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)

Movieverse Seekers

In The Reign of Starscream issue 2, Starscream refers to himself as having "Seeker attributes" on page 7, and refers to Thundercracker as a Seeker on page 20. Although the synopsis has yet to be written for the comic, since it has been released, should this info be added to this page? Just wanted to make sure, since there's been such a freak-out over spoilers lately. --Nightshade83 00:53, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Defiance issue 4 also uses the term Seekers to describe the folks sent to blah blah blah way way back at the dawn of time. Seems to include Jetfire. --ItsWalky 22:57, 19 April 2009 (EDT)

Questions about the toy section:

Are we only counting molds that were redecoed into multiple characters during a franchise or are we including molds that have been in multiple toylines as different characters? For example: the Armada Thrust mold was released as Universe Sunstorm, but this is nowhere mentioned on the page. Also, Cybertron Thundercracker was redecoed as Movie Divebomb.

Movie Dreadwing and Overcast share a mold, but neither is a name that was previously identified as a "Seeker"; do they belong here or not? They are a "family" of jet-mode Decepticons, after all. Khajidha 14:03, 22 April 2009 (EDT) Adding on another question: What about the 3" Titanium Starscream and Thundercracker? They DEFINITELY should be here, but I'm not sure if they would go under Toys or Merchandise. Khajidha 14:12, 22 April 2009 (EDT)

A second '84-era use of "Seeker"

http://pleasesavemerobots.com/vstp/tf84/84_k25nov_zayre.jpg Courtesy crazysteve, here's a November 1984 Zayre circular listing "Decepticon Seekers" for $11.99 a pop. This definitely supports the theory that "Seeker" was used at some early stage, and if the JC Penney catalog and a fairly large regional department store chain both used the term in their advertising, it makes sense that other retailers did too; it's just a matter of finding the evidence. (crazysteve, being crazy, finds these by spending hours in a public library on microfiche readers. i do not have the time for that sort of thing.) Hooper_X 07:47, 19 May 2009 (EDT)

I can't seem to get the darn thing to load.... --Detour 02:31, 20 May 2009 (EDT)

I added a question mark to the end of the URL and well... an image loaded alright, but it wasn't a Zayre circular listing. It appears to be a three-way Beast Wars sex act. -- Semysane 04:28, 20 May 2009 (EDT)

I can see it, but then I've got an anti-anti-hotlink filter. Copy and paste the link. *tells MediaWiki not to render text as a clickable link* - SanityOrMadness 10:08, 20 May 2009 (EDT)

Is that 2 YELLOW Cliffjumpers in that picture? Or is the robot mode one actually Bumper? Either way it's an interesting use of non standard toys in the ad.Khajidha 15:21, 8 August 2009 (EDT)

(G1)?

Why has this been moved to Seeker (G1) when it contains non-G1 stuff? Is the article going to be split? Is that really necessary? --KilMichaelMcC 22:19, 23 May 2009 (EDT)

I agree that the choice of parenthetical doesn't make sense, and came here to the same point as you on that - but the plot of ROTF involves "Seekers" that have no connection to Starscream & co, so it needs a parenthetical.

But (G1) isn't it. - SanityOrMadness 19:49, 24 May 2009 (EDT)

"(G1)" is correct by the standards. It is the first franchise appearance. See Sideways (RID) and Cryotek (RID) - Starfield 17:21, 26 May 2009 (EDT)

Sideways and Cryotek are the exact same character in the multiple continuities, so it makes sense to label them with the first continuity they showed up in.

However, this is just a similar concept in multiple continuities. The Movie Seekers may have a similar concept to G1 Seekers, but the Movie Seekers as a specific group showed up first in the Movies, not G1.

But I guess the operative question is, do we have any other non-character multiple-continuity-spanning articles with parentheticals to study as a precedent? Energon (G1) got moved to Energon (fuel), and that's the only one I know of right off the top of my head. --Jeysie 17:36, 26 May 2009 (EDT)

The ROTF "Seekers" have a very specific function which is unrelated to body types. Not the same thing as Starscream/Thundercracker/Skywarp/etc at all.

And a concept should have a parenthetical after the concept, even if it's something basic like "Seeker (jets)". Not after a franchise. - SanityOrMadness 17:47, 26 May 2009 (EDT)

You say it should, but I fail to see why the system that works for characters doesn't work here. The Movie and ROTF Seekers are to be split out because they are not the same thing as the G1 Seekers at all. Ditto for Shattered Glass Seekers. That leaves almost completely G1 material, with one Armada reference. —Interrobang 19:57, 26 May 2009 (EDT)

The modern use of Movie seekers (the elite unit including Starscream and Thundercracker) could probably stay here. - Starfield 20:01, 26 May 2009 (EDT)

Well, that's not going to be the MAIN use of "Seeker" in the Movie continuity family, but it's a valid use and should probably stay on this page if it's referring to "Starscream clones".

And that's the main use of this page, to refer to reuses of the Starscream body-type in various continuities and continuity families. Given that this page includes at least four continuity families (G1, UT, Animated and Movie), I fail to see how Seeker (body-type) would be less vague and open to confusion, since it explicitly ties in to an existing article. Especially since it very clearly disambiguates from the ROTF use of "Seeker".

I certainly don't believe that disambiguating by franchise always works for characters as well as Interrobang alleges, especially for franchise-jumpers like Sideways (whose whole claim to be an "RID" character is based on a case the article admits is "not airtight" involving an obscure Wal-Mart-exclusive toy with the same name and some Japanese-exclusive publicity material - hell, on that score, given the Japanese Car Robots retcons, it should probably be Sideways (G1)...) - SanityOrMadness 21:39, 26 May 2009 (EDT)

"Seeker (body-type)" seems a bit vague, since there are multiple body-types. How about "Seeker (classification)"? That sorta straddles a border between body class and function, which seem to be how Seekers are used. -Derik 21:45, 26 May 2009 (EDT)

Movie Seekers could be a "body-type" that can cross interstellar space. They could also be a "classification." How about "Seeker (J.C. Penny wishbook)"? - Starfield 22:20, 26 May 2009 (EDT)