Talk:Teletran-1

Identification, please
Was this rename really justified? As someone who was at that panel, Isenberg said the ship wasn't the Ark, but Derrick Wyatt insisted it was, and last year Hasbro said it was too. --Thylacine 2000 05:36, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Plus, didn't they say the ship's name in the very first episode? Jedi Wolf 16:44, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
 * The more I see this the more I hate it. As I mentioned, there is no actual reason for the name change:  Seibertron's account is misleading.  The original person who made the change should have put it up for discussion ahead of time; God knows we went back and forth enough about "Galvatron's (mother)ship".  The current title is inferior and should be changed back.  Does anyone DISAGREE with that, and if so, based on what?  --Thylacine 2000 17:42, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Do we have anything in canon calling this ship "the Ark"? —Interrobang 06:16, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Not within the series, just like there's nothing in the series calling the 'con ship Nemesis. It all came from Hasbro in '07.  --Thylacine 2000 13:47, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
 * The Decepticon ship being the Nemesis has a bit more confirmation than that now, as seen in the bit of the new Animated comic script that was released here. --KilMichaelMcC 15:33, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
 * writer > artist. IMO, things should only ever be given a name they've explicitly been referred to in the fiction in question. Behind the scenes stuff, or the name it got in some other continuity shouldn't count for anything more than trivia. - SanityOrMadness 20:56, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
 * That is a laudable ideal- but we use behind the scenes names for unnamed character all the time, because otherwise you'd have articles named "Unnamed Autobot 214". -75.168.112.43 00:48, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

In the comic adaptation of Animated episode 2, the term "Teletran-1" refers to the ship as a whole. It's used in narration several times, some more ambiguous than others, but the clincher is "Underneath the sea, on Teletran-1..." (I don't know if the use of the term "sea" casts doubt on the veracity of the narration, but there it is.) - Jackpot 18:26, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
 * In that case, I support renaming the article as such. I think it's clear the ship's name really was Ark given the model sheet, but if actual public media uses a different name, that should take precedence, with Ark put in as trivia.--Thylacine 2000 18:48, 4 May 2008 (UTC).
 * Pretty clear case for a merge with Teletran 1, I'd say. It's canon.--RosicrucianTalk 18:54, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

New information says that we might not want to do that just yet... -- SFH 23:50, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
 * The only spoilers I've seen are just images. While certainly they imply a future retitling, they don't change the question of whether this article and Teletran 1 should be merged.  Given the only facts we have, the ship and its computer seem to be considered one and the same.  This may well remain true after "A Bridge Too Close," if perhaps under a different name. - Jackpot 06:45, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

"Autobot ship" vs. "Teletran-1" vs...
So I've rewritten (well, mostly copy-pasted) this article the way I think it should be. We can merge Autobot ship (Animated) into this article or into Omega Supreme (Animated); I don't care which. But I do think that "Omega Supreme (Animated)" should remain a distinct article. I hold that the ship-plus-AI combination that is "Teletran-1" is as much a separate entity from Omega Supreme as Rhinox is a separate entity from Tankor. I think the duplication of information in "Omega Supreme (Animated)" can be cut down quite a bit, just like this article only skims the Omega-specific info. Such are my thoughts, anyhow. Have ats. - Jackpot 04:45, 7 July 2008 (UTC)