FANDOM


I would apprciate tons of help with this page.

I'm not too good with the editing stuff. Have put down every G1 character off the top of my head that I know has some modern visual analogue. Drmick 11:53, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Not Right....

Homages are toys that look like existing characters but ARE NOT THEM or version of them. A lot of the list here (Nightbeat, any of the classics) are NOT homages, just new bodys of the existing guys.

Well actually....

You are indeed correct if you are talking about the character in terms of fiction. However the Nightbeat Botcon toy is not the original Nightbeat toy, it is a homage to that toy. It may be the same character in terms of G1, but is that Nightbeat toy an official G1 toy? Are the classics toys officially G1? For that matter, do the classics have any official fiction or stories? You could nitpick this all sorts of ways, but what I want is a list of as many G1 characters as possible with modern, more poseable and cooler toys.

The Club Nightbeat toy is indeed a toy of the Generation 1 character. The bluk of the non-Minicon Classics toys are the G1 characters as well. They're not officially in the G1 toyline, but neither are the Generation 2 or Machine Wars toys. --FortMax 17:34, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
"but what I want is a list of as many G1 characters as possible with modern, more poseable and cooler toys."
Well... that's not really what a homage list would be. - Chris McFeely 18:04, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
The first sentence of the article: "In fan terminology, an homage is a toy that is intentionally designed to resemble an earlier (usually Generation 1) toy or character, without being the exact same character." If you're going to do this massive cataloguing of visual homages (which I think will be way more trouble than it's worth anyway), at least follow the definition set down already. And, honestly, I think the article is best served by having just a few examples, maybe the ones already in the text. If I were you, I'd set up a personal sandbox page for your project (such as User:Drmick/Sandbox/Homages) that you can use to flesh it out and push it to its limits before you decide it's really worthwhile to have out here. I just foresee a lot of headaches due to the inherent subjectivity and massive scope of the endeavor, and it's best to keep that out of the public space until you've played with it for a while. - Jackpot 18:26, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
"Well... that's not really what a homage list would be". An equivalency list then. I personally think the idea has merit. The subjectivity aspect would only apply to a small portion of the characters listed. The biggest headache would be all Primes, Megatrons, Arcees and Grimlocks overloading the page. Is your (pl) opposition to the overall aim of the page, or the misrepresentation of the word homage? (In meantime, will preserve the work I've done as a Sandbox) Drmick 19:50, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
The reason why it doesn't belong HERE is, yes, the misrepresentation of the word "homage." I don't know how much opposition to the idea there is in concept, but for myself, I think the sheer size and potential ungainliness of it, not to mention the need for constant upkeep, outweigh its benefit as a resource. But then, I'm not the one doing it, so knock yourself out. The best way to prove its worth is to MAKE it and see if people start to warm up to it.
The only precedent that immediately comes to mind is this, where it was stated without opposition that documenting every single instance of a certain thing would be overkill. My instinct is that that applies here as well. But, hey, that's just me, and if fleshing it out in your sandbox generates more interest and support, then you have every right to try and work it back into the public sphere.
- Jackpot 20:26, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
Okey dokes. I'm working away on it in my sandbox, and trying to get the appropriate homage words wiki-linked. It'll keep me going for a while :) I don't think it would need that much constant upkeep when it's done though. We get a maximum of one Prime every year or so, a bit less for the other popular characters, hardly ever for the less popular characters etc etc Drmick 20:34, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
I've just spent a fair bit of time this weekend looking at photos of literally dozens of new G1-reference toys unveiled at BotCon, so can't share your optimism there. :) The best way I can convey my sense of this project's overreach is to recommend you check out TFU.info and browse through some of its character pages. Specifically, go to the bottom of each one and see how many alternate versions there are of the average popular TF. If, after doing that with a wide range of characters, you're still comfortable with the scale of this thing, then more power to you. I'm just sayin'.
Edit: Not to belabor the point, but this discussion has clarified something in my head. The reason why this project goes against the grain of what I think is appropriate is not just that it's obsessively and pedantically overthorough, since that motivation drives this entire damn Wiki. It's that it's overthoroughly documenting a pattern, not a discrete thing. One might say that obsessive pedantry is to blame for the fact that we have an article on Rorza, the Rocket-Cycle Racer from Rigel III, but nevertheless we do because he has a unique identity that, no matter how obscure and unimportant, deserves mention lest he be forgotten entirely. Whereas the "Homage" article can get away with mentioning only a handful of homages because that's enough to demonstrate the existence of homages. Documenting every single homage adds no real value to the article, as it has already accomplished its goal. Likewise the Animation error article I linked above: a few of the more amusing or notable examples are enough; too much is overload. If you really want all of these "equivalencies" included in the Wiki, the most kosher method would be to document them in the character articles themselves as Trivia points, not in one giant list. Such is my observation of this Wiki's existing style, anyway.
- Jackpot 20:48, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Bad Image File

The image for Cybertron Buzzsaw isn't showing up, and looking at the file directly just calls up an image URL, not the image itself.--Apcog 04:44, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.