If there are no objections, this really ought to go at Attactix rather than Attactix (toyline). There's no point in disambiguating a toyline that doesn't have a fiction to it; Attactix can't refer to anything but the toyline. --Suki Brits 06:24, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
- I moved it mainly in case the Attacktix line comes with its own "meta-continuity", i.e., pack-in comics or suchlike, because man, a universe where UT guys co-exist with SW guys is gonna require some 'splaaaaaainin. -hx 22:22, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
Category?[]
Me's thinkin' we should have an "Attacktix" Category, since we ARE talking about several dozen characters involved with this. --M Sipher 08:53, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
Series 2[]
I've put together a rough draft of a table for the series 2 Transformers Attacktix pieces here. Rarities are a guess, based on the fact that in Series 1 TF01-TF08 were rare and TF09-TF18 were super rare, and nobody's certain what Grimlock's got yet. Now I have a few questions, though:
- Should we continue listing just the basic number (Arcee is TF01), or should we include the assortment (Arcee is TF2-01 or TF01-2 or something)?
- Should we be mentioning things like Starscream's "launcher on a string" feature?
- Should we be listing which version of the character the piece represents? The current listing is inconsistent on this, specifying Cybertron Hot Shot (for instance) but not clarifying Scourge at all.
--Andrusi 19:18, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
If we're listing Thrust as his own character- we really ought to do the same for Mini-Con and Omnicon. (1 page each, assume their versions are fungible)
Also- can we get pics of the other 2 versions of Decepticlone? I lloves me some Decepticlones... -Derik19:38, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
- Thrust is a character name. It is a name shared by six billion Transformers. The Attacktix figure does not particularly resemble any of them, and is in an assortment that has characters from G1, Energon, Cybertron, and Universe. As a result, we don't even know what continuity family Attacktix Thrust is from, much less whether he's the same guy as any Thrusts that continuity family may already have. We don't even know of any subgroups to list him under. We have no choice but to give him his own page.
- Omnicon and Mini-Con, however, are the names of types of characters, like Decepticlone. The use of it as the name of a figure indicates that that figure is a generic unit. Omnicon is not a guy named Omnicon, he's some random Omnicon who represents the Omnicon hoardes. Mini-Con is not a guy named Mini-Con, he's some random Mini-Con who represents Mini-Cons in general (and the first version is also Skyboom, which is mentioned here and will eventually be mentioned here, but that's beside the point). Making separate pages for them would be like making a separate page for Decepticlone on the theory that he's a character whose name is Decepticlone and who just randomly happens to look like a Decepticlone. Or insisting that a Star Wars Attacktix Stormtrooper figure represents a specific, never-before-seen character who is actually named Stormtrooper and just happens to also be a Stormtrooper.
- So, no. Making Omnicon (Attacktix) and Mini-Con (Attacktix) would be silly. --Andrusi 21:59, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
- As far as #3 goes, the clarifications work in conjunction with the links - the link tells you which Scourge is (ie, not a black truck or a locust), whereas the clarification tells you which of that character's bodies is depicted. Since Scourge only has had one, it doesn't need a descriptor, but since Hot Shot has had at least four structurally different bodies, he gets the clarifier. I think. - RolonBolon 23:08, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
- As it stands, you have to either check the URL or follow the link to the article to find out which Scourge it is. If that's okay, then I'm not sure why having to follow the article link to find out what body Hot Shot is in is worse. It also just looks bad, like two different people made parts of the list and then they were merged with no editing. Personally I'd go with putting descriptors on all of them. --Andrusi 04:17, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
- But his name is Minicon, not Mini-Con. You know, like the Autobot named Autobot. -Derik 05:17, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
- Autobot's name was explicitly given as Autobot. "Minicon" (which is spelled "Mini-Con" on the checklist) is clearly intended to be a group designation, unless, again, you want to argue for Mr. Decepticlone and Mr. Stormtrooper. Some common sense is required. --Andrusi 15:18, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
- An Autobot named "Autobot"? Where was this from? I know of the Last Autobot, but not of just plain "Autobot". --FortMax 16:20, 12 January 2007 (UTC)