Talk:Seeker (body-type)

Additional Pic

Full catalog page scan.

Does anyone have the page that ran OPPOSITE this one? (It had a GoBots ad, IIRC.) -Derik 20:20, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Older Stuff

In my opinion, both "Seeker" and "Skyraider" should be capitalized, since both are the formal names of subgroups. In fact, the article itself mentions that "Seeker" is capitalized in the JCPenney catalog, which is the only primary source for the term in which capitalization is even distincted (as opposed to the all-capitals use in TWW). -LV 00:44, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, you're right. I got carried away with my de-capitalizing things thing. --Steve-o 01:05, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Starscream-types in Armada are known as Seekers too, according to page 13 of the DK Reader 'The Awakening,' ISBN 0-78-94-9741-7

What about something about how the coneheads have radicly different character modles becuse they were desinged by Floro Deary, and not by the takara guys that did the Season 1 designs? --X-BoB

I wouldn't call the coneheads "radically" different, but, sure. I'll toss that in. Also, about the paragraph you inserted:

I'm not sure what "according to 3H" is supposed to mean. Are you referring to a statement that Glen or Tengu or somebody made, or do you just mean that the Seeker characters who appeared in 3H's comics happened to have the same design as BM Jetstorm and his drones?

--Steve-o 04:49, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

I remember Glen or Dan saying that Wreckers Skywarp's body is a common bodytype to the Beast Era, but 1) I'm not sure they said anything about it belonging to the remaining Seekers, 2) I'm not sure it has any relevance to the entry, and 3) the toy Jetstorm looks NOTHING like the show Jetstorm, so I have no idea how one would be based on the other. I'm removing it for now, with the additional note to whomever is consistently misspelling "based" to cut it out. --ItsWalky 05:11, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

If the Jetstorm toy is the Beast Era Seeker body then that means that within fiction it came before the Aerodrones.X-BoB58 19:10, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Oh cool, I didn't know that. I just assumed he' was one of the smaller-drones who was gonna be associated with the Vehicon General body Megatron made for Cyclonus. (That is right, right?) -Derik 11:48, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Didn't Cryotek make Cyclonus' body? -XBob

IIRC, Cyclonus' bio says that he was a botched plan of Megatron's to make him one of his Generals, but his boxart depicts Cryotek. --ItsWalky 19:29, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure I agree with the bits about Seeker "going back to being a fan-term" when DW folded. Especially since it is followed by a remark that it HAS been used officially since. Once something IS an official term, it can't return to being a fan term. Official is official and "Seeker" is now such.

could they be clones

Dreamwave's Summer Special explicitly referenced "Air Warrior Clones" who were generic Seekers. So some Seekers are clones. It's unclear whether they all are, though it's strongly implied in MTMTE #8 that at least some redeco characters are clones. --Andrusi 21:17, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes. Sunstorm and ricochet are both clones... in Dreamwave continuity. In non-Dreamwave continuities they're NOT clones. (We even got an explicit origin for one of the TDU incarnations of Sunstorm that mentioned his powers coming from a manufacturing error.) Dreamwave was clone-happy. -Derik 21:21, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I was referring to the Summer Special story, where Megatron goes to Beest to find the Predacons and takes a bunch of purple Seekers with him. The title page for that story lists them as "Air Warrior Clones." (Either that, or I'm losing my mind.) --Andrusi 21:24, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Right, that's the Air Cavalry set- the 3 purple PVC's we got as botcon exclusives. But AFAIK, they're supposed to represent 3 survivors (or at least zombie-like salvages) from the hordes of seeker clones in The Age of Wrath. -Derik 21:28, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Strike Planes

I remembered Seekers being called 'Strike Planes' in catalogues when they first came out in the UK, and finally found something that backs up my memory - see http://www.transformertoys.co.uk/content.php?/transformers-image/toysheets/g1/uksheet01/1.jpg/image.html . Is this worth a mention in the article?

Interesting! I'll stick it in the article. --Steve-o 05:01, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Move

I do think that this should be moved to an article title with SOME form of parenthetical disambiguation. Since there IS another "Seeker" that is a separate concept that DOES have a PD. I'm not wild about "group", but lacking a better term... --M Sipher 23:03, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I dunno, I think this would be the primary term people would think about when you give the term "Seeker". The minicon is definitely less well known, so I think it could just be noted at the top of this page "for the minicon named Seeker, please see..." --MistaTee 15:09, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Except that's inconsistent with everything else that requires a disambig on this wiki. Most people think of G1 Prime when you say "Optimus Prime", but he still has the (G1) tag. --M Sipher 15:15, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that G1 Prime is comparable, as many other Optimus Primes have plenty of history and backstory. Energon Seeker is a easily forgotten toy that I think should actually be at the bottom of the main Seeker page, as it doesn't have a lot of info on its own. That being said, if the G1 seekers need disambiguation, how about Seeker (subgroup) --MistaTee 15:42, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree this should sit in a Disambig (and because there are only two of them, let Seeker direct to this one.) But the Seekers aren't a 'group,' they're a classification. I'd say Seeker (jets), but the mini-con is a jet already. Seeker (type)? It looks kinda weird, but it's... really clear. -Derik 15:33, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

The page should be moved to be consistent with our revised disambig rules, and plain old "Seeker" should redirect to it. Picking a parenthetical for the page is not trivial, though. The Seekers aren't really an official subgroup (unless they've been declared that recently in some random ad copy someplace) so we shouldn't use that (and I'm going to take that category away). "Group" and "type" are a little vague, but, something clear like "common body type" is too awkward. As soon as somebody as a good idea, I'll be happy to move the article and update all the links with my bot. --Steve-o 22:09, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

"classification"? "body-type"?

Also... "Energon Seeker is a easily forgotten toy that I think should actually be at the bottom of the main Seeker page, as it doesn't have a lot of info on its own."... that is a profoundly bad idea. Joe-Stalker isn't on the Predator-Stalker page, and all three Flashes are separated. He's not a Seeker. He's not even a Decepticon. And as an individual character, no matter how little he does, he should get his own page. Stuffing him on a page completely unrelated to him makes no sense whatsoever, and would make the categories the page appears in REALLY screwed up. --M Sipher 22:19, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Animated

Would it be appropriate now to start a section on the Animated Seekers, or do we have to wait for "Fistful of Energon"?KrytenKoro 05:38, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

We're probably going to wait until they are actually CALLED Seekers. --Detour 06:40, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, we at least know that there are going to be characters along the same concept. Even if they don't end up being called Seeker's, I think it would be correct to add that a similar group exists in Animated.KrytenKoro 21:19, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

SPOILERS, GODDAMMIT. --M Sipher 22:05, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

...err, no. The actual episodes which introduce the Seekers may have yet to air, but that Starscream clones/twins will appear in the series was announced a while ago. Besides, we have a "Spoilers" tag anyway.KrytenKoro 16:54, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

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