Category talk:Toy-only characters

How're we defining this category? 'characters with toys that have never put in a fictional appearance?' The name seems... weird.

There's somethign valid being expressed here, but it needs more crisp outlines, because right now it's coming off liek the suggested Cat 'Things that Do Exist' to compliment 'Things that don't exist.' -Derik 05:53, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Transformers is a property made up of toys, cartoons, comics, and to a lesser extent prose. We have Cartoon-only characters, Comics-only characters, and Prose-only characters. This would appear to be a natural addition. --Rotty 07:11, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

But the toyline forms the basis of all other fictions. It is dirt common for toy-only characters to appear in cartoons and comics and what-have-you.... in fact it's expected. It is, however, extremely rare for a character to move from cartoon-only to having a toy. (Arcee did it, 15 years after her introduction. Alspha Trion is finally doing it, 22 years in.)

and ultimately, I think non-toy is a misnomer for a category that should be 'characters with no fiction appearances,' and I'm still not sold on the relevance of such a category that, while it woudl touch on a bunch of action master partners and obscures- would also include Solarbot and virtually every obscure odd-and-end of TF-dom.

I guess... if they have a toy, it's almost assumed they exist in the fictional universes, even if we don't see them. We haven't seen, say Brainstorm yet in the IDW'verse, but I am 100% confident he exists in that universe. Cartoon-only or comic-only characters are frequently unique to their point-of-origin, but the toyline underlies... everything. -Derik 07:55, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

From Teletraan I: The Transformers Wiki, a Wikia wiki.