There are a lot more Clones in Transformers than just the two pairs of G1 toys. Should this article be expanded to include all instances of clones (from DW, BW, IDW, ect...) or do we just want to keep it for the G1 toy "subgroup", in which case we'd need a general clone page too? I would think putting it all in the same place makes the most sense, but I thought I'd check before changing the nature of the page that completely. Thoughts? --ZacWilliam 13:45, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

This page should probably be moved to Clone (subgroup) or similar, I think. JW 14:40, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
I think all instances of TF clones -- including the G1 subgroups -- can be covered on one page. --Steve-o 17:56, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
I think putting, say, the Dinobot clone and the G1 Clone subgroup on the same page would be kinda like putting, well, Dinosaur on the same page as Dinobot (G1). "Clone (subgroup)" is a formally defined Hasbro marketing term with a specified, finite number of toys included in it. "Clone (genetics)" is either a term used for an organic being created in a specific way, or (since this is not a hard science genre) a generic term for entities which are duplicates or near-duplicates of existing entities, created in any of many ways. I think any Hasbro-defined toy subgroup should get its own page, unmuddied by stuff that happens to share the same word.
My current stance is that Clone should redirect to Clone (disambiguation), which should contain links to Clone (subgroup) (or possibly Clone (G1)), Clone One, and all other relevant pages. JW 18:10, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
I say we just make this a sub-section of a page on cloning. Anything else feels like an artificial separation- and these guys would have to be pretty heavily covered on any page about TF cloning anyway. -Derik 19:34, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I'd still prefer to put all clone coverage on one page, but, whatever. (And JW's worry about Clone One here is a little weird; it's not like he wouldn't still have his own article as a unique character.) Now the only problem is that this page should just be called "Clone" because there isn't another page with the same name. Cloning and Clone can both exist, and should have Template:Disambig2 at their tops. --Steve-o 16:05, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

"JW's worry about Clone One here is a little weird; it's not like he wouldn't still have his own article as a unique character" Fair point. JW 16:20, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.