Talk:Second-in-command
What the hell is this?
Just wonderin'. -hx 21:31, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Those whose rank are Sub-Commander usually are Second-in-Command. While people who are Second-in-Command are not necessarily in "Sub-Commander" rank. --TX55 09:10, 7 September 2007
Temporary File
Autobot Sub-Commanders
Decepticon Sub-Commanders
Predacon Sub-Commanders
- , , Triceradon, ...maybe? [TBA]
Rattrap
Jetfire (Micron Legend)
Skyfire (Superlink)
Dreadlock
Getaway
Blacker
Grandus
SkyGarry
Apache
Longrack (BWN)
Hydra Leozack Gelshark Guiledart Thrust (Micron Legend) Starscream (Galaxy Force)
Ugh
This page -- as of the time I am making this comment -- is terrible. I think it may even be worse than Sub-Commander, simply because there is more junk on it. I disagree with the assertion that Grimlock is second in command "Mainly in every continuity except for G1 Cartoon Series". The references are not nearly specific enough. "Rhinox - He has the ability for leadership" doesn't belong. A simple list format is not going to cut it in more complex cases. Cheetor, for example, was second-in-command during BM, which is actually given a specific citation, but he obviously was not highly-ranked in BW. Cases like that need to be explained right there in the body of the list. Also the English stinks, and the article should be moved to Second-in-command. I know it would be more productive to fix things myself rather than just complain, but there is so much wrong here that I don't have tha patience for it. All that said, I support the idea of this catchall page existing in place of the other articles. --Steve-o 22:05, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Alternate Suggestions
I understand the need (common shared functions have to be covered somewhere), but wouldn't [i]alot[/i] of the problems with pages like this and others like it be solved by just listing the functions(US, Foreign, whatever) in the opening paragraph of every character. Or would that be too much work? Was there a reason functions shunned from in the first place?
