As someone who was forced to use a BetaMAX up until 1997, I find this name to be one of the bestest evuh. I wonder if Beta Maxx's video and sound qualities were superior but nobody noticed and he became obsolete. --DrSpengler 03:19, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Is "High-TECH StarZ Schooner" (or whichever erratic way it's spelled) a past continuity reference? --Thylacine 2000 03:25, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Hell if I know. I think someone was on drugs. --ItsWalky 03:27, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
I want to say it's a reference to SOMETHING, but I'll be damned if I have ANY idea what. --M Sipher 03:47, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
A schooner is a type of beer glass, uh otherwise, I have no clue. --Gouki 11:17, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
I thought the question was about the "StarZ" part (which is now outdated, anyway), but if you're really asking about what a "schooner" is, well, Wikipedia is your friend.--G.B. Blackrock 18:36, 28 September 2007 (UTC)


On the head of the page, there is:
"Beta Maxx is an Autobot... Mini-Con? (maybe?) from the... something-something portion of the Generation 1 continuity family."
Isn't there been said we don't know yet which universe he belong too? shouldn't that be removed?--GUIGUI 14:39, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, there's no Shockwave in either the RiD or UT continuity families, and the FP comic can't touch Animated since IDW's going to be doing Animated stuff. Process of elimination, mostly. But Alpha Trion could still be the previously-featured UT version returning. --ItsWalky 14:42, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
Let me get this straight: Beta Maxx is supposed to be in G1 because he is in the same universe than Shockwave, but we can't assume the Alpha Trion mentioned in the same bio (saying he is the gardian of Beta Maxx) is from G1 even if he is in the same universe than Beta Maxx (who is in the same universe than Shocky), is that so? Frankly, I don't understand.--GUIGUI 14:51, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
UT Alpha Trion hung around with all sorts of people not from his continuity family. Even if Beta Maxx is FROM the UT, his stories are clearly going to be set IN the G1 continuity family, which means we keep the continuity note as-is. Then, like Breakaway, we note where he's (likely) originally from. --ItsWalky 14:56, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
We don't know that Beta Maxx's story is going to be in the G1 family. It could be someplace completely unknown at the moment. Even if G1 is most likely, it's still pure speculation.--G.B. Blackrock 18:38, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Could it be that the Shockwave in question would be the Transtech one?--GUIGUI 09:31, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

So, anybody know?--GUIGUI 17:22, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
There's been no indication of that in the comic, but there's no reason it COULDN'T be him, either. Best to leave it ambiguous. - Jackpot 21:25, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Not a mini-con?

This guys's Fun Pub profile explicitly says he's an Autobot- and makes no mention of him being a Mini-con, powerlinking, etc. With no fiction section and no box (he was bagged,) and since Alpha Trion's tech-spec just calls him a robot, I think this guy can safely be called a member of "Things that aren't mini-Cons", and I'm adjusting his article to match unless someone knows something I don't. -Derik 22:24, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I forget - does he have a minicon symbol on him? --Jimsorenson 22:33, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
Molded probably- but so did Caliburn, and he's a Micromaster, not a Mini-Con. 's a persistent problem with mold re-use.  :p -Derik 22:38, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
Actually, on examination of the TFU.imnfo pics... Beta Maxx / Safeguard doesn't seem to be a Mini-Con!
(I feel like there should be a way to prominently note this on his article, to prevent people from constantly 'adding' incorrect info...) -Derik 22:49, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
I think the way the article is written right now, stating that the character (i.e. fiction) is an Autobot but alluding to his Mini-Con roots (i.e. toy), is a very clear way to communicate all of the facts about him. Some of these discussions came up on the Mini-Con talk page but I think it's worth rehashing a bit. --Jimsorenson 22:19, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
And I think he shouldn't be in Category:Mini-Cons if he's not a Mini-Con. Which he isn't. -Derik 22:20, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
I strong, strongly feel that Category:Mini-Cons it an appropriate label. Mini-Cons represent toys as well as characters in fiction. Using only one definition artificially limits us in a way that is decidedly non-useful. It comes down to a cost-benefit analysis.
The cost of having the Mini-Con category is almost non-existent. It's basically "Someone might erroneously think that he's a Mini-Con fictionally." I'm not concerned about this, since the text of the page clearly states his Mini-Con standing.
The benefit is that anyone looking for information about Mini-Con toys can easily find it all in one place.
A category tag is meta information, information centered around the organization of information rather than around the subject of the article. There's no conflict here, Having the tag is useful, it's interesting, it hurts nothing. It should stay. --Jimsorenson 22:34, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
So go put Bug Bite in the Autobot category-- after all, that's what his toy was, originally.
That category is for characters who are, in-fiction, Mini-Cons. That's why non-toy characters appear in there.
If you want to create another category for Not-Minicons or somethign I wouldn't stop you, but I strongly, strongly feel that a character who is NOT a Mini-con does not belong in this one. -Derik 22:43, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
Addressing several points. 1: I'm not saying that any toy that's ever marketed as a Mini-Con can never be anything but a Mini-Con. I've spelled out an objective and reasonable criteria for what constitutes a Mini-Con toy, one that would be shared by the vast majority of fans, so your Bugbite example is flawed. I suspect that you know this already, though.
2: regarding your statement that the category is just for fiction - false. The category includes toy Mini-Cons with no fictional appearances - Quantum, for instance, has no bio, no fictional appearances, nothing - it's fiction and toys. How about we keep the category Mini-Cons for anything that's a Mini-Con in fiction OR toys (as it is right now), and you make ANOTHER category called Mini-Cons but only in fiction and excluding toys for your stuff. It'd accomplish the same thing. ;)
3: Your argument is "he's called an Autobot but never a Mini-Con." If this is really your position, then we need to start examining our other categories. I've been spending a lot of time on the Decepticon Mini-Cassette page recently. The Cobalt Sentrys were never referred to as Cassettrons or Decepticon Mini-Cassettes or anything else similar. Therefor, by this logic, they shouldn't be listed under the category Mini-Cassettes. Nor is the Autoscout ever referred to as a Decepticon Mini-Cassette. I'll start dredging up similar examples if you like. It boils down to: toys that meet certain objective criteria (toys that transform into mini-cassettes that fit Blaster & Soundwave are Mini-Cassettes; toys that have a powerlinx port and a Mini-Con symbol are Mini-Cons) can be considered as belonging to that category, even if one particular fiction doesn't back that up. It's more useful and intuitive to go with this philosophy than to attempt to find reasons to exclude toys from categories. Intuitive and useful categories tend to get picked up on by Hasbro and used - Seeker, for instance. Terms that are counterintuitive tend to get relegated to obscurity - Fusilateral Quintro-combiner. Don't try to make Mini-Con counter-intuitive. --Jimsorenson 23:00, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm... I'm a bit confused, here. Beta Maxx... isn't a Mini-Con. His toy is a redeco of a mold which was originally a Mini-Con, but the character it now represents is not a Mini-Con. It's like... it's like putting Movie Fracture in the "Autobots" category because her toy is a redeco of an Autobot. - Chris McFeely 00:02, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

I think Jim's argument is that including BM in the category is USEFUL, because people collect/have an interest specific to all those mini-con variations... and while we do have think categories should be "useful" (rather than anal-retentive,) in this case... makign the category useful (in for collectors) makes it use-less as a means to tell "Is this use of the mold a mini-con or not?"
I think we should have a "Things that are not Mini-cons" category. The overlap of the two would serve collectors needs... but we could also stick both categories on a character where there's conflicting official material-- making clear ti simultaneously is and isn't a Mini-Con. I don't know if this has happened yet... (Does Laserbeak count? there was a specific retcon intended to ADDRESS the package boo-boo) ...but it's bound too sooner-or-later. -Derik 01:26, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
Not my first choice but I could live with it. I'd still like to hear a few more voices chime in. --Jimsorenson 01:31, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
But they're all pre-occupied with the news the updated image archive is ready. -Derik 01:33, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.