Talk:Transformers: War for Cybertron (franchise)

"(WFC)" instead of "(Prime)" for characters that originated in this franchise?

If people are cool with the notion of WfC being its own franchise (and certainly I think with three forms of media, a logo/brand, a small line of toys, and arguably even multiple continuities, it counts), then our franchise-of-origin policy would dictate that we move pages like Optimus Prime (Prime) to "Optimus Prime (WFC)". It's been suggested that we should stick with "(Prime)" for all Aligned continuity family characters for the same reason that we favor "(SG)" over "(Timelines)": uniformity can be less confusing. But I think the SG situation was different, since the number of oddball articles was small and the franchise of origin wasn't obvious or intuitive. "(WFC)" would apply to a huge swath of articles, and it's crystal-clear which ones those are. So... any objections to the move? - Jackpot 12:37, 28 February 2011 (EST)

I think a better argument in favor of this would be for the fact that we use "G1" and "G2" for characters from the G1 Continuity Family depending on which portion of the franchise they debuted in, or "Armada", "Energon" and "Cybertron" for those characters from the Unicron Trilogy. That being said, though, I can't help but feel that having characters from the Prime show, where 99.999999% of their actions and personalities are established, as using (WFC) as a disambiguator, would be rather silly. --Detour 12:42, 28 February 2011 (EST)

Cryotek (RID) and Sideways (RID) are our precedents there. Choosing parantheticals based on which franchise "matters most to the character" is a slippery slope we've stayed away from in the past. - Jackpot 12:56, 28 February 2011 (EST)

Well there IS also the fact that video game tie-ins tend to use the qualifier from the franchise they tie in to, so we have Hailstorm (Armada) and not "Hailstorm (Transformers)", so I would treat WFC stuff same as that. --Detour 12:58, 28 February 2011 (EST)

I... can't quite tell what position you're going for with that one. I think you're saying that we should label WfC-game characters as "(Prime)" because the games "tie into" Prime the same way that the "Transformers" game tied into Armada. But that's not a good comparison: The "Transformers" game wasn't branded with any franchise at ALL, so we went with the one that it was clearly based on. The WfC games ARE branded with a franchise - WfC - so there's no need to look elsewhere.

And if you don't find that logic convincing, consider that lots of the WfC-game characters are also in Exodus, which is under the WfC franchise too. Plus there's the WfC comic, which also came out before Prime. So... yeah.

- Jackpot 13:46, 28 February 2011 (EST)

Why are we treating this video game as a separate franchise instead of as part of the Prime franchise? --Khajidha 19:08, 28 February 2011 (EST)

Because some people can't seem to accept they're the same franchise despite the aesthetic divergences. --Detour 19:12, 28 February 2011 (EST)

War for Cybertron really isn't a franchise. It's just a video game that has been released on multiple platforms, and each platform is a different game with the same concept. Sonic Unleashed did the same thing. Does that mean Sonic Unleashed is its own franchise? Then there's the book, and its only connection to WFC is that it says "official history of the war for Cybertron", and even then, it's really more of a Prime book. Sure, you may bring up the toys, but they were part of Generations, not branded as War for Cybertron. If it was a full toyline called "War for Cybertron", then I could understand, but it's not. --NCZ 19:19, 28 February 2011 (EST)