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)
- 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)
- 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)
- Do we have anything in canon calling this ship "the Ark"? —Interrobang 06:16, 4 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)
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)
Bridge Too Close
...oh joy, so apparently the Season 2 finale which has just leaked to Dubai has spoilers about this too.--RosicrucianTalk 00:09, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
- Yeah...so what do we do now? Move the page to conform to the new information and spoil it for everyone else? Or do we revert and censor until A Bridge Too Close airs? -- SFH 00:32, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
- Having this at the "proper" article title would be as bad a situation as when we jumped the gun and started making Elita-1 redirects the day "Along Came a Spider" aired. It's a big spoiler.--RosicrucianTalk 00:39, 14 May 2008 (UTC)