Talk:Popular beast alternate modes

Untitled

If we're going to have this page at all, we're going to have to at least try to respect biological classification: pick levels we deem noteworthy and then stick with them across all groups. "Panther" is not a real animal name. Work in progress... --Thylacine 2000 02:25, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Should we just eliminate the common names, then? Everyone should still know what we're talking about if we just say Panthera and Gorilla, surely. -Rotty 02:56, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

But they won't automatically know what we're talking about when they see Acinonyx or Ceratotherium. Though I guess it becomes clear when you list the characters beneath them. --Thylacine 2000 03:56, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Thy, I have to disagree. We are writing this article for random laypeople that want to know about shared beast forms, not biologists. I think the page becomes significantly less useful if we do anything other than refer to the animals at the level at which random uneducated people will refer to them. None of the organization should be erroneous, of course, but random people will know the difference between at least some big cat species, and we should reflect that by splitting the big cats up. Readers will care whether the altmode is a lion versus a tiger, or perhaps even a polar bear versus some other variety of bear. But most people don't really know or care about different scorpions, for instance, so there is no need to split them up. --Steve-o 04:19, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Steve, but I think it would serve to identify both ways. If we categorize with general "layman" animal types, we can give a scientific name, perhaps in parentheses, following the Transformer name on each entry into the list. --Sntint 04:33, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

We don't need to do that after every Transformer's name! I already broke all the vertebrates except "Bats" and "Rhinos" (which need work) down to the genus in parentheses. -Rotty 05:27, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, then for those for whom it is necessary or pertinent? List the bats and rhinos as bats and rhinos, then specify after each individual's name. For the sake of information. --Sntint 05:44, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Dinoforce

Are we to include these guys? Does the disguise of the shell count as an "alternate mode" to the robot, even if it's a mode that doesn't resemble that of the inner altmode (unlike Carnivac and Catilla, who unambiguously do fit on this list)? Also, while I'm here, the pterosaur shit is really hard because I honestly don't remember which "Swoop" and "Terranotron" came out in BM or Armada and which ones were naming errors on instruction sheets and whatnot. --Thylacine 2000 19:51, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't consider a Pretender shell to be a "mode" at all. --M Sipher 20:04, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, considering Pretender shells can have modes of their own, not to mention several pretenders already being listed on the virtue of their inner body's alt-mode.--Rosicrucian 21:17, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Snapdragon

Anyone feels that though his name has "Dragon", but his altmode looks like kinda dinosaur rather the Dragon. -- TX55 09:02, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

He's not readily identifiable as any sort of creature other than "upright lizardy guy" so no, not really. It's not like he's blatantly a t. rex or what-have-you. -hx 12:50, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

i have to double-check, but i think according to Transformers: More than Meets the Eye (Dreamwave Productions), Snapdragon (G1) turns into a dinosaur... but is his beast mode "realistic" enough to justify moving his entry in this article? --Rhymus (talk) 00:07, 23 January 2014 (EST)

Speaking of which...

I kind of think we should break "Dragons" down to "Traditional Dragons" and "Two-Headed Dragons," since we've got quite a few of those out there (RiD Megs, Hun-Grr, Doublecross, Sinnertwin sorta... I feel like I'm forgetting someone. Anyway, just a thought. I don't think there's any other fantasy monsters that are as common or as identifiable. -hx 12:52, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Singular and Double Dragons?--Zodberg 13:44, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Multi-headed. Cyb. Scourge has 3 heads. -- Repowers 15:11, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Megatron in Beast Machines-Dragon Category

When he gets angry in beast machines he drops out of the armor and changes to a dragon. Why isn't this in there? It only lists Beast Wars Megatron's Dragon form currently. If there's a good reason I'm missing, please inform me. Mrhthepie

It COULD be because BW Megatron is already listed, much like how Deathsaurus is only listed once instead of twice (his original Japanese toy form and his Botcon exclusive toy). BM Megatron and BW Megatron are the same character. --Detour 21:32, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Cobrabreast?

Who is Cobrabreast? Is he a Beastformer? A Breastmaster component? -75.168.112.43 00:46, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Cobrabreast is the Breast Animal/partner of Deathcobra. --TX55 00:57, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Er- why is he not mentioned on Deathcobras's page? Or anywhere? -Derik 16:39, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Ha ha

I have this incredible urge to add "homo sapiens" under Primates and list 95% of all Transformers ever. --ItsWalky 18:42, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Transforers don't transform into humans, they transform into upright bipeds with bilateral symetry.

...but seriously, add homo sapiens and put all the Pretenders in. -Derik 18:45, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Speaking of Pretenders, should the Dinoforce be put in under the various dinosaur listings or not, since only their shells are dinosaurs? --Nightshade83 19:42, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

We discussed Dinoforce above, and seemed to come down on "no." Though I guess we could include an asterisked / italicized "so-and-so had a SHELL of a triceratops while not actually turning into one," and so on. If we're going to include ANY of the Pretenders, then I'll go for it. Note, though, that if we do include Pretender shells, the Dinoforce apatosaur will put us over the three-mold threshold for sauropods! --Thylacine 2000 21:04, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Horses?

Alright, I got a question for you guys, since I can personally see how it could go either way in an argument. So, we only include guys who have at least three different toys/character models/body types into this page. Now as far as horse go, we got two for certain; Mach Kick and Strada. And then there's a third one, but I'm still debating with myself wether or not he should count; Dropshot (Armada). From what I can tell, he never uses his horse mode in-story, but considering his character model is based off of a toy that does have a horse mode, does that make it count anyways? One would naturally assume he does have a horse mode under his circumstances, but it's still not backed up by officially published fiction... So yes or no, does he count? Ascendron 20:22, 21 April 2009 (EDT)

I had forgotten all about Dropshot and never knew about Strada. They both definitely count. Good catch! I'm tempted to include Battle Unicorn and Magna Stampede too, though probably not at first....--Thylacine 2000 21:59, 21 April 2009 (EDT)

Yeah, mythical animals are kinda tricky... I mean, Bruticus (RID) is classified as dog, so why wouldn't Unicorns be classified as part of the horse familly tree? I'd personally include them in too. :) Ascendron 22:04, 21 April 2009 (EDT)

Bovidae != Bovinae

Bovines are of the subfamily Bovinae. Goats and antelopes are under the subfamily Caprinae. Thus, while goats are bovids they are not bovines. Including Ramulus here seems a bit of a stretch.--Rosicrucian ^Talk 14:39, 27 April 2009 (EDT)

I'll change the section title to "Bovids", then. I don't think there's a good reason to exclude them if they already fit into a manageably-sized category that was already there, in this case the family level. We use order-level classification for elephants already. --Thylacine 2000 15:11, 27 April 2009 (EDT)

Ohay! Ice Age Wars

So, I just read up on Hearts of Steel and I noticed the part where the Transformers get prehistoric animal alt-modes... Now, I don't actually own the comics, so I'd be pretty hard for me to do it, but could anyone check what the altmodes of the characters are illustrated as having? Some of them might boost some altmode counts into appearing on this page... Or get included in already existing categories... As far as I can tell, none of them have been counted on this page. --Ascendron 23:22, 1 May 2009 (EDT)

...yeah, we forgot all about them. Someone who has the issues or who can point to online scans: help? --Thylacine 2000 13:52, 5 May 2009 (EDT)

I managed to get my hands on some scans of the comic. :) I'll post them asap. Gimme a few minutes. --Ascendron 14:11, 5 May 2009 (EDT)

These are all the pictures of the Transformers with beast modes that I could find (aside from a few, which where just redundant close-ups and whatnot). I don't know my G1 characters very well though, so I'm having trouble figuring out who is who...

[1] [2] (this one has two close-ups, since it's a two-page spread; [3] [4]) [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17]

--Ascendron 14:43, 5 May 2009 (EDT)

Hrrrff. Thanks for providing those, but that artwork turns out to be really unhelpful. The beast modes are unclassifiable when they're not completely unrecognizable; what does Bumblebee turn into, a ten-foot-tall pillbug? It also doesn't help that all the robot modes look the same, basically the Dery models covered in teeth. We might be able to nail down Optimus Prime as a mammoth... though now that I think of it, I recall reading somewhere that he's actually supposed to be a sauropod. If anyone can make firm identifications I'm eager to read them, but I have low hopes. Thanks for doing the work on this at any rate; I hope you don't find this discouraging! --Thylacine 2000 14:57, 5 May 2009 (EDT)

Not at all! :) If anything, anyone can pillage and crop those images to fill in some of the characters' pages. I'm pretty sure I heard somewhere that the artist for Hearts of Steel confirmed somewhere that Optimus is a Brachiosaurus (this things with the really long necks from the first Jurassic Park movie) and I'm GUESSING that Bumblebee transforms into an Ankylosaurus (the same thing Bazooka (BW) and redecos becomes) But yeah, the more I look at it, the more these guys just look like "Generic Prehistoric Monstrosities"... --Ascendron 15:03, 5 May 2009 (EDT)

Sorry, this was me, forgot to log in. Shouldn't Cicadacon/BWII Equivelent guy be listed here as well? Kayb 20:14, 28 May 2010 (EDT)

Venom and Cicadacon/DJ--that's two molds. We need a third distinct cicada mold before the group can be included. --Thylacine 2000 22:44, 28 May 2010 (EDT)

Oh yeah, forgot the three mold thing Kayb 03:40, 29 May 2010 (EDT)

Triceratops/Torosaurus

So, should we change the "Triceratops" entry to "Torosaurus", "Triceratops (juvenile Torosaurus)", or something else (or leave it as-is) in light of this news? -- Ayellowbirds 15:10, 30 July 2010 (EDT)

Considering that the article states that Torosaurus would be the genus to be abolished, leaving Triceratops as the official name, I'd say no. --Khajidha 22:11, 30 July 2010 (EDT)

Oops, missed that, somehow. My mistake. -- Ayellowbirds 16:05, 2 August 2010 (EDT)

That's okay. Your idea makes sense from a layman's point of view: if Torosaurus is the adult then the name should be Torosaurus, right? Wrong. When merging two or more genera into one, the important thing is priority. The first name that was properly published is the one that gets to stay. --Khajidha 16:21, 2 August 2010 (EDT)

In-fiction pics

I like the idea of pictures in the list, but I think it would be a little more interesting if the pictures were from fictional appearances. Anyone agree? - Starfield 21:22, 20 September 2010 (EDT)

Nope. This page is pretty toy-centric, just look at the the requirements for being listed. --Khajidha 06:41, 21 September 2010 (EDT)

The requirements are a way to organize the page, and has provisions for non-toy characters. - Starfield 09:42, 21 September 2010 (EDT)

Understood, I was giving my reasons for disagreeing. I would agree to fictional appearance images for non-toy characters. --Khajidha 09:46, 21 September 2010 (EDT)

Grim Wing, Blight, Windrazor, and Rippersnapper

Unless we're just holding off on these until the packaging officially calls them dragons, I don't think this is correct for all of them. Windrazor is basically a wyvern, an armless dragon, Grim Wing is really just a regular dragon (possibly Slavic, if you consider Blackbeak an extra head).

Blight is a Grendely gargoyle or troll thing, maybe a Tarasque, okay, and Rippersnapper is basically a Spinosaurus or other theropod (though they're probably intended to just be "original" types of dragons), but I think Grim Wing and Windrazor can definitely be added.KrytenKoro 15:54, 26 March 2013 (EDT)

Grimwing was apparently described as an 'ursagryph', ie. a bear-falcon, at the Toy Fair Hasbro panel. Jalaguy 16:26, 26 March 2013 (EDT)

...huh. Ooooooookay, Hasbro.KrytenKoro 16:56, 26 March 2013 (EDT)

Yeah. Apparently the toy designer was adamant that Hasbro point it out. Which is fair enough, I guess, as there's no way in hell we'd have worked it out otherwise. Jalaguy 17:03, 26 March 2013 (EDT)

Apparently Hasbro is still calling it a dragon for Tales of the Beast Hunters, though.KrytenKoro 13:41, 10 May 2013 (EDT)

Spiders

i'm no expert in zoology, but i seem to remember from reading about the individual characters/toys that none of the Blackarachnias (called Black Widow or Blackwidow in Japan) are actually black widow spiders, and neither Tarantulus nor Tarantulas are actually tarantulas--but Blackarachnia (BW) is a Tarantulas (BW) redeco. Therefore, i propose we change the reference from specifically naming Black Widow Spiders (Latrodectus mactans) to just the broader heading Spiders, and add Tarantulas (BW) (but i guess not Tarantulas (Animated), whose limited appearances don't seem to confirm any particular altmode). ...Aw, propose nothin', i'm just gonna do it and leave this note to justify doing so. Airachnid doesn't make the cut though, right? Right. --Rhymus (talk) 04:13, 6 December 2013 (EST)

Blackarachnia announces herself to be a black widow spider in "The Agenda, Part II" and "Other Voices, Part I." So all of her toys are black widow spiders, just as much as Cheetor's ridiculous not-a-cheetah is a cheetah. Crystal Widow is NAMED "Widow," and Animated Blackarachnia has the red hourglass mark. Arcee is a repaint, which tend to get "kept" as their original versions unless explicitly stated otherwise (like Cheetor repaints). I think this should go back to the way it used to be. --Thylacine 2000 (talk) 23:40, 13 January 2014 (EST)

Fair enough. i did re-add Tarantulas, though (just as a spider, not a black widow). --Rhymus (talk) 00:01, 23 January 2014 (EST)

I'm pretty sure you would have to have at least two more non-black widow spiders (or, preferably, two more tarantulas) in order to add him. --Khajidha (talk) 07:12, 23 January 2014 (EST)

alphabetical or chronological or what?

If someone (i might or might not lend a hand) wanted to organize the listings in the article, does anyone have any recommendations for whether to put characters in alphabetical order, chronological order (by first use of the mold), popularity (by most frequently used mold)...? --Rhymus (talk) 00:16, 23 January 2014 (EST)

Pterodactyls

I'm surprised pterodactyls aren't more popular. I can only find Blades the Rescue Dinobot and Lazorbeak (according to his package). Doing a little Googleing has taught me that "pterodactyl" doesn't seem to be a real thing, which surprised me, but rather the word gets used as kind of a generic term for flying Dinosaur. Maybe someone who knows their dinos better can tell me if it Blades can be listed anyway. - Gimmick (talk) 13:31, 29 June 2014 (EDT)

Okay first off you corrected yourself that they aren't called Pterodactyls. Now, they're also not dinosaurs, but rather close relatives. Learn more about Dinosaurs. Escargon (talk) 13:45, 29 June 2014 (EDT)

Be less of a dick. --M Sipher (talk) 15:20, 29 June 2014 (EDT)

I'd be in favour of an entry for pterodactyl, possibly with a note directing the reader to the Wikipedia article to learn more about the term. --abates (talk) 16:40, 29 June 2014 (EDT)

Escargon, Blades is called a pterodactyl on his package, I was trying to figure out what that means for this list. Thanks for the heads-up on the technical use of "Dinosaur." I think I knew that, but I was just being sloppy. Abates, Wikipedia could be clearer, but I think I figured out that "pterodactyl" is an informal and/or incorrect term for "pterosaur". Why didn't I know that? I blame Dino-Riders, and the freezing of my dinosaur knowledge from that part of my childhood. Here is a picture of a Pterodactyl shooting a Pteranodon. Clearly Pterodactyls and Ptranodons were two distinct species of flying dinos. - Gimmick (talk) 22:41, 29 June 2014 (EDT)

Crocodiles are more closely related to Dinosaurs than Pterosaurs are. Birds are Dinosaurs, Pterosaurs are not. The Pterodactyl is a species of Pterosaur (the first one discovered, actually). If you just want to call Dinosaurs, Pterosaurs, marine reptiles, etc. "Saurians", that would be acceptable.KrytenKoro (talk) 23:38, 29 June 2014 (EDT)

"Pterodactylus (/ˌtɛrəˈdæktɨləs/ TERR-ə-DAK-til-əs, from the Greek πτεροδάκτυλος, pterodaktulos, meaning "winged finger") /ˌtɛrəˈdæktɨl/ is a genus of pterosaurs, whose members are popularly known as pterodactyls." How could that be any clearer? Pterodactylus is an actual genus. Pterosaurs (most formally, Pterosauria) are the overall group. Pterodactyl is used informally to mean any pterosaur. Oh, and "flying dino" doesn't mean "pterosaur", it means "bird". --Khajidha (talk) 06:54, 30 June 2014 (EDT)

We can never mind about "Dinosaurs." This page correctly separates Dinosaurs and Pterosaurs. The confusing thing about "Pterodactyl" is that it popularly means "any Pterosaur"—but some people, like KrytenKoro and the text of the Wikipedia article, use "Pterodactyl" to mean only Pterodactylus. I don't think anybody who informally uses "Pterodactyl" means Pterodactylus, since Pterodactylus is the size of a chicken, and most people are thinking bigger. I don't think Blades or Lazorbeak are meant to be the size of a chicken, so I assume Transformers uses Pterodactyl as a sloppy synonym for Pterosaur. - Gimmick (talk) 11:01, 30 June 2014 (EDT)

Well, the thing is, those people are wrong. Pterodactyl has been used to refer to a specific species of Pterosaur, literally since the word was created. The informal use of the name has always been an incorrect usage based on scientific ignorance, as with using "bugs" for non-beetles, or depicting black holes as giant space-vacuums.

I'm really unsure what argument you're trying to advance here. Pterodactyl Transformers are going to be rare, because the Pterodactyl is one species of Pterosaur that is, well, not very interesting, as it's small and has an unimpressive appearance. As for Blades and Lazorbeak, this is hardly the first time that a Transformer, especially a beast-form Transformer, did not match the size of its natural counterpart, or the first time that Transformers got a species-name wrong (ex. Velociraptor/Deinonychus). Blades's package calls it a Pterodactyl (although it more closely resembles a Pteranodon), so it should be fine for being listed as a Pterodactyl if it gets added to this page.KrytenKoro (talk) 18:16, 30 June 2014 (EDT)

Robot modes are not alternate modes

Why are the cassettes and others in the list? Having their robot modes in the list is the equivalent to saying that Frenzy, Rumble and actually most Transformers have human altmodes--D.A.Martin (talk) 11:26, 30 June 2014 (EDT)

Because they don't have the regular humanoid robot mode. They transform from cassette to beast, not cassette to robot. It would be a huge disservice to the page not to include them for such a reason. Bass X0 (talk) 05:23, 6 July 2017 (EDT)

Birds

Can we fold Birds into Dinosaurs? There's not a ton of them anyway, and science and all that.KrytenKoro (talk) 18:30, 30 June 2014 (EDT)

Are dragons mythical creatures?

Just an idea. Should we be more in-universe and not call dragons mythical creatures since they really exist in Transformers? - Gimmick (talk) 21:20, 28 August 2014 (EDT)

Maybe if it were in-universe prose describing what alternate modes Transformers like to have, but I think, since this article is an out-of-universe list, it's wise to stick to an out-of-universe definition of mythical. Jalaguy (talk) 07:23, 29 August 2014 (EDT)

What if the name indicates a species they definitely aren't?

I'm not referring to ones who don't look like much what they're supposed to be because they're on the vague side, but rather to ones that are easily identifiable as something else entirely. I'm specifically thinking of "Spinosaurus drone", which is actually a Dimetredon. So should it be listed under Spinosaurus as it currently is? Or counted only as a Dimetredon? If we didn't have all lizards lumped together anyway, Geckobot and BW Iguanus would be two more examples. (And we do have Night Viper correctly listed as a cobra.) NovaSaber (talk) 23:32, 22 August 2016 (EDT)

"Motifs" are not modes

The RID15 characters recently added to this page should be removed. Transit is a bus that turns into a robot, who happens to have a rhino horn. Bisk is a car that turns into a robot, who happens to have lobstery antennae and claws. They are not robots in disguise as a rhino or a lobster. --Thylacine 2000 (talk) 10:52, 22 July 2021 (EDT)

While I agree with this, I could see a note somewhere on this page something along the lines that "characters in the 2015 RID franchise often have robot modes with bestial characteristics, see those characters's pages for more details". --Khajidha (talk) 11:07, 22 July 2021 (EDT)

Severe pruning

Seriously, like... TWO toys of one beast mode in 40 years of the line is not exactly what I'd call "popular". If the number of unique molds of a particular beastie isn't even within spitting distance of double-digits, it has no business being on here. --M Sipher (talk) 00:26, 24 January 2024 (EST)

Honestly, three "molds" is too low a number at this point. It made more sense in the wiki's early days before a decade and a half of severely exploded popularity and product offerings, but now... feeling like maybe six should be the bare minimum. --M Sipher (talk) 17:38, 24 January 2024 (EST)

As someone who did a huge amount of the writing for this page back in the day... yeah, I agree. After an additional 15 years (gah), if something is still at 3, that's actually not so popular after all. I would not object to going for 6. Same thing for "popular vehicle alternate modes." --Thylacine 2000 (talk) 09:56, 6 February 2024 (EST)

Personal tools

Views