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)

This should work. Text is reproduced on the page, which should help to find it easily.--Nevermore 19:28, 1 December 2009 (EST)

Interesting. Perhaps Seeker was an assortment name? It's the only reason I can think of that different stores would use the same uncommon and specialized terminology. --Tigerpaw28 22:57, 1 December 2009 (EST)

(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)

Merge or delete

Is it really necessary to have separate articles for Seeker (SG), Seeker (Movie), and Seeker (ROTF) in addition to the coverage given those uses of the term here? Two of the three are only stubs, and even the ROTF article is fairly short. It would seem that either the relevant material should be removed from this article or those articles should be deleted. Khajidha 11:33, 12 August 2009 (EDT)

The answer is in the discussion right above you. Namely, it was decided that this and the other Seeker types are all completely different concepts rather than minor variations on the same concept. The amount of info available has no relevance on the question. --Jeysie 11:38, 12 August 2009 (EDT)

Addendum: Plus that reminds me that the SG Seeker page really should be on my list of SG articles to update. *adds* --Jeysie 11:42, 12 August 2009 (EDT)

Then why retain so much about the Unicron Trilogy and Movieverse seekers on this page? If they are separate enough to warrant their own articles, they are separate enough NOT to be in this article. The disambiguation link would be enough.Khajidha 12:01, 12 August 2009 (EDT)

Propose renaming this article to Seeker (G1)

Given that there are now articles for [Seeker (SG)], [Seeker (Movie)], and [Seeker (ROTF)] as well as [Starscream clone] and a section on "hunter-seeker skyships" at [Ferak]; I propose that this page be renamed (and slightly redone) as Seeker (G1). Much information here would remain as is. However; sections 3 (Unicron trilogy), 4 (Live-action movie), 5 (Shattered Glass) and some parts of section 8 (toys, specifically 8.3, 8.10, 8.11) would be transferred to the appropriate pages. This would necessitate the creation of 1 new page: Seeker (Unicron trilogy). Toy section 8.7 would be modified to mention that the Legends of Cybertron mold was used for [Ramjet (G1)] despite being used primarily for characters from other franchises. Toy section 8.6 is somewhat unclear as to whether the characters mentioned are all G1, all other franchises, or a mixture of the two. The note in the first paragraph (and also the Decepticons in later franchises such as Armada where similar "families" of jets appear) would be changed to a simple statement that the G1 group inspired similar groups in later franchises, with the disambiguation page serving to lead readers to these other pages. Much of the information is already in place on the other pages, this process would simply insure that nothing was lost. The disambiguation page already seems to effectively treat this page as Seeker (G1). Changing the name would serve to clarify the distinctions between the similar groups. Also, this would prevent "drift" as data relevant to other lines would be placed on those pages entirely and not haphazardly here or there or both randomly. Opinions? Khajidha 23:03, 23 August 2009 (EDT)

NO.--Rosicrucian^Talk 23:06, 23 August 2009 (EDT)

Haven't we already covered this twice on this very page? --Jeysie 23:31, 23 August 2009 (EDT)

THIRD TIME'S THE CHARM I GUESS. --ItsWalky 23:41, 23 August 2009 (EDT)

It just seems strange that this page contains information on similar groups from multiple continuities including some with their own pages already. It seemed to me that that was what disambiguation pages were for. I had made this proposal because I felt that Jeysie had misunderstood my previous one. That happens to me fairly often. If no one else seems confused, I will not press further. Khajidha 23:56, 23 August 2009 (EDT)

That said, shouldn't Seeker (Movie) (not to be confused with the ROTF Seekers) be merged into here, while the stuff about the SG Seekers should be removed from this page entirely? A touch of cleanup couldn't hurt. - SanityOrMadness 21:12, 24 August 2009 (EDT)

For consistency, I think you're right. Khajidha has a valid point, that right now the situation between all the various "Seeker" pages is confused. In fact, between this page's description of the Movie Seekers and the Seeker (Movie) description, I can't tell if that "Seeker" is really a body-type designation or just indicating membership of a team. Does anyone have that issue of the comic and can give us some hard quotes?

But while I'm basically in agreement with you in terms of status-quo maintenance, I'm not sure what the ideal content and title of this page ought to be. For one thing, I'm leaning towards the "(G1)" side because this article only talks about other franchises in relation to G1. The "Unicron Trilogy" section openly brushes aside that universe's definition of "Seeker" just to talk about how the toy designers made some G1 homages. The SG stuff, as you say, has no place here. And the Movie Seekers, while officially Seekers in the traditional way, don't really add anything of substance to the concept. They seem to be just another parroting of the G1 idea, albeit with more in-fiction backup than their UT equivalent.

So, if it's correct to say that this article is essentially G1-focused, then the question arises of what non-G1 stuff actually belongs here. I'm.... not ready to say Seeker (Movie) really doesn't deserve its own page. I think it depends on how much meat can be found in that comic issue. My instinct is to prune the hell out of the non-G1 content until it's just a few sentences and a bunch of "See this other article for more info" notes. But that's more an idle thought than an actual proposal.

Overall, I agree with those above who have said that "(body type)" is an awkward, possibly-inaccurate parenthetical. But it's an awkward article, and I feel like streamlining it will help settle the titling question.

- Jackpot 23:54, 24 August 2009 (EDT)

The 'Lady in Purple'

What or who is it? I've never heard of a possibly female Seeker in g1--91.113.121.205 19:10, 4 March 2010 (EST)

There wasn't any female Seekers in G1. The "Lady in Purple" was apparently from some fan fiction. - Starfield 19:19, 4 March 2010 (EST)

There's a vaguely female-looking seeker in one shot of MTMTE part 3, which fanon has retconned into being female. --abates 19:30, 4 March 2010 (EST)

I know which "character" it is, but that's only because I accidentally found that information on another site long ago. Perhaps someone more in the know could write a short article for the character/add the remaining information to this article? Because as it is now, I find the mention of something that's supposedly "infamous" yet seemingly surprisingly obscure confusing. Geewunling 01:42, 5 March 2010 (EST)

There is no "character" for an article to be written for. We don't have articles for single generics who don't do anything but fill out group shots. --KilMichaelMcC 12:18, 5 March 2010 (EST)

She's a "Raksha-creation", right? A trivia note on Raksha's page to link to would be all needed. That, or the info on LiP should be outright deleted since it's only confusing like this. Geewunling 12:33, 5 March 2010 (EST)

"Origin of term "Seeker""

I don't think it's that odd that the JC Penny catalogs could've started the trend among a whole legion of Transfans. I remember those catologs being in heavy rotation. You were mailed them quite often. I also remember the "seeker" term from far back even before the internet. I definitely picked it up before then so it was probably from the book Riddlerj 13:58, 27 April 2010 (EDT)

Also, those of us not rich enough to afford the toys often held on to the catalog pages for long periods of time. --Khajidha 14:05, 27 April 2010 (EDT)

The Section on G1 Seekers

I notice that the G1 section is essentially a list of the different categories (Coneheads, Skyraiders etc), whereas the sections on other continuities go into what being a seeker actually is. AHM and then the Ongoing (esp. Issue 4) gave us a more detailed look at the meaning of this term (in the IDW G1 continuity anyway), with why they all look the same, what their purpose is among the Decepticon army and other various intricacies explored. Should we have a section on this? It seems quite pertinent and I feel that the G1 seeker section is lacking in information (it seems like more of a list if I'm being honest). --SharkyMcShark 01:10, 12 July 2010 (EDT)