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)

Help talk:Disambiguation/Franchise-based vs. Fiction-based --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 Insecticon Swarm talk page and the main 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"?) —Interrobang 21:33, 31 July 2009 (EDT)

I gotta agree with Interrobang, SG seems like a more sensible disambiguation than the entire phrase.

Jeysie, rereading the link you posted, I don't really see a clear consensus for any position. Maybe I'm just not reading closely enough. Certainly, franchise of origin (be it toy or fiction or something else) seems like the most sensible choice to me, if only to avoid the Unicron (Armada) example above.

Derik, I think it's inaccurate of you to state, unambiguously, that Axer and Sideways were intended to both be dimension hopping characters from the get-go. A mention of a black hole does not automatically mean a continuity-hopping character. It's a fun inference to draw, but until Robot Masters confirmed it all we had was fanon. (I'll point out that many bios echo elements of earlier incarnations of characters from other continuities. The earliest bios for Optimus Primal and BW Megatron seem to imply that they were the same characters as G1 Prime & Megatron, maybe we should combine those articles. Oh, and Optimus Prime in G1 was seen entering a black hole to find Nucleon ... maybe Armada Optimus Prime is the same guy? Heck, wasn't RID Megatron specifically from a dimensional rift? Let's fanon out who HE was supposed to be! )

Finally, I'm with FFN, Sideways was a stand-out character from Armada. I think it's pretty easy to be a fan of his without knowing that there was a toy-only character of his with a similar bio that was later retconned into the same guy by a Japanese franchise. --Jimsorenson 21:19, 31 July 2009 (EDT)

I was thinking the other day that (SG) would have made more sense. Not sure it's worth having to move 100+ articles at this point, though.

And, I was pretty much the only one who thought that using the fiction as a basis for origin was a good idea... everyone else (who took the time to comment, anyway... if there's people who agreed with me, they couldn't be fussed to actually say anything at the time) was quite clear on stating they thought I was nuts. --Jeysie 21:53, 31 July 2009 (EDT)

May as well do it now, before it becomes 200. Besides, there will surely be some SG Animated or RID or UT at some point, so we'll probably be changing them all anyway. --Jimsorenson 22:29, 31 July 2009 (EDT)

If we are going to move them, we'd be best off having Derik's bot do it, I think, if it can be tweaked for that purpose. Especially since we'd need to tag all of the moved talk page redirects to be deleted, and change all links, and... *groan*

But I'm honestly not sure we'd ever need to do it. There won't be an SG UT, per se, because there's already UT characters in the existing SGverse, and I can't see there ever being an official SG Animated or Movie. (I got the feeling that once the existing SG storyline plays out, that'll pretty much be it, seeing as how it'd be a couple years old at that point, at least.) --Jeysie 22:39, 31 July 2009 (EDT)

Jim, to your comment that there was no "clear consensus for any opinion"... Skimming over the links, it looks like we're still missing the heart of the discussion. The debate started at Swarm (G1), migrated to Help talk:Disambiguation, and ended with Jeysie's Sandbox (and accompanying Talk page). As you can see, we're still missing Talk:Disambiguation, which is where the debate truly became epic. Believe it or not, Talk:Swarm (G1) was only the warmup. And by the time the Sandbox was made, most of the participants had petered out. In the meantime, I distinctly remember a violent pileup in the middle, where it seemed like every damn editor had jumped in. I recall a certain viewpoint being supreme, but obviously Jeysie recalls differently. Please tell me there's a cached version somewhere out there.....? It would be a damn shame for all that butt-hurt to vanish into the ether, dooming us to repeat it again someday. - Jackpot 02:13, 1 August 2009 (EDT)

...I don't remember there ever being any discussion on "Help:Disambiguation". The "big epic discussion" took place on Swarm and my Sandbox talk as far as I know. At least, those were the only parts of the discussion I personally took part in. --Jeysie 03:03, 1 August 2009 (EDT)

On your copy of Talk:Insecticon swarm, there's a note right above the "Merge to Insecticon (G1)" section that says, "Due to the size and scope of this debate, it is recommended further discussion be taken to Help talk:Disambiguation." I swear to you on the grave of my mother's camel and my uncle's goat and even my sister's donkeys that the discussion WAS taken there, and you were involved in it, and that's where it truly got hairy. That was where I suggested the idea of doing a sandbox in the first place. (Note that the idea had not been mentioned in the Swarm-page discussion.) It was basically more of the same, but by the end there were people totally coming out of the woodwork to defend the status quo. Hooper called us all retards... is any of this ringing a bell? - Jackpot 03:26, 1 August 2009 (EDT)

Well, I remember the being insulted and everyone disagreeing with me part, but I had thought that took place on one of those two pages. I remember making the Sandbox because of the Swarm discussion, not there being an interim thing. In any case, the only cache for any Disambiguation discussion page is "Transformers Wiki talk:Disambiguation" with Steve-O saying it should be deleted since we already had "Help:Disambiguation", so, yeah. --Jeysie 03:42, 1 August 2009 (EDT)

Leaving hurt feelings and bruised egos aside, having an argument once doesn't invalidate the need to revisit those conclusions from time to time, as the franchise (and our understanding of it) evolves. I think that disambiguating by the franchise of origin, be it from a toy or from the fiction, is a generally sound policy. Is that agreed? (The corner cases are those instances where retcons 'move up' the francise of origin, but I think understanding the general case first is a good move.) --Jimsorenson 21:19, 1 August 2009 (EDT)

In this case, this is at least our fourth or fifth go-round on this subject.

That's good though, because the the situation keeps changing. Back when we were first having it, disambigs were fairly clear-cut. You have (G1), (BW) etc. There was very little name duplication withint he G1 franchise. But that's changing. We're getting a lot more toys issues within G1, so now it's not un-common to see G1 guys disambig'd (Universe) or (Timelines). (Both disambigs I loathe, BTW, because Univerrse and Timelines both have toys ftrom non-G1 continuity families.) As the problem gets more complicated, we need to revisit our assumptions from time to time.

My only input into thisdiscussion... I'm against (SG) for Shattered Glass guys. As there is a not-insignificant chance we'll eventually get a Shattered Glsass Movieverse (or something... Wyatt said he wished he'd gotten to do a SG Animated ep...) I think we are far mroe likely to end up moving these articles to "(Shattered G1)." -Derik 22:51, 1 August 2009 (EDT)

"(Shattered Glass)" does not make the articles immune from that problem, and we shouldn't be doing policies on "Maybe!" ("(SG G1)". Or "(Primax-)" if we're feeling hilariously dorky.)—Interrobang 23:20, 1 August 2009 (EDT)

I disagree. Maybe is a great reason to make changes. Forward looking changes make our lives easier. I think SG G1 would be a much better disambig than Shattered Glass. --Jimsorenson 01:27, 2 August 2009 (EDT)

The weird thing about (SG G1) is... on the one hand, technically it is, since it's in Primax. On the other hand, we've got the likes of Will, Rick, Demolisher, and Dropshot in there. On the gripping hand, it's not like SG doesn't defy every other attempt to apply standard rules to it without there being utter weirdness (I'm reminded of the line on Continuity Family: "It is entirely possible for a universe to be exactly 50% 'Robots in Disguise' and 50% 'Armada', defying categorization.").

I'd still almost want to just leave it at (SG) and just have (SG Movie) or (SG Animated) if it comes up. (Although I admit I don't think it will... it seems like by the time the current SG storyline finishes, FunPub would be moving on to something else. Much to my complete sadness, admittedly.) --Jeysie 02:26, 2 August 2009 (EDT)

Yeah, it's nice to have a backup plan, but let's not get ahead of ourselves. Right now, all we need is a single parenthetical for "Shattered Glass", period. The only reason I see for spelling it out is the assumption that most people wouldn't know what "SG" stands for... but when has that stopped us before? I vote for "(SG)". - Jackpot 16:12, 3 August 2009 (EDT)

I vote for (SG) as well, but we should really move this to Shattered Glass (franchise), I think. --Jeysie 16:19, 3 August 2009 (EDT)

Talk:Sideways (ROTF)

Shouldn't this go to Sideways? After all he is a dimension-hopper so this might be one and the same guy. After all the movie Fallen is also in the artice of the G1 Fallen, since they might be the same guy.Dead Metal 13:40, 25 March 2009 (EDT)

Variation?

Should the more metallic variation be mentioned?

What more metalic version? Dead Metal 05:14, 12 June 2009 (EDT)

The japanese version is supposed to have a darker. more metallic version that supposedly made it over here in some cases. Cliffjumper prime 01:04, 19 June 2009 (EDT)

edit

I removed a part from the portion about the notches in the final toy. The poster seemed to be under the impression they're meant to clip into the triangular pieces on the hood. They are however, intended to clip onto the red square bits next to Sideways' front wheels that are hidden inside his torso.--86.87.28.191 11:40, 26 June 2009 (EDT)

You're quite right. The red square bits have no other function than to clip into the notches, and the triangle bits have no other function than to fold up, to allow room for the windshields when the square bits clip onto the notches. This is a lot more plausible than clipping the notches onto the triangle bits, ignoring the fact that they fold up, and ignoring the red pegs. -Noviere 01:46, 16 September 2009 (EDT)

While this is true, if the back piece is folded all the way up (the hinge above his ass) it clicks into place--lining up with the notches and triangly pieces. The notches also line up with the extreme edges of the red pegs, if they line up at all. Also: upon dissection of the saw-arm, there is no internal evidence of a gear-driven assembly. Hida Atarasi 21:41, 16 January 2010 (EST)

Two-pack

Anyone remember what size/price class the two-pack with Sideways and the blue Autobot redeco of Dropkick was meant to be in? Since it was shown at Botcon, we should be adding it to the page (and making a page for the Dropkick redeco, whose name escapes me?). --Detour 16:13, 30 June 2009 (EDT)

That would be BLOWPIPE, the best Transformer ever! http://www.tfw2005.com/transformers-news/attachment.php?do=fullview&attachmentid=19762 shows them with a price of $24.99, probably making it a pricy Voyager like the ROTF Seekers, also Wal-Mart exclusive. Speaking of, there was also a Sideways/Wheelie twopack for whatever reason as well. http://www.tfw2005.com/transformers-news/transformers-movie-toys--products-30/revenge-of-the-fallen-wheelie--sideways-two-pack-to-be-released-in-select-international-markets-167843/ Fiscal 17:54, 30 June 2009 (EDT)

Sideways in Revenge Of The Fallen The Game

Unlike in the movie(his life spent is less than 15 minutes), Sideways featured in the game is equivelant of Bumblebee. He is a powerful unit to take on even the larger transformers. Sideways is armed with a beam sniper rifles and a pair of rapid shot cannon(which it never got a chance to use it in the movie). His weapons are designed for ranged engagement(which fit his profiles) but can be use aggressively even in close combat. He also armed with a pair of wheels with circular shuriken saw blade. His special abilities is to deploy magnetic mines to slow down enemies. He was featured in the first mission after the tutorial. His tasked was to eliminated the Autobots around the construction site & city in Shanghai. He can also be playable after acheieving certain task by other diceptacons. His can unlock the Shanghai zone's missions by acheiving 15 headshots. Sucessfully hit 5 enemies with the magnetic mines will give player the G1 coluor of Starscream in Singleplayer. In multiplayer, he is best use against ranged target. But his attack speed & dance also enebles him to "stunned" his opponent that get to close to him, giving him precious time to flee from his opponent. Surprisingly, for his size, he was more durable than Starscream. Most likely because he is a smaller transformer and has a low profiles. His transformed into the Audi R8 make him an even harder target to hit. But his vehicle mode also makes him less likely to shoot anybody because of the game's heavy controls, high speed and unable to stop during vehicle mode. Thus more likely designed like in the movie, to flee from the relentless Autobots. He is my 4th favorite transformers.(Ultraquake 04:52, 4 July 2009 (EDT))

General Motor's Cybertronic Sattelite?

"...Thus, Sideways became the only Transformer whose alternate mode is not a automobile manufactured by General Motors in the movie..." Um, hello? What about all the vehicles besides automobiles, such as Soundwave? Am I missing something here? 71.62.192.242 09:55, 27 July 2009 (EDT) Probably meant to be "an automobile not manufactured by" --86.87.28.191 17:24, 28 July 2009 (EDT)

And isn't it notable that Audi is the only member of the Volkswagen group that has agreed to license one of their vehicles for Transformers? Because I recall Porshe and VW were noncompliant in licencing because TFs are "War toys". Gearshift 14:58, 29 July 2009 (EDT)

Except Audi didn't agree to license one of their vehicles for Transformers. --FFN 15:25, 29 July 2009 (EDT)

The article makes it sound like Audi were the ones who asked to have their car in the movie. Is this not accurate? -- Semysane 19:26, 29 July 2009 (EDT)

Yes, but Volkswagen isn't keen on having their cars as TF toys for some reason. --FFN 02:27, 16 September 2009 (EDT)

Sideways is also not an Autobot. Only Autobots get to be GM cars. - Starfield 10:08, 16 September 2009 (EDT)

Barricade... -Derik 11:04, 16 September 2009 (EDT)

Barricade's not a GM car, he's a Saleen S281, which is basically a Ford Mustang. However, Soundwave's Earth mode was going to be a GM car (maybe in the next movie). -Mazenoise 11:12, 16 September 2009 (EDT)

ROTF Sideways is not UT Sideways

As Sorenson on the Allspark Forums pretty clearly stated, (http://www.allspark.com/forums/index.php?s=&showtopic=70553&view=findpost&p=1575577) Almanac is full of in-Jokes and easter eggs. There is no reason at all to maintain that Animated Sideways vacation spot marks him as the ROTF Character of the same name. The intent certainly was not to combine the two character, but rather as a joke/easter egg giving a wink toward Hasbro's name reuses. And even if it was, the stretch is highly tenuous, and would fall under the TFWiki's own definitions of Authorial Intent (http://tfwiki.net/wiki/Authorial_intent) and Pseudocannon (http://tfwiki.net/wiki/Pseudocanon). - Master Fwiffo

I'd just like to point out that saying RID Sideways is ROTF Sideways based on the single mention of a word is akin to saying the motorcycle Wreck-Gar threw at Bumblebee was actually the corpse of G1 Wreck-Gar who happened to dimension-hop there. Or that Spike and Carly and Daniel dimension-hopped from G1 and decided to live in Animated instead. Or that WASP from Shattered Glass is actually a dimension-hopping AniBee who was killed and whose corpse was converted into a salesbot. In other words, I'm saying a simple fanwank does not a large continuity reshuffle make. --Detour 04:03, 6 July 2010 (EDT)

Yes, combining ROTF Sideways with UT/RID Sideways after an in-joke in the Almanac is not really a good move. I mean, we didn't merge Optimus Prime (RID) with Optimus Prime (G1) when some Takara guy says that they're the same continuity, did we? I mean, merging every single Fallen and Unicron and Primus is already confusing to people not familiar with the multiversal singularity thing, there's nothing to say that Sideways the dimension hopper is the same Sideways that got bisected in ROTF. And that is even if Sideways hopped from Animated to ROTF. It's an small in-joke, is all. 110.138.16.169 09:59, 6 July 2010 (EDT)

In Japanase fiction, "Fire Convoy" is indeed in the same continuity as "Convoy". But they are different characters. - Starfield 10:11, 6 July 2010 (EDT)

I really wish you people would stop retardedly using "CR is in G1" as an argument against this. We recognize and embrace it. Find another dead horse to beat. —Interrobang 14:43, 6 July 2010 (EDT)

Sideways is a special case. Little bus special.

I don't go by author-intentism, though I am curious to see the reaction of those who do to Sorenson's "in-jokes and Easter Eggs" comment. Speaking only for myself, if it turns out Hasbro did not know Cybertronix was a real language instead of page deco then I am uncomfortable with any and all of the assertions that, under that circumstance, would have been snuck past their attention to be canonized by their stamp without review.

On the evidence itself, just about everybody agrees that Animated Sideways is clearly "the" Sideways. It is paradoxical to claim that a dimension jumper would be unique and constrained within the Animated dimension, therefore he has to be "somebody else," in this case the original Sideways.

Since he has the ROTF body and is said to have the power to dimension-jump and is said to be going to Shanghai, one could make an after-the-fact, God-of-the-gaps, not explicitly conveyed in fiction argument that he's ROTF Sideways too.

And if this were ANY OTHER CHARACTER, nobody would be willing to make the leap, the evidence would be judged to be not strong enough, and there would be two pages here.

But basically everything Sideways has ever done has been explained onto the fiction by the after-the-fact handwaving of secondary authors. He never actually DOES these remarkable and unique things attributed to him, just the next guy in line every 2 years or so writes him up as having done it while we were asleep. It's his shtick. We've already made that leap of faith like 3 times. It would be completely arbitrary for us to try to draw a line in the sand here and say "no further."

So while I don't like it, I can go along with it. Numerous editors--particularly those that post on Allspark--have also shown degrees of discomfort with the idea. If they've got real problems with it, I suggest that THEY suggest it be put up for a vote.

Finally, and perhaps most importantly: If this article is going to be merged, it will need much more explanatory "note" text throughout and a much shorter and less specific opening, more along the lines of Blaster and Prowl II. People are going to read the article from start to finish, and so we will literally have to walk them through the arguments for unity. --Thylacine 2000 10:38, 6 July 2010 (EDT)

(I hope I'm doing this right) The thing is, ROTF Sideways *has* a personality - not in the movies, but through the toy bios and video games and heck, even those UK comics. And those pretty clearly show that these two aren't the same character. All the other Sideway's have faction swapping and some other sort of extra-dimensional powers attributed to them. ROTF Sideways was an average Decepticon. You can't make that leap then, because they are two different characters with literally no relationship whatsoever. If ROTF Sideways was a faction swapping - or even somewhat mysterious or something, I might could buy it. But he's not. He's Joe Average Decepticon. - Master Fwiffo

Sideways is the consummate con-artist. He is misleading and deceitful in everything he does, portraying himself as the ninja-like warrior or the aloof drifter, and he lives for the look of shock and betrayal on his victims' faces when they realize he's played them for fools. That's an excerpt from the very article. He could easily be playing it up in order to trick the people of this new universe. --NCZ 11:39, 6 July 2010 (EDT)

Yes, that's Armada Sideways bio. ROTF Sideways bio says he's a courier, that he's cowardly, that he's BFF with Demolishor, and gives no indication across any of his bios that he has super mystical unicronian powers. He *could* be lying. He *could* have lost his powers in a diminsion jump. He *could* have decided to go to Hawaii before Shanghai, donned a hula skirt while drunk, and gambled away his powers in a fit of drunken revelry. We have nothing whatsoever to prove this is the case. Not a damn thing. ALl we have is an in-joke in a book full of in-jokes that even if taken as fact IN NO WAY PROVES ANYTHING OTHER THAN ANIMATED SIDEWAYS THINKS SHANGHAI IS A NEAT PLACE TO VISIT.

In short, split these articles. - Master Fwiffo

No. You have a voice here, same as anyone, but you don't have the authority you seem to think you have. Make your argument, but don't tell people what to do.

For my part, I think it's perfectly reasonable to merge these. It's always been coming, and we now have fiction explicitly bridging the two. Chip 16:20, 6 July 2010 (EDT)

Obviously I put in a "No" vote. Not only is the Almanac not officially branded as Movie fiction, not only does it contradict stuff that was officially branded as Movie fiction, not only is there no proof that Hasbro approved the Almanac as anything but but a guide to Animated specifically and/or expected the non-Animated info to be taken seriously, but Sorenson even friggin' outright stated that the damn thing was only meant as a joke, and seeing as how his authorial intent was the only remote evidence for this applying to begin with...
Yeah, let's stop this insanity. The wiki is not a place for the editors' pet fanon theories, it's a place for canon according to the people actually writing the storylines for each branded bit of fiction. The mention in the Almanac is worthy of a footnote at best, since it's at best authorial intent from someone with no connection to the actual branded Movie fiction anyway. --Jeysie 11:55, 6 July 2010 (EDT)

This article needs to be split in two again. There's zero canon evidence for a merger in this case. The one canon statement this is vaguely based on only states that Animated Sideways would like to go to Shanghai at some point. We don't know what universe the Shanghai he wants to go to is in, let alone whether or not he ever got there. The only evidence he did go to the one in the Movie universe is the intent of one of the authors. Looking at the page for authorial intent we get:

Authorial intent: Facts about the fiction that are stated/intended by the authors but never established in official fiction are often referred to as pseudocanon.

Subsequently, looking at pseudocanon we find:

Pseudocanon: Pseudocanon usually fits in well with the actual canon (at least until a later writer invalidates it), as it is the writers' idea of "what is really going on" as they craft their stories. However, because it is not established in any official fiction, it can't be taken as a given or definitely "true".

So according to this very Wiki, AUTHORIAL INTENT IS NOT CANON. And since authorial intent was the only reason the pages were merged in the first place, that means the pages were merged without basis. The prosecution rests. --Tigerpaw28 12:17, 6 July 2010 (EDT)

D8

Regarding the fact he was ALREADY sliced in half if the RID Sideways is ROTF Sideways.....does that mean he'll *gulp* come back?

Sideways 343 03:42, 6 July 2010 (EDT)

This Revamp...

Just wanted to say I like the more genaric opening and the expanded explanitary notes on his weird situation added in this revamp. I might suggest a specific section, like Unicron has, directly following the bio to really address, directly and out of universe, all the retcons and hazy links that connect all the versions and how this came to be one page. As long as we're up front about the way the conglomorate character was built, where bits came from and how hazy the connections really are then there's absolutely no problem with keeping the merged. Our job is to get across the info on the character to the reader. Do that clearly and that's all that matters. IMO. --ZacWilliam 14:37, 6 July 2010 (EDT)

Plausability does not make it canon. If you guys won't put in Megatron's Spark being put back into him or Dead Mens Boots as canon, there is no reason whatsoever to for two characters that don't fit together. Leave that last paragraph with animated Sideways - and from there, link to the ROTF Sideways profile on it's own separate page. Again, this bridge is made of straw. -Master Fwiffo

Can you please stop imagining up things the Wiki does not do? —Interrobang 14:51, 6 July 2010 (EDT)

I thought "plausibility does not make it canon" was our argument, not yours. (And I think I'd find your contribution on this one Hot Button Topic to be more palatable if you'd contributed here anywhere else ever. You don't even have a Userpage! You're only here to troll this one subject! It's kinda meatpuppety.) --ItsWalky 14:50, 6 July 2010 (EDT)

Walky, I don't edit the Wiki, because I know it'd destroy all my free time if I did, and I'm already overloaded on other TF projects over at the Allspark. I'm really thankful for the work you guys do. No, really. I am. I read the article a lot (far more, I'd wager, then the average TF fan). But I really feel I have to take a stand on this because I like *both* versions of Sideways too much to let them be the same character, especially on such a tenuous, shaky bridge. Doing this only cheapens both - because either UT Sideways got the hell gimped out of him when he hit Tyrax, or ROTF Sideways is actually just a mindless fabrication of someone whos actually superpowerful (except he did nothing but die on screen). I mean seriously, look at those two options. That's bad fanfic writing right there. It makes the entire concept of Drift look brilliant by comparison. THe only reason I even brought it up here is because people insisted that this argument should be involved more on the wiki - so I'm presenting it here. I really do feel strongly about this, and trying to connect such shaky dots and claim it cannon really offends my sensabilities. I make fanon assumptions and connections all the freaking time. I enjoy doing it. But I sure as heck don't post them on the wiki. -Master Fwiffo

So wait. The opinion of people who spend time on the wiki, but don't necessarily edit it is completely irrelevant? Especially on something that'll throw off the casual visitor like this?? --Detour 15:26, 6 July 2010 (EDT)

I'm saying that if Fwiffo wants to make a very major contribution IN GOOD FAITH, he could at least register his name. It's pretty simple! It makes it feel like he has an actual stake here, rather than making a hit-and-run contribution. (You curse out entirely too many anonymous/new editors for me to take your criticism here seriously.) --ItsWalky 15:35, 6 July 2010 (EDT)

To be fair Interro, Dead Men's Boots is being put on here as pseudocanon and is the reason the apocrypha template is being created. You and Fwiffo are both half right and half wrong. And Walky, the plausibility argument goes both ways on this one. It's no more plausible that the two Sideways are one and the same, based on the statement of wanting to visit Shanghai, than it is plausible that they're not the same. Between that and a visual similarity that's just as likely to be merely an homage as not, I'm not actually sure we can prove either case. Which I would think means we have to assume the initial relationship between the characters (i.e. none) until proven otherwise. --Tigerpaw28 15:48, 6 July 2010 (EDT)

While I grudgingly believe the threshold of Sideways' normal after-the-fact handwaving history has been reached, clearly a lot of other people do not. I really don't want to see this turn into an ATTCM moment. It isn't worth it for two sentences in a Drink-Your-Ovaltine secret code. I think a fair course of action would be to give people some more time to register their thoughts on what a merged-and-annotated draft looks like, but if it's still pretty much 50/50 (or worse) and the aggravation hasn't stopped, I'd be in favor of splitting Movieways out--with notation blurbs at the beginning of his article and the end of "main" Sideways' Animated section describing the issue and how they very well might be the same character. We could convey the exact same content that way, while still leaving it to readers to determine whether the Shanghai to which A-SW traveled was in Animated or in Movie. I think it would be highly inappropriate to just cut out the same-character suggestion for Movie-ways entirely. On one page or two, it has to be there. Because dammit, the situation IS different when it is long established that a character can Quantum Leap. --Thylacine 2000 16:00, 6 July 2010 (EDT)

I am in complete agreement with Thy on this one. BOTH DAMN SIDES are being really bulletheaded here, when there's a medium to be reached... the one he proposes. Let's look at our goddamn options to present the FACTS, whether we like ROTF Sideways being retconned into being the same one as the other one, just like every other weirdass issue we've had to deal with, from IDW's continuity to what the deal with Prime/WfC was continuity-wise, and reach a consensus. I think we've more than hit Sideways-is-one saturation, even if there's room for debate... but then again, we hit that in so many other instances without this level of shit-slinging.

Because I swear, the level of pissy butthurt going on here is really, really embarrassing to witness. My god, people. --M Sipher 16:07, 6 July 2010 (EDT)

I will throw my support behind this if it gets people to stop. —Interrobang 16:20, 6 July 2010 (EDT)

Thy has my complete support, if only because his solution will finally end this continuity shitstorm. ---Blackout- 16:27, 6 July 2010 (EDT)

I'm in favor of whatever results in a split page with a footnote and no more freakin' fanwank. (I'm not so much butthurt as I am crabby at how embarrassingly stupid all this fanwank has been.) --Jeysie 16:38, 6 July 2010 (EDT)

Don't really have an opinion on it, but it seems that it should at least be mentioned. The pages can be merged if/when it becomes more clear. --Khajidha 16:46, 6 July 2010 (EDT)

I don't really care about whether it's one page that mentions that they may or may not be the same, or two pages with notes saying "He may be the same guy as RID/ROTF Sideways." I don't really pay attention to all this complicated continuity stuff, so it'd be the same to me, as long as it conveys the same information. --NCZ 16:52, 6 July 2010 (EDT)

In case I hadn't made it clear before (I thought I had, but I guess not). I am *perfectly fine* with notes and blurbs on both pages saying they *might* be the same character by what the Almanac says. That was never an issue for me - the issue is the forced combination of the two when no solid bridge exist. Shoving them together only makes things confusing. - Master Fwiffo

I say we go with the common legal rule of "beyond a reasonable doubt." If evidence is shown that proves that Movie Sideways is UT Sideways beyond a reasonable doubt, then merge the shit out of them. The problem is that right now all we know is that UT Sideways wanted to go to Shanghai, right? There's, what, four Shanghais he can go to without going to the Movie universe? Until we see more evidence that he actually IS Movie Sideways, all we can say is that he went to A Shanghai. He might have even gotten the idea from seeing his counterpart from another universe get cut in half there. -- Semysane 17:41, 6 July 2010 (EDT)

I'd be perfectly happy with Thylacine's approach. And I very much agree with the "reasonable doubt" idea. That's what I was getting at with my edit just above Thy's suggestion. --Tigerpaw28 17:56, 6 July 2010 (EDT)

Thy's approach sounds like a great idea. MrBlud 18:00, 6 July 2010 (EDT)

I think Thy has the right idea. The relationship between all the previous Sidewayses is certainly not rock-solid. I think everyone can agree on that point. The only two Sidewayses that are explicitely the same guy are the motorcycles from Robots in Disguise and Robot Masters. Anything else is connecting dots. It makes sense, and is probably worth a trivia note, but it's not definite. But here's the crux. No one really seemed to mind when those dots were connected previously. Robots in Disguise Sideways and Robot Masters Sideways are footnotes. They're essentially nobodies, notable only for probably being the same guy as UT Sideways. Animated Sideways, too, exists pretty much solely to create links. However, now movie Sideways is being brought into the fold on evidence no more rock solid than the link between RiD/RM and UT Sideways. The problem is, movie Sideways has a substantial amount of pre-existing fiction. He's his own character. So while there's just as much evidence (or lack thereof) connecting him to the dimension-hopping Sideways as UT Sideways has, there's a force opposing the connection caused by the fact that his movie persona exists, and that that persona is so different than the other Sidewayses (by which I mean UT Sideways, who's really the only one that's fleshed out). Basically, I tend to look at it like this - if the Movie Sideways article is divorced from the UT Sideways article - and I believe it should be, based on the lack of uncontroversial evidence linking them- then the RiD/RM Sideways must also be split from UT Sideways by the same criteria.Shellspark 18:14, 6 July 2010 (EDT)

The reasonable doubt approach sounds fine to me. Chip 19:39, 6 July 2010 (EDT)

Multiversal Singularity?

Considering how the Allspark Almanac is basically retconning UT Sideways (who is apparently the same as RID Sideways) to be the same as ROTF Sideways as well as Animated Sideways, should we put Sideways in the multiversal singularity category now? --Cydra 17:01, 6 July 2010 (EDT)

Nah. Sideways is more of a dimension hopper. Plus, I don't think there's anything saying that he's a multiversal singularity. --NCZ 17:04, 6 July 2010 (EDT)

Unicron is supposedly getting his counterpart to the Thirteen, so I wouldn't be surprised if later retcons have Sideways as one of them. But I'm just speculating. —Interrobang 18:00, 6 July 2010 (EDT)