. --ItsWalky 05:48, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

...was this not in the first paragraph on the talk page? Admittedly, the usenet post was SPELLCHECKED, and thus much easier to understand. -Derik 05:52, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

I did edit this page last night, mostly at first I corrected the spelling on the RM section, then added a basic outline for RiD Sideways since there was nothing there when I got here, unaware of the connection between UT and RiD Sideways. However, I understand that somehow the RM Doubleface section got attributed to me. I never claimed that Doubleface was a different character, I just fixed some spelling errors, and I, like most fans, didn't know exactly what the connection was between RiD and Armada Sideways. I am not that useless. -- 21:18, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

And who are you, anyway? (I only bring it up because your identity is an important part of your statement here.)--G.B. Blackrock 13:49, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

All this fussin' and fightin' last year when someone could've just looked up Hasbro's online bio for Armada Sideways and seen that it's almost a word-for-word lift from RiD Sideways. Same tech spec numbers, too.--MCRG 16:58, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Hasbro was just emerging from their steal-big-chunks-of-bios-from-old-bios phase at the time these were published. While strong evidence-in-favor (and admittedly we did overlook it) I doubt that it would have been considered decisive. -Derik 20:21, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Turncoats

I think Sideways should retain the turncoat category, his 'actual alliance' being to Unicron nonwithstanding. If I look int he Turncoat category, i expect to see characters who've switched sides, and that's Sideways. -Derik 21:01, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

He didn't really switch sides. He was working for Unicron the entire time, and that job has him posing as both an Autobot and a Decepticon. If that's being a turncoat, then we need to put Punch, Armada Jetfire and Armada Scavenger in there as well, because they were also Decepticons at some point. Imagine three factions, A, B and C. If a guy from side A goes undercover as a B and later "betrayes" be and "becomes" a C, his true alligence is still with A, as he never was actually a B or C anyway. --FortMax 21:20, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

And all those American soldiers who went and fight for the British weren't turncoats either- because that's where their loyalties always lay?

That's the origin of the term.

I realize there's a difference between a turncoat and a double-agent... but sideways seems like he belongs in both somehow. :p Armada thrust, I assume, is a turncoat? -Derik 21:33, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Uh, if Americans were fighting for the British in the American Revolution, then I don't see how their allegiance wasn't to Britain instead of America. I know you like to be incoherent, Derik, but come on now. Interrobang 23:54, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Bad Luck

In Transformers Cybertron Sideways had alot of bad luck. IG he fell into alot of traps.

Yes, yes he did. THAT made me laugh like I was 10. Which I'm not. Oh, and sign your posts, for the love of Primus. The 'Bee :) 19:37, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

RiD Art?

I wince a little to even ask but... does any art of his RiD incarnation exist? --Some jerk who didn't sign his name!

Nope! RID stuff didn't have packaging art, just retouched toy photography. So since that version never got any fiction, d'oh well. Which is just as well, since the Armada guy probably belongs up there anyway. --ItsWalky 02:01, 7 April 2009 (EDT)

RM Section

The Robotmasters section has this note;

In this continuity family, the character is known as "Doubleface," which is one of his Japanese names. Since Robot Masters is a Japanese franchise with no English-language equivalent, we do not use the English name "Sideways" in this section.

...huh? We're not using English names for characters that have them because the fiction was published in Japan? That seems not-right. -Derik 13:03, 13 April 2009 (EDT)

I added that note to account for the way the section was already written, under the assumption that it was written correctly. I have no strong feelings on the matter. Edit: Okay, I've got some feelings now! I'm thinking you're right, Derik, on the logic that if we use "Doubleface" for the RM section, then we would also need to use "Convoy," "Beast Convoy," etc. I think the reason the section was written the way it was is that the author was preserving a veneer of ambiguity over the character, noting that he only CALLED himself by this particular name, for whatever value you choose to give that. But at this point is there any reason to cast that doubt? I don't know RM well enough to say for sure, but the discussion above and what I've gathered about the nature of RM suggest to me that there's no good reason to treat him differently than all of the other old-characters-in-new-bodies that are RM's stock in trade. - Jackpot 23:28, 13 April 2009 (EDT)

I wrote the section using "Doubleface" because that fiction has no English-language equivalent. I'm not super-attached to using his Japanese name there. I just thought it might be appropriate. Part of the reason is that we call his toy "Doubleface" in the respective toy section. We don't "translate" that into his English name, so it felt weird doing it for Robot Masters. --ItsWalky 23:51, 13 April 2009 (EDT)

The Fiction and Toy sections have different naming rules, though (or so I'd gathered). Each individual toy is labeled as whatever is on its packaging, period. But for fiction, we homogenize as much as possible (hence calling RM Convoy "Optimus Prime"). So.... yeah, I'm going to change that section. Also, while I'm at it - Robot Masters isn't its own continuity family, is it? The fiction is pretty sparsely documented here, but what I've been able to scrounge up says it's in some G1 universe or other. Characters are just warping like crazy from across time and space to a G1 Earth in the year 2004. So I'm going to change the continuity-family label too. - Jackpot 00:27, 14 April 2009 (EDT)

Yeah, RM definitely isn't its own continuity family. --ItsWalky 00:42, 14 April 2009 (EDT)

The name change is especially bothersome to me here because... RM Doubleface is the toy that explicitly established that all the Doublefaces were the same character. "This guy first appeared in RiD."

While on the subject... I thought that Cybertron Sideways was actually an AU version of Armada sideways or something... isn't Planet X actually from a parallel universe? -Derik 00:46, 14 April 2009 (EDT)

No, Ask Vector Prime makes it clear he is the same guy. He just happens to be from a parallel dimension, originally. Or... well, wait. Did the Planet X attack happen before or after Gigantian got moved to that parallel dimension? Eh. --ItsWalky 00:48, 14 April 2009 (EDT)

Oh, that makes sense, I guess. Assuming he was in the RiD universe "before" armada (and he'd have to be, his fiction is a straight line afterward) there's really no reason the Armadaverse has to be his "home" universe.

...I feel like this might benefit from an "Origins" section explaining that unlike other characters, this fiction section is all the same iteration of the same guy. -Derik 00:52, 14 April 2009 (EDT)

I'm working one up right now, though I'm putting it in "Notes". You can do as you wish with it when I'm done. - Jackpot 00:59, 14 April 2009 (EDT)

That's good to-- possibly a better way of presenting it too. -Derik 01:01, 14 April 2009 (EDT)

TV Magazine?

There was a Robotmasters story featured in TV Magazine as well? Anyone have scans? Lightsyderthe2nd 10:05, 1 May 2009 (EDT)

(RID)?

Why isn't it Sideways (Armada)? Because he's more prominent in the Unicron Trilogy, and if I recall RID Sideways was a toy only guy. Gearshift 15:01, 29 July 2009 (EDT)

Because the RID Sideways toy was later confirmed to be the same character as Armada Sideways. --FFN 15:31, 29 July 2009 (EDT)

Gearshift isn't contesting that point. He knows they're the same guy; he wants to know why we're not using the most intuitively prominent identifier. The answer - and I know we had a discussion about this article's title somewhere; I think it got lost in the crash - is that we decide what to use for a disambiguation-parenthetical by starting with one simple rule: the first franchise the character appeared in. Sideways appeared in RID first, and there are no other RID Sidewayses. So that's that. - Jackpot 19:44, 30 July 2009 (EDT)

Just to be clear, if e-hobby were to retroactively decide that one of the seekers from MtMtE was, in fact, the same guy, Sideways, we'd rename him Sideways (G1), right? --Jimsorenson 19:55, 30 July 2009 (EDT)

No, because he was RID and Armada and Cybertron before he was G1. Actually, he already DOES exist in the G1 timeline, thanks to Robot Masters. This is an area we go real-world by, not in-fiction. --M Sipher 20:23, 30 July 2009 (EDT)

But I thought the confirmation that RID Sideways was the same as Armada Sideways came after Armada ended. So, how would that be any different? --Jimsorenson 20:32, 30 July 2009 (EDT)

His RiD bio was written to mesh with the upcoming Armada character... he was always intended to be the same guy. We just didn't get it explicitly stated until Robotmasters.

And I'm not sure Siph is right here. If we were to get a Seeker named Sideways who was this same guy and showed up in G1 in new fiction, then he'd still be Sideways (RiD). But if the black seeker in MtMtE (you only see his shoulder and head, he's hiding like Waldo!) was to to be revealed to be this same Sideways, then I think he'd move to "Sideways (G1)" because the G1 cartoon would be his earliest chronological appearance.

@Gearshift... IIRC, in early 2008 we constructed a fully-thought-out justification why it would be consistent with our notability guidelines (we have them, they just very rarely come into play) why it would make sense to keep Sideways at "Sideways (Armada)" if we ever got a second character with his name.

And then then Sideways (ROTF) was announced, the article just got moved to "Sideways (RID)" with very little discussion, and almost no objection. (I'm not quite sure why, but I speculate that Animated's flogging of just-like-G1-but-not characters combined with the increasing number of continuity-jumping characters just eroded a lot of the resistance people had to using the 'proper' disambig.) -Derik 20:42, 30 July 2009 (EDT)

Actually, even if a black G1 Seeker was revealed to be the same guy, he still would be Sideways RID, since we established that toy releases take precedence in terms of first franchise. --Jeysie 20:50, 30 July 2009 (EDT)

I'm blanking, could you cite me an example? (Wing Dagger type situations don't count.) -Derik 20:52, 30 July 2009 (EDT)

http://miscfile.alienharmony.com/transformers/franchise-ordering-discussion.htm (Yes I've been too lazy to figure out how to format the sucker to get it reposted somewhere on the wiki.) --Jeysie 20:59, 30 July 2009 (EDT)

OK, but what if there was G1 fiction that repurposed an existing G1 toy, say Doubleclouder, as the same old lovable Sideways? Then would we move him to Sideways (G1) since the first toy of him was in the G1 line? --Jimsorenson 22:49, 30 July 2009 (EDT)

My understanding would be no, since he was never officially released as that toy, and the toys still take precedence. The fiction only counts if there's no official toy to work from. --Jeysie 23:09, 30 July 2009 (EDT)

Fair. But if some new fiction retroactively made, say Beast Wars Megatron the same character as Go-Bots Megatron, then we'd move Megatron (BW) to Megatron (G2) since that that would be an exactly analogous situation to Sideways. --Jimsorenson 23:39, 30 July 2009 (EDT)

Probably the article would be at "Doubleclouder" with the "Sideways (RID)" stuff moved there. - Starfield 23:43, 30 July 2009 (EDT)

I don't think Jeysie was suggesting that he was Doubleclouder... rather than the DC toy was repurposed-within-the-same-continuity-family to represent two separate characters, like the G2 Cyberjets Air Raid and Aero Raid.

If a Japanese guidebook revealed no-appearances G2 Go-bot "Double Clutch (G2)" to be Sandstorm's unnamed friend from Fight or Flee, we'd move it to "Double Clutch (G1)" with no real debate-- the character was around by that name in G1. It's that simple, right? -Derik 00:00, 31 July 2009 (EDT)

"Beginning. Middle. End. Facts. Details. Condense. Plot. Tell it." ~Agent Simmons Yay or nay to the idea of a move? Gearshift 06:49, 31 July 2009 (EDT)

Nay, he was an RID toy first. For the rationale, read the page I linked to. (Basically, I made the same sort of argument you did in your edit summary, and we hashed it out and realized that just doesn't work logistically after all.) --Jeysie 08:10, 31 July 2009 (EDT)

See, I don't get that at all, Jeysie. With Sideways, we've got basically two different characters with the same name in two different franchises. A third franchise comes along and declares them to be the same character, so we decide to disambig by the earliest chronological toy. (Authorial intent on those original tech specs is dubious, since many times name reuse comes with similar phraseology across franchises with no intent that the toy represents the same character.) If we think that this is enough to move the disambiguation to the first toy, then that should be the rule for all characters retroactively declared to be the same guy. If BW Megatron is declared cannonically to have been the same dude as Go-Bots Megatron from the earlier G2 franchise, then we should move him to Megatron (G2).

A corollary to this is that, since we disambig by the TOY of first franchise for characters who are retroactively the same across timelines, if we need to disambig Unicron for whatever reason he'll be Unicron (Armada). (OH, I'm so tempted to actually stick in a non-Unicron character named Unicron into one of my books just to see that argument.) --Jimsorenson 11:20, 31 July 2009 (EDT)

Personally, I don't like that Robot Masters can retcon the Armada continuity. I think that in the Robot Masters continuity, RID Sideways = Armada Sideways, but in the Armada continuity, RID Sideways ≠ Armada Sideways. Saying RID Axer came from G1 is different, because it isn't really retconning any G1 fiction except to say that once all the G1 fiction was over with, he hopped into the RID universe. Having said that, I think RID is a little bit of an exception. The toyline was sort of used as a catch-all "Universe"-type concept with a loose regard to continuity. It has "Air Attack Optimus Primal" for example. He is taken as the Optimus Primal from the Beast Machines era. If he is the Optimus Primal his bio draws RID into the Beast Wars's history.

As for your Megatron example, Go-Bots Megatron is G1 Megatron. The bio says Megatron took this new car altmode so Megatron (BW) would move to Megatron (G1). Your Unicron example shows why the toy should not necessarily take precedence. It should be the first real-world appearance, be it toy or fiction. - Starfield 11:48, 31 July 2009 (EDT)

Thing is... they're not really all that different as characters. The RID and Armada bios are if not 1:1 exact, they're so damn close they might as well be. This was a source of confusion as soon as Sideways's Armada bio was revealed, and it's possible that the production scheduling meant Armada Sideways was developed first despite being released second. And we were still kind of not used to the whole "multiverse" thing yet. At any rate, I frankly advise against trying to nail down a standard for bizarre hypotheticals. Ours is a fucked-up franchise, and trying to predict how to handle the next strange once-in-a-lifetime mutation is really an exercise in futility. A lot of what we do really does have to fall under a case-by-case with the hope that general guidelines will suffice. --M Sipher 12:38, 31 July 2009 (EDT)

Hey, that's the answer I wanted all along - let's go case-by-case and let common sense prevail. That being the case, wouldn't the 'common sense' answer be to move Sideways back to Armada, which is where the bulk of his characterization comes from and where most fans know him from? --Jimsorenson 13:23, 31 July 2009 (EDT)

I think any fan who really knows about Sideways in Armada must by definition be hardcore enough to have known he was the RID character already. I mean, he's a second-stringer from a cartoon most people hated from 7 years ago. With that in mind, I think the risk of actually confusing anybody is very, very slight. Besides, part of Sideways' characterization prominently featured in our article is that "self-sufficient ninja" shtick, which really was introduced in RID, and there is simply no way to NOT have the article introduction mention his RID incarnation. So once we've acknowledged it, what's wrong with keeping it in his name? --Thylacine 2000 13:42, 31 July 2009 (EDT)

This whole "toys first" thing is total nonsense. It stems from the discussion Jeysie linked to (thanks for saving it! Do you have the other pieces too? We need those back here...), where Siph was (over)reacting to Jeysie's claim that the toys didn't really matter at all. In the end, what actually matters is FRANCHISE, which applies to BOTH TOYS AND FICTION. Jim, your example is a perfect case: If we ever needed to disambiguate Unicron, making him Unicron (Armada) because that was the franchise that first sold him as a toy is ridiculous. He was created as a character in the 1986 movie, which was released under the G1 franchise. THAT'S his franchise of origin.

Your questioning of the (RID) on this article is also very keen: What does "origin" mean when you involve cross-franchise retconning? I don't have a clear answer, though I'm on the side of (RID) because the retcon was such a very short leap, due to the nontrivially-similar bios and the association the RID character had with another dimension-hopper from the get-go. This is admittedly a judgement call, and the hypothetical example of retconning a G1 character who has no inherent connection (the "black Seeker") into this Sideways would be a much more challenging case. Good thing we don't have to deal with it yet!

Though I'm not as dismissive of "bizarre hypotheticals" as Siph is. The idea of putting a parenthetical on this article was at one point a hypothetical that we had a valuable discussion around. I think Derik is misremembering the outcome of that; I recall it ending with more support for (RID), which I thought was why the actual move was so uncontroversial.

- Jackpot 16:29, 31 July 2009 (EDT)

There's the Insection Swarm talk page and the main Sandbox notes, if that's what you mean by "other parts".

And, what do you mean "toys first thing is total nonsense"? I distinctly remember that I came down on the side of determining franchise of origin by the fiction, everyone yelled at me, we had the whole discussion, and determined that remaining with determining franchise of origin via the toys was the best way to handle it.

If people suddenly start changing to the reverse and taking up my initial argument of determining franchise by the fiction, I swear I'm gonna kick y'all out of irritation until you make up your freakin' minds. :P --Jeysie 16:40, 31 July 2009 (EDT)

As I said in that discussion, the toys-vs.-fiction thing is a false dichotomy. Take the toys entirely out of the equation, and there are still franchises. Every piece of TF fiction - be it comic, TV show, book, whatever - is released with some kind of franchise-identifier (usually the logo on the cover or in the intro sequence). It doesn't matter HOW a character appears first, whether it's a toy or a drawing on a page or a 3D rendering onscreen; what matters is what franchise that appearance is under.

Edit: Oh, and yeah, those are exactly the "other pieces" I mean. Those totally need to be reincorporated into the wiki; in total, they're pretty much the Debate To End All Debates on this topic.

- Jackpot 16:51, 31 July 2009 (EDT)

Apparently they're not, seeing as how after all that, there's people here arguing the same stance I initially got griped at for. :P --Jeysie 16:58, 31 July 2009 (EDT)

Which is exactly why we need to have those discussions back on here, so we can point people to them and go, "There. THAT'S why." - Jackpot 17:27, 31 July 2009 (EDT)

I have nothing to add to this other than I've always considered Sideways to be an Armada character, and I think, despite what Thy says, one of the stand out characters of the series. I recall people going "HOLY CRAP NO WAY!" back when forums used to have play-by-play threads for Armada and we watched Detection. Basically, if TF fans hear the name Sideways, they think "the purple motorcycle guy from Transformers Armada". --FFN 16:54, 31 July 2009 (EDT)

I just want to point out for clarification... Robotmasters didn't retcon Rid Sideways into being Armada Sideways... RM confirmed it, having been hinted at before (and there being discussion to that effect on att.)

Sideways was part of a 2-pack... the other guy was Axer, whose bio showed that he was G1 Axer and he'd been accidentally transported into the RiD-verse. Obviously Sideways was their joke... making him an upcoming character, so the two pack was both guys from other universes, one old, one new.

(Left we forget, in 2002 when they were released, a lot of the fandom was operating on the idea that Transformers was a 'mythology', where everything was part of one big loose universe that kinda-sorta fit with everything else, just not all at once. Axer being transported from one reality to another was the first example of the Transofrmers Multiverse EVER, a concept that was being developed for Armada.)

I also don't think we disambigh characters by toylines... we disambig the, by franchise. It's just that toyline have an almost 1:1 relatioship with franchises. (which in turn have a .9:1 relationship with the continuity family) that screws people up.

If we used the toyline, we'd have "Blurr (Universe)" or "Blurr (Universe 2008)" instead of "Blurr (Shattered Glass)". -Derik 17:21, 31 July 2009 (EDT)

Er, I had been under the impression that Shattered Glass was its own separate toy franchise, insofar that the BotCon toys were released under that label.

But in any case, I'm more than just a little frustrated that we spent all that time determining that we do in fact disambiguate characters by toy franchise—including my getting insulted by various people for even contemplating disambiguating by fiction—and now folks are taking the opposite standpoint. WTF. --Jeysie 17:33, 31 July 2009 (EDT)

And I'm getting frustrated that you keep misrepresenting the current rule as being "toy-based." It's NOT. It's whatever came first, whether it's toy OR fiction. Yes, some people argued against you in a toy-based way, but I don't think they represent the sum total of all arguments against your point of view. For a while, you were attempting to do away with the franchise-of-origin rule entirely, in favor of whatever term (franchise, continuity family, series, etc.) was most representative of the scope of each particular character's appearances. And THAT'S the kind of thing that I saw most people balking at, since it invited debate on almost every disambiguated page we have. "One simple rule" was what the real dogpiling was all about, and the toys-vs.-fiction thing was totally secondary to that. - Jackpot 17:49, 31 July 2009 (EDT)

Yes, it is. The entire point of the discussion was disambiguating by toys vs. disambiguating by fiction. And we specifically agreed at one point as part of the examples that toy appearances take precedence! It's all there in the discussions.

But whatever. I just find it ironically irritating that I had a standpoint, everyone told me it was wrong, I was convinced it was wrong (by you, I might add) and changed to agreeing with everyone else... and now I'm wrong again because people are doing a 180 from the standpoint they reached last time.

Whatever, it's pretty obvious I can't win. I'm just going to bow out before I have to deal with being insulted again even though I'm trying to advocate the same freakin' conclusion we reached the last time this came up. Wish people could make up their damn minds on things and stick to it. --Jeysie 18:07, 31 July 2009 (EDT)

SG Blurr was released in the Timeines toyline. And the SG guys that didn't have to be disambiguated were at "(Timelines) till people complained about having to remember which characters get "(Shattered Glass)" and which don't. (Why are we using "Shattered Glass", anyway? Wouldn't it be more consistent for us to use "SG"?) 69.23.135.79 20:04, 31 July 2009 (EDT)