Talk: Autobot shuttle

We need some more citations in here. Autobot shuttles in use during the Beast Era? An EDC version? Neither of these things rings a bell for me. --KilMichaelMcC 07:25, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

They'll come. My computer is in with geek squad or I'd be putting up proper snaps. My only image editor at the moment is Paint.

If you want to mark something as, use {{fact}}.

BTW; Wreckers and FFoD 4 (5?) respectively.-Derik 07:31, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Dude, Cheetor called it "an Autobot shuttle", right there on the screen. What more do you need?? But hey, for the record, there's like half a dozen different designs already shown on this page, some virtually identical to the shuttle from "Nemesis." Repowers 00:53, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

No there's not. The designs shown on this page are all multi-stage autobot shuttles with the blunt-edged 'wings', a rear conning tower, and a triple underbelly gun. (well, except the eierd blue one from Armada.)

The shuttle from Nemesis lacks all of those features- and it has a huge freaking windscreen none of these shuttles have. I got out my DVD's to check.

I do not deny it is a Autobot shuttle, but it's not one of the type of shuttle being discussed on this page. For the sale of completionism, there should probably be an other Autobot shuttles page, where the one from Nemesis would go, alogn with dozens of others. -Derik 01:06, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Wasn't the Ark shuttle given some sort of name in Beast Machines? I'd say it oughta have it's own article. --KilMichaelMcC 02:09, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

If it's an "Autobot shuttle", it seems pretty ridiculous to exclude it from an article entitled "Autobot shuttle". There's nothing in the article stating that it's restricted to this one model (basically the movie design and people recycling/copying it). If anything, the movie design should simply be a sub-section of this page, since few if any of them was ever given a name or designation.

I disagree.

OTOH, you are right that nothing on the page specifies that thiw page is about the movie shuttle. I shall remedy that. -Derik 05:38, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

...wait, what are you talking about? It's the quint spaceship page that doesn't have a header. This one explicitly states this page is about the multi-stage shuttles. -Derik 05:41, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand your point of view. By "header" do you mean the opening paragraph and not the actual webpage header (up in the title bar?) Because the title bar - and the page name - just say "Autobot shuttle", which doesn't specify any one model. If you want this page to be about the specific multi-stage model, then we should move it to a page titled appropriately. The page titled "Autobot shuttle" should, logically, be about *all* Autobot shuttles. --Sntint 05:51, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. The page titled 'Autobot shuttle' should be the most common type of shuttle, since there is one model that is far-and-above more common than the others. -Derik 05:59, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps the page should be plural, then? It could still list all shuttles, perhaps in order of importance, and we could still have an individual page for the sectional shuttle. But I think it needs a more specific name than "Autobot shuttle". I don't mean to suggest we make one up, so perhaps just amend it with wherever it first showed up? "Autobot shuttle (TFTM)"? --Sntint 06:03, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I have no objection to moving this page to someplace in favor of puttign a general shuttle list at Autobot shuttle, as long as this page remains discrete.

Any ideas on a title to move this to? I'm suggesting Autobot shuttle (movie), since even though it's not exclusive to the movie... everyone knows which one you mean. -Derik 07:06, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

As we are using "Movie" as the name of the live-action movie's continuity family, you might wanna go with something else there. TF:TM, perhaps? --KilMichaelMcC 07:13, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Ooh, good point. Multi-stage Autobot shuttle? Autobot shuttle (multi-stage)? That's reasonably clear. Or Autobot Shuttle (TF:TM)

We could move the entire thign to Transporrt Gunship- but that's not really an accurate name by any means.-Derik 09:15, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I think the best solution is for this article to be not moved, and be mainly about this most common type of shuttle, and also mention the other types we've seen briefly. I don't think the article needs to be exclusively about one type of shuttle. --Steve-o 13:23, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I ultimately agree, but since Derik seemed so dead-set against that (though I don't quite understand why), I was attempting a compromise. --Sntint 13:31, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I feel that this article is at attempting to be a complete listing of the features, little-knowns and terminology of the multi-sage shuttle. It has sub-sections dealing with different aspects of that. Creating another sub-section that also lists 'other types of shuttles' would disrupt the information-flow of the page- as well as unfairly requiring someone looking for information of shuttles in general to wade through minutia about the multi-stage shuttles.

There are (I gather) lots of different models of Autobot shuttles, so I think there should be a page of just 'every type of Autobot shuttle,' which would include one picture of this model and a {{see}} linking to the multi-stage article, just liek there woudl be for the All-terrain Turbo transport. An overview page. Most models were used once and have no or one unique feature worth mentioning- and often lack names.

I have no particular preference which one occupies the Autobot shuttle namespace, but I think they should be separate. -Derik 18:28, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Okay, you've convinced me. But I think the other page should be a more general "Autobot spacecraft", very similar to Quintesson spacecraft, rather than using the word "shuttle", and the current article should not be renamed to have a parenthetical or anything. "Autobot shuttle" was always treated more or less as a proper name. I would even say that the word "shuttle" for this article should be capitalized. --Steve-o 20:27, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh, well. I still disagree with the "Autobot shuttle" page referring to any specific model, but that's because I disagree with such a generic, broad-range sounding name as a proper noun. But that may be far too entrenched in culture, let alone this wiki, for me to bother disagreeing with. --Sntint 06:56, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I put the Omega Delta in here for a bit, then realized it already had a li'l stub under "Starships." Sorry, I'm kinda new at this.

I think that's one of the craft we're currently debating about anyway. 'Sokay. BTW, for future reference, you can sign talk page entries with a hyphen and four consecutive tildes. --Sntint 15:13, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Or just use the signature button. It's the one next to the red anti-W. Anyway, I agree that this article should only be about the specific Autobout shuttle introduced in TF:TM. The one the Maximals stole from the Ark should get it's own article, as it is an entirely different sort of craft, despite also being called an Autobot shuttle. It is a shuttle as in "Star Trek shuttlecraft", being an auxiliary craft of a mothership, rather than a shuttle as in "the space shuttle" which I wager is what the TF:TM ship is named after. --KilMichaelMcC 20:19, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Actual Size?

Same question as with the Ark, did we actually get any size dimensions in any Japanese stuff or design sketches? --ZacWilliam 02:07, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Other shuttles

Starting to put this together as a complementary piece to this page - any thoughts? --Emvee 19:03, 5 August 2008 (UTC)