... You know, if it's going to be "popular" alternate modes, it should be a form that at least, you know, more than two people share. I say three seperate characters (if not three different MOLDS) is the bare minimum. -hx 03:13, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
- Me, I'd say five to six characters, with preferably a minimum of three or four different "molds" (since some of these bodies/characters may end up as fiction-only). Rampant redecoing is kinda cheating. --M Sipher 03:38, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
- I think we also have to be kind of tough on what counts. For cars, it should be same make and model. For critters, though, I'm gonna have to go with same general species. "Scorpions" seems acceptable to me, but "birds" doesn't. You'd have to do something more like "falcons" or "eagles" for it to seem alright. I dunno why. Also, what do we do with Fuzors? I'm kind of loath to include the Sharkticons and Seacons and shit, but, say, Overbite's bio identifies him as a "shark," while Snapdragon's just calls him a "reptile." -hx 22:11, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
- For invertebrates, I don't know HasTak have ever made multiple distinct species, so the way we count scorpions and crabs is fine. Spiders might be the exception there. The vertebrate section, however, is a MESS. We have a "wolves" section that excludes the domestic subspecies of Canis lupus, and then an entire order of mammals lumped together as "bats". Vertebrates should probably be broken down by species, although that makes a mess of bears. Breaking it down by genus, though, would lump together the lions, tigers, and jaguars... which is just wrong. -Rotty 23:06, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
- This just seems to be the way humans think about other animals--there's a strong pro-mammal bias. Every child can identify mammal species on sight ("wolf," "lion," "tiger," "gorilla"), but more distantly related animals are usually known only at the order or even subclass level ("parrot", "shark"). Their kind all look alike. --Thylacine 2000 00:49, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
- Aaron Archer doesn't care about black-winged Macaws (or whatever). -hx 01:16, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
- Indeed Thy, I was thinking just that as I wrote it. It's what we're stuck with though, since HasTak really DID make the crabs and scorpions to all look alike. The ones we need to clean up are "bats" and "sharks"... -Rotty 01:20, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
- Also, aside from K-9, have there BEEN any other TF non-wolf-canines? That hyena guy, I guess. I think the other issue is that "lions" is gonna have twelve guys, tops. "Big cats" is more like 40 guys. If we're going to do this at ALL, we should err on the side of making it manageable, and if that means dividing mammals more than dividing invertebrates, then I'm all for it. (also, seriously, we need a "two headed monster" category.) -hx 01:30, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
- Hoop, hyenas are Feliforms. Canis is just wolves (including the domestic dog and dingo), the coyote, and jackals. :) -Rotty 01:37, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
- I think this page is a useful reference whenever three or more characters from multiple molds share a vehicle mode. In the case of rampant redecoing, that mold's section on each character's toy page covers the body-sharing, so we should delete things like the Volkswagen Beetle. -Rotty 03:40, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
- We are getting a section on Tigers, right? -Derik 03:44, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
I wouldn't mind seeing this article changed from "popular" to "shared," and have no numerical restrictions, just list all specific alt modes that more than one character uses. --KilMichaelMcC 03:58, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
- Then we're basically making the page utterly redundant and useless, since we're talking what, half the TF cast?
- This is looking at the phenomenon of certain alternate mode models popping up more often than others, and across multiple unique toy molds. There are a LOT of unique Dassault Rafale jets in TFdom. A LOT of that Fizzle-style Baja Buggy. A LOT of those huge earth-mover dump-trucks. Two characters having the same altmode over almost 25 years doesn't quite impress, especially considering the sheer amount of redecoing of molds going on. --M Sipher 04:24, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
On an unrelated note, with the section on beast modes containing only lions, tigers, and bears, it's practically crying out for an "Oh My" header. Any Transformers that turn into beasts that are so utterly bizarre no one has any idea what they hell they are? - Dark T Zeratul 08:05, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
- Enough of them that are similar enough to each other to make up a listing on this page? Without checking, I'd say "probably not". --Sntint 13:57, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
- The only "monster" types I could even remotely entertain doing an entry here for would be "two headed dragon" (Hun-Grarararrrrugh, Doublecross, etc.) and "bug monster" (Repugnus, Repugnus) -hx 21:31, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
Requirements and cleanup
I think it's time we took a serious look at this page. It's currently a damn sprawling mess.
- First of all... let's decide on a "minimum requirements". I think the primary one should be "at least three unique 'molds' across as many different characters", (which would include instances like the IDW characters who have different model altmodes from their originals).
- Next... what counts as "close enough"? Neither make of Ferrari goes over two molds, but the two makes are pretty damn close visually.
- Let me propose this as an alternate method of listing to cut waaaaaay back on vertical space... it would need to be noted up top that these are grouped by mold, but still.
- Hot Rod (IDW comic, non-toy appearance)
Just kicking around stuff. --M Sipher 01:12, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
"Three molds" is definitely the right threshold. For the vehicles, your format looks good. None of the vehicular mold mates on this list are retooled to represent different models, so it works. Animal mold mates DO get turned into different species, though. -Rotty 01:25, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
- I can get behind "three molds," most def. I would argue that with autos, it should be make and model, but not necessarily year. The Mustang gets in, because there are three Mustang TFs, even though one is a first-gen and the other two are fifth-gen. The Ferraris don't, I don't think, 'cause they're different models. -hx 01:32, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
- I've only left the Ferraris in because you'd think that, like the Porsches and Lamborghinis, at least one of their supercars would have a mold threepeat in the 23-year history of the brand and it just wasn't coming to mind. -Rotty 01:39, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
Would Dromaeosauridae (raptors and Deinonychus) count? It's got a mold (Beast Wars Dinobot) shared by three characters, another mold (Transmetal 2 Dinobot) shared by two characters, and a retool (Thrustor) for one character. Interrobang 03:21, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
- No. We should only include individual species of vertebrates. "Dromaeosauridae" is waaay out of line, and there are only two unique molds anyway. The list you're making in the Sandbox is really flawed, with a "Walrus" list consisting entirely of a Pretender shell being indicative of how problematic it is. -Rotty 03:29, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
- That list only exists so I can keep track of how many Transformers fall under whatever classification. I'm not going to place it in here. Jesus, no. Regardless, the reason I put in "Dromaeosauridae" is because people can't seem to make up their mind on what exact species the two molds are. Interrobang 03:31, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
Or, more accurately, Beast Wars. I gotta be honest. I'm... not really thinking that including BW is a good idea, and I'm even questioning "beast modes" altogether. I mean... "Bears" is not the same level of specific classification as "Dassault Rafales". Which was kind of the point of the article... "ain't there a lot of Dassault Rafales" is considerably more curious than "ain't there a lot of sorta t-rexes", given the wide variety of fighter jet makes.
And even with the fudging made to avoid licensing on many a vehicle mode... it's nowhere as much fudging as the likes of the Cheetor mold, which has been used to be a cheetah, a tiger and a panther, three pretty damn different types of big cat. BM probably not either. Most of the organic beast modes are... really, really vague and bad representations of actual animals, as much so as the wholly-mechanical ones where Ravage being a jaguar is mostly a matter of "okay, if you say so". Damn guy could be a puma, cheetah, cougar... --M Sipher 03:42, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
- Yeeah. While I like the concept, it all needs too much hand-waving for my liking. We have to pack all spiders together to make a decent list, even though the species are as different as lions are to tigers. Arbitrary criteria isn't something we can do away with in animals. Interrobang 04:03, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
- I freely admit I added the beast section in the first place because I wanted to mock this article. That said, I think it's a legitimate section (albeit of an article I find silly.)
- ...you should dump the fuzors though. -Derik 06:38, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
I'm going to remove the beasts from this page and create one called "Popular beast modes" if there is no objection. The feeling seems to be that having lists for Gorilla, Canis, Tyrannosaurus, etc. is useful but can't be measured by the same standard as "Man, there sure are a lot of Lamborghini Diablos". -Rotty 05:11, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
Brawl is not an Abrams
Well, no more than the Rattler is an A-10. He was a repurposed "stealth tank" from XXX: State of the Union. -Rotty 05:33, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
Since two people seem to be against me on this I figured I'd post some photographic proof: 
Note the lack of secondary headlights on the Supra that are clearly present on the RX-7, among other glaringly obvious differences. I hope that clears everything up. Detour 08:47, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
I have to agree with Detour, being a mechanic. Siren/Go Shooter is much more like a FC3S 2nd Generation RX-7 then the Supra. I can see why people might think it's a Mark II or Mark III of Toyota's turn from Celica Supra to just plain Supra, but the FC3S has more of the little details that show that it's more like it. Also the rear lights on the Siren/Go Shooter toy have more of the curvature of a RX-7 FC3S Savanna.
- Note Siren's (okay, Go Shuta's - Siren's hood emblem is more distracting) centerline hood bump, absent on any of the appropriate model-year RX-7s, as well as the prominent front fender. Also notice the lack of an air intake on the toy as seen on the FC3S. If you ask me, the problem here is that the animators have decided to draw some other car for the cartoon - much like they did with all the Combaticons.
- I find it highly unlikely that two white cars were both intended by Hasbro and Takara to be RX-7s in the same year. Getaway is inarguably an RX-7 Turbo II.
- I don't care enough about this page to try to decide how this affects Siren's listing on it. -LV 14:55, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
- This isn't my area of expertise at all, but, if there is a seemingly legitimate uncertainty due to hybridized features or something, it is far better to explicitly note this in the article (regardless of where he's placed) than to just pick one or the other with no explanation. --Steve-o 17:34, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
The example you used in your photos is the FB3S, the first generation of the RX-7 line, not a good example. Also the FC3S came without the hood air intake also, just it's difficult to find a photo of one on short notice, the one pictured was the Savanna model, the more sporty version.
- It's like Proto said, not all models of the RX-7 came with a hood air intake. Here's one without: . Steve-O, I don't think there's uncertainty since I pretty much recognized Siren as being an RX-7 right away. I'm a Supra worshipper... if Siren was a Supra, I'd have recognized it and I'd be the first one flipping out with joy over it and pointing it out on the respective articles.
- Also, what's wrong with having two distinct toys sharing an alt mode in the same year? 1984 gave us two different Lamborghini toys, didn't it? And in 1985 we got both Camshaft and the RX-7 Minispy.
- You have yet to address the blatant difference in the front fascia between the matching Siren and Supra and the RX-7, as well as centerline hood bulge, which still do not match using your new picture. Removal of the hood air intake does not make the lines of the front end or hood match. -LV 01:18, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
Did someone forgot to put the Peterbilt 379 in this section? Optimus turns into a civilian vehicle.
- The word you're missing is "Popular." In other words, something more than one Transformer turns into. Please read! It's essential. --ItsWalky 02:15, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
You and I know how many semi trucks are there in the G1 Series.(18.104.22.168 00:26, 4 December 2007 (UTC))
There is already three space shuttles can you please put it down on the article? Astrotrain, Jetfire and Sky Lynx are the same American Space Shuttles.(22.214.171.124 00:01, 12 December 2007 (UTC))
- Jetfire has never been an American space shuttle. His Armada form is similar but still quite Cybertronian. Blast Off however qualifies easily.--RosicrucianTalk 00:05, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- There's also Mach, the Micromaster Combiners shuttle, the Sixwing component, and Galaxy Shuttle. --FortMax 02:00, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Since this only includes one particular tank, I don't think it needs its own sub-heading. I propose it and "Military aircraft" be combined into "Military vehicles", or "Military hardware". Any objections? --Sntint 23:02, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
- Works for me. Military ground vehicles outside of the "traditional" tanks don't seem to be too common in TFdom, do they. --M Sipher 23:34, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
Are you sure that many transformers turn into F-15s and F-22s?(MARV 2000 23:57, 10 March 2008 (UTC))
With Classics Prowl well on his way, would the Z series be considered a popular altmode, given the 280Z (Prowl, Bluestreak, Smokescreen), the 300ZX (Streetwise) and the 350Z (Classics Prowl)? --126.96.36.199 21:57, 11 March 2008 (UTC) (Detour at work)
What about them? We have Flattop, Broadside (G1) and Tidal Wave (Armada) and maybe some more which I'm not aware of. That's enough, or not? I'm not sure where to put them, "military vehicles" or "miscallenous". --2A6 22:41, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
- To be fair, Flattop's alt mode is a jet, he just comes with another jet that turns into an aircraft carrier. - Semysane 01:01, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
- I'm kind of loath to do "aircraft carrier" because that's kind of vague - if Recharge were here, he could probably clarify, but I'm pretty sure that "aircraft carrier" is like "racing motorcycle" - there are a lot of different designs out there, and some of them are probably fudged for TFs sake. If someone who knew what they were talking about (like 'Charge) could actually sit down and go "Tidal Wave, Broadside, and Flattop's carrier are all Nimitz-class carriers or close enough," then go for it. Otherwise it's like saying that Groove, Glide, and RiD Axer all belong together because they're touring bikes. (note that I don't think this is gonna happen, because Tidal Wave's carrier is basically a marginally better depiction of an aircraft carrier than Grandus.) -hx 11:57, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
- I'm with Hoop on this. I mean, we do have one kinda-vague set, the Baja buggy... but at least that one has a fairly hefty group of dudes in that form (plus I don't know if there even IS a "brand" for them). If you're kinda struggling for three... --M Sipher 13:28, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
- I also had that thought about the necessity of specific types/classes of carriers when I wrote the initial post, but then again I thought that Aircraft carriers should be treated as a single group, mainly because the TF Aircraft carrier-designs are pretty generic and stylized and those differences and details which an expert would look for at real carriers are simply not present at those lil' toys. I mean, to make a car into an 4" toy, it only has to be downsized to a scale of 1:50 or so, to make a 4 inch toy out of an aircraft carrier means a scale of 1:"severalhundred". Thus a lot more details are ironed out. But it's your decision, not mine. --2A6 23:06, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
- If I felt that the TF aircraft carriers were designed with even a REMOTE eye for accuracy, I'd be more willing to consider it, but as it stands, the TF carriers are all *very* crude approximations, even taking toy scale into issue - they're better at being aircraft carriers than say, Grandus or Majin Zarak, but they're all still basically "big flat thing with a little towery bit=aircraft carrier." -hx 01:11, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
G2 Eagle Eye is listed here as a Rafaele, but his page calls him a EF2000 Eurofighter. Which is it? --Xaaron 17:24, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
For a project I'm working on, I'd like to be able to source the various construction vehicles. I think quite a few fulfil the rules above. One problem is the two sides of the Atlantic use different terms. On the east we use terms like cement mixers, diggers and er, other terms I haven't used since I was 6! Drmick 10:55, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Likewise for the same reasons above. Specific model types of motor-cycles (as is applied to cars) might be being a bit too strict. Drmick 10:55, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
is it okay to put sideswipe (rotf) under chevy corvettes? He turs into the 2011 corvette stingray concept car.