Talk:Unicron

Greenycron

In case people are wondering, that toy should really be under the "Mini-Con" entry, since the toy represents a Unicron doppelganger made up of countless Minis, not Unicron himself. --M Sipher 00:59, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Rule Breaking Chaos Bringer?

Looking at the entry it's kinda breaking the rule that the "Character Profile" section should not be continuity specific and should only contain continuity-neutral character/personality info. Unicron's here is most definately skeewed towards latter Armada era continuity and doesn't apply at all to his Movie/Cartoon self and story. Are we breaking the rule on him intentionally, or does it need fixing? ZacWilliam 02:08, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

The currently operative retconned storyline is that there is only one Unicron, who travels the dimensions of the multiverse. Armada Unicron = G1 Movie/Cartoon Unicron = Marvel Unicron = Dreamwave Unicron. They're all the same guy, regardless of continuity. --KilMichaelMcC 02:19, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

I know that but I don't think it *CAN* work with G1 cartoon. Like it or not there is no Primus in that Continuity and Unicron is NOT a god, just a big machine built by Primacron. The retcon hits a brick wall and cannot function in the G1 toon without a lot of fanfic-ing. You can't apply the retcon to the Cartoon here without ignoring the *ACTUAL* continuity and stories of the Cartoon in favor of some extremely different, never told, complicated immaginary story. Since the purpose of the Wiki is to inform factually about characters and their history then, I think factually, we have to say the way things actually were. Now granted the retcon can work most everywhere else (though it's a huge obvious retcon many places) so maybe it should get priority, but I'm just saying the main character profile does not work for the Cartoon version unless you want to start making a whole lot of stuff up. ZacWilliam 10:08, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Hrm... I astuually kidna agree with Zac. Unicron got a new, huge backstory that was goignt o tie him into everything. "Dont' worry, we'll go back and explain hwo it all works." And then- they enver did. In fact, was the Unicron/Primus conenction witht he One ever actually used, anywhere OTHER than in a guidebook?

This entry needs to recognizse that... lapse. -Derik 01:07, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm not in the fan club, so I'm not up on how Unicron's backstory was dealt with in the Club Comic, but if it's been used anywhere that'd be the place I suspect. Something perhaps not directly related to this but interesting to note: Although it didn't mention The One or the multiverse, the Cybertron episode in which Primus woke up and transformed had Vector Prime descibe Primus thusly: "He who charted the universe when it was young. He who battled Unicron at the beginning of time." The charted the universe bit comes from the story with The One, right? But as I said, that's not directly related to that matter at hand.

At any rate, futher discussion on how this article should deal with Unicron's retconny-multiverality might best be put on hold a few days until folks currently at BotCon return to contribute to it. --KilMichaelMcC 02:21, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't see a problem with applying the retcon to the G1 cartoon. Unicron, probably disembodied from his previous rampage in some other dimension, found his way into that universe and simply influenced Primacron in some way (how is unimportant) into building a body that he then inhabited. There is no *mention* of Primus anywhere, but that doesn't mean he doesn't exist. Probably the TFs didn't know he was there, or had long ago stopped believing he was real, and he was still asleep, so he never did anything himself. That's an explanation that requires very little gap-filling and allows the retcon to mesh perfectly with the cartoon.

On the other hand, Simon said at BotCon 06 that the IDW universe is probably not going to have Primus and Unicron in it, like, at all, which in my opinion *does* break the retcon. Or, retcons the retcon, if you prefer, such that those gods do not exist in every conceivable universe (or even every conceivable Transformers universe), but only in a bunch of them. He is intentionally writing a universe of which they are not a part, rather than simply writing a universe and not mentioning them. That, I think, will need to be dealt with. --Steve-o 23:00, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

It should be mentioned that Primus WAS in fact retconned into G1 by the time the Beast Era came about, which was meant to be a continuation of the G1 story set in the distant future (until they hit that wormhole. damn space time anomolies). As far as Unicron's origin, it is true that Primus and Unicron were still not considered gods per se, but powerful ancient beings with energies beyond all comprehension. A LOT of retcon was incorperated in this era, and that includes Primus becoming a key figure in the creation of their kind. As early as Beast Wars, Unicron's backstory was heavily altered, following closer to the Marvel continuity, and essentially tying him into the one Unicron theory. While he can only exist in one universe at a time, he can move between space-times as easily as we move through air. His body may change, but his motives are always the same, and in some cases, he has brought information across from one continuity to another. It is mentioned (albiet briefly) that Jetfire took the name Sky Shadow as an alias while disguised as a Decepticon. The only Sky Shadow (Decepticon) was from Beast Wars, another continuity all together. But what many do not realize is that during Energon, most of the cast came into contact with Unicron's dismembered body. Merely a theory, but he may have gotten the information from Unicron's data banks, which is a better explaination that blaming it on the wormhole ripping causality a new one. It should also be noted it's easier to link his many incarnations throughout the various comic book continuities than it is the cartoons, mainly because the comic writers do research the cartoonists don't. Dracokanji 04:56, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

nice article 24.3.227.249 04:58, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Additional Pic

Planet Q

Planet Q was not consumed between Energon and Armada. Unicron was also put into stasis after Armada and remained that way. Alpha-Q's demise happened eons ago, right after Rodimus left Cybertron. It's confusing in the dub because it contradicts itself, but Super-Link has it spelled out correctly. Alpha-Q actually states he was lost in Unicron for "ages and ages, alone." which is what drove him to madness. The Energon dub never really explains what timeline all of this occurred and it seems the writers never really knew themselves. Another dub error is that Rodimus states Planet-Q put Unicron into stasis. This is not true, the story is exactly the opposite. Unicron survived just fine, hence why all the sparks from the planet were absorbed into his body as he carried on his world-ravaging. -Bodycount

I figured it was like that...Unicron had layed 'dead' for the ten years between the two shows, and his attack on Planet Q had happened eons ago, before the events of Armada. Takeshi357 00:45, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Unicron's a toughie. He has 30 zillion different conflicting stories and origins, but he's canonically all the same guy, and all of his appearances across the different continuities apparently happen in a sequential order. Which is a concept I love, but it's not so easy to reconcile detail-for-detail. User:ItsWalky

I have some nice pics of Unicron(inculding the battle dameged planet mode ala the Deathstar II, how do I upload them?User:X-BoB58

In the "toolbox" among the links on the left of your window is a link that says "upload file". Follow the instructions there. --Steve-o 21:28, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Er Thanks, but I think I made the image a wee too big, is there anyway to make it a thumbnail?

We can get a better picture of Energon Unicron than that

I don't think we need so many similar pictures of Unicron in planet mode. I think the screenshot from the movie is enough, and the OTFCC Universe art is kinda pushing it. --ItsWalky

Unicron looks the exact same in the Armada comics and cartoon. One picture will do for both. X-Bob, stop pushing the image down into where there's no article yet. I put it where it is for a reason. --ItsWalky

Steve- feel free to muck with the Omega Point entry. I'm kinda considering going back and wiking the whole storyline-- it really needs some annotations. Maybe we can argue about the timeloops some more!User:Derik

I feel that the Unicron trilogy (Micron trilogy in Japan) Generation section should be broken up between Dreamwave Continuity (the comics) and Animated Continuity (the TV shows.) I feel this way because a) The use of the phrase 'comics continuity' is too confusing when you have some comics liek Linkage and the Colelctor Club stuff in 'toon continuity. b) They should be by continuity, not by series because otherwise it just becoems too disjointed, and the contnections between the series are weak enough as it is. user:Derik

I agrea with Derik on this issiue user:X-BoB58

Why, int he TFU section, does it say Unicron was defeated by the Wreckers? I don't believe dhtere'd been any indications at all that Unicron had been connected to the Wreckers. (It's possible I suppose that this was an issue #4 revelation, but it was my impression that his appearances in TFU proceded from Tarantulus's machinations in Primaeval Dawn, not Wreckers.) -Derik 18:02, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Wreckers #4 would have told us that Cryotek's big plan was resurrecting Unicron. The Wreckers stop him before Unicron is fully restored, or blow him up and leave him half-there. That's where Universe picks up. --ItsWalky 18:32, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Since Wreckers #4 was never published, should that info even be in the article? Or shouldn't it at least be called out as apocryphal? Also, out of curiosity... how do you KNOW that's what would have happened? Did Glen say so at some point, or was there a script or artwork or something released online, or what...? - Jackpot 21:18, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Were the Hasbro and Takara G1 Unicron protos different toys? I was under the impression they were two test-shots of the same mold.

They're different moulds, I think, but based off the same basic proto, maybe. Takara's is noticably fatter, and has the cord coming from it. It also appears to have an open robot mode mouth, and the "moon" accessory (or perhaps this was a planet Unicron would electronically "eat," but IIRC early Unicronian concept art shows the moon, and all the Movie toys were based off earlier concept art, thusly...) What I'm getting at is that Takara's appears to be modified for electronics while the Hasbro proto has none. Onslaught Six 07:50, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

The Hasbro version had electronice in the chest below the head, as shown in the toy's patent. I'd give a link, but I can't get to it with the Allspark boards down. --FortMax 21:15, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

For the record, the Takara mold's torso at least is entirely different from the Hasbro one. It's even got an extra step in the transformation wherein the torso either opens out or extends (hard to tell from available shots) to copy movie Unicron's thinner midsection.--MCRG 22:45, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

*spots Willis's notes about Universe #4* That's stupid. I mean, Primal Prime hints darkly of a great failure he had before emerging onto modern Cybertron in Qpelinq's journals. And Primaeval dawn has his fighting Tarantulas, a spawn of Unicron, who turns up in Uncron in TFU. I assuemd he failed to stop Tarry in PD and failed, thus TFU. Why is Unicron coming out of effectively nowhere in Wreckers to ruin our interesting Quint plot? And how does Tarantulas arrive? Laaame. -Derik 06:36, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

sweet

right on, glad my Unicron History page made this section, I've worked my hide off trying to get it together and am glad that it can help! ErikB www.transformersontheshelf.com

"Respawning"?

What's the background on the statements, "His power is limited to one reality at a time, though he can move between them at will," and, "When Unicron is destroyed in one reality, he will respawn in another, ready to eat again"? Primus is described in his own article like so: "His body is the planet Cybertron. Primus' lifeforce (aka the Allspark) is a multiversal singularity; it exists across all Transformers realities." This duality - a single mind/metaspark/godhead that's spread across multiple physical bodies - is how I've intuited the "one-Primus/one-Unicron" retcon. Since each universe has its own Cybertron, so likewise it seems each universe should have its own Unicron-body. Why would there be any difference? In fact, some evidence in favor of the multiple-Unibodies model is in the Cybertron section of this article: "During the final battle, Unicron disappeared from their reality underneath them, sucked away into the Unicron Singularity in another timestream." If Uni only exists in one reality at a time, then how could his destruction in one universe happen while he was existent in another? The only evidence I can think of otherwise is that Uni entered the Armada-comic universe from elsewhere. But to me, that just means that either his original body in the Armada-comic universe had been destroyed, or that the Armada-comic universe was an oddball one that never HAD a Primus or a Unicron (like the IDW-verse is apparently going to be). - Jackpot 21:11, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Unicron's consciousness wasn't present in Universe, just his body. He wasn't in two places, and his Minions were merely trying to resurrect him with eaten spark energy. (That story bit is also from the same story we got the "Only one Unicron who travels across the multiverse" information, so it's not like it's two conflicting stories.) --ItsWalky 22:01, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

What story is that from? I just re-read the Universe comics, and I don't remember any of that being stated. - Jackpot 22:45, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Fun Publications' Cybertron comics from the fan club magazine. First arc. --ItsWalky 23:05, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

The Autobots should camp on Unicron's respawn point and frag his ass. -Derik 08:21, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I've re-read those comics now, and I think I can see where you're getting that notion from. But it seems exceedingly vague to me, and I couldn't find anything about "respawning." Basically it comes down to Ramjet's ravings in issue #3: "Bound always by his imprisonment in a physical body, he's been incapable of destroying more than one reality at a time. But Cybertron! Stable axis of the multiverse! One Cybertron, a multiplicity existing concurrently across the infinite realities! Destroy one aspect, and that reality soon crumbles. Cybertron persists, protected by the ordered mathematics of its own existence. A single, infinite curve across all realities; the only truly unique thing in all of creation. Unicron cannot destroy something that is everywhere without himself being everywhere, Prime. And at last, thanks to his new prison and its proximity to Cybertron, he has that chance!" [note: this is accompanied by visuals of a line of Cybertrons, all different, extending indefinitely]

That leaves me... unconvinced in the troublesomely literal retcon that this article conveys as truth. Consider that in the first issue, Vector Prime describes the multiverse: "Every movement sends out ripples, which spread out in concentric rings, interacting with ripples created by others, creating new patterns, new realities, branching possiblilities. Every moment is creation and destruction. Every action is a thrown stone, shattering the surface of time." This seems in keeping with the "branching realities" model that most TF multiversal fiction follows (such as the Marvel-comic Uni searching "possible futures" for a herald). But if Uni is literally confined to one reality at any given time, then he must be vanishing from timelines left and right. At every moment, tons of possibilities branch off from one another, and therefore Uni must spontaneously disappear from all but one of the various universes. That's just... stupid. It doesn't even make SENSE based on him being "imprisoned in a physical body." That body should keep existing in all the alternate universes, just like Earth and Cybertron and every OTHER physical body keep existing across the multiverse. Plus Ramjet's use of the term "infinite realities" would make Unicrons' job ultimately impossible. If he truly has to keep hopping from one universe to the next in a linear fashion, he'll never succeed. And yet he DID, once.

What makes more sense is that Ramjet's "one reality at a time" statement refers to how Uni has to attack each universe separately. Uni could conceivably assault two or more Cybertrons simultaneously, but that wouldn't result in the infinite-birds-with-one-stone chain reaction that feeding Cybertron to the black hole supposedly would.

Or, of course, Ramjet is just insane and doesn't know what he's talking about. Certainly he and Vector Prime have some metaphysical disagreements that they chat about while trying to kill each other.

The upshot here is that I think the "one reality at a time" idea should be presented either with more qualifiers or just in the "So-and-So's Story" section. Based on past experience, my analysis would probably be smacked down as "speculation." So, in order to keep the editors happy, I suggest putting Ramjet's notions - and possibly more - under attribution...ary headings. Strictly speaking, the only things that should go in the first few paragraphs are observed events and statements of omniscient narration. Ramjet is not an omniscient narrator. Does all this sound right? - Jackpot 21:06, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

If Ramjet didn't know what he was talking about, then the entire fundamental conflict upon which that story was based was just a lie, and it was wasting our time, an idea I find appalling. Casting out a pretty deliberately stated backstory because it can be perceived as realistically improbable would start a dangerous precedent for the wiki, I think. Forest Lee created this story because he wanted to hash out the way the Unicron/Primus dynamic works and to forge the multiverse into a cohesive whole. I don't think it's the wiki's place to determine for Hasbro's fiction guy what he can and can't do. (Would it make you feel any better or worse that I confirmed my interpretation of the backstory with Dan Khanna, the co-plotter? This write-up wasn't just a shot in the dark.) --ItsWalky 21:55, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Likewise, the Keeper's story was Furman's "truth" when he wrote it, and when he later revised it through the mouth of Primus himself, etc., etc. And I think the article handles those various "truths" perfectly by presenting them as "here's what so-and-so said." The more I think of it, the more it seems the ONLY appropriate thing is to add "Ramjet's Story" to the list. And, as for Khanna confirming the "respawning" thing (which I assume you're referring to), I think treating author intent as canon is ALSO a bad precedent. Author intent should be NOTED, but not presented as story-fact. Especially since the Unicron/Primus story will quite likely see MORE changes as time goes on. (Hell, the most recent ad for the DD Joe/TF crossover promises "the secret origin of Unicron" or some such.) - Jackpot 22:14, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

The Keeper's story was canon until something else retconned it. The same is true here. --ItsWalky 22:19, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Granted I am not paying all that much attention, but, I think the current form of the article is okay. Jack's main concern, aside from disliking the current canonical explanation, seems to be that it's being presented more forcefully than the retconned explanations. But... I think that is valid, more or less for the reason Walky states here. The article is quite clear at the beginning of the "evolution" section that this is merely the most recent of many versions of the story. If/when it is invalidated, it can be moved. Under normal circumstances I would agree that different versions of a particular guy/story should be given equal footing, but since this "nature of Unicron" thing explicitly makes itself multiverse-spanning and overrides previous explanations, I think it should be given priority. --Steve-o 05:06, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

My original concern was that I had no idea where the idea CAME from, and now that I've carefully re-read the story in question, I'm still iffy. After a straight reading, I came to a different conclusion than the author apparently intended (hence my long "this don't make no sense" rant up there). Walky claims to have inside knowledge of the author's intent, and I question how much weight that should be given. To put it another way, were the Vok canonically the Swarm before it was actually put into writing in Wreckers? And, to broaden the question further, are the Vok canonically the Swarm when we're just talking about the BW 'toon? The idea of one series having "retcon power" over everything that came before it is a new one in how the fandom has always looked at TF canon. Since we've never had a George Lucas to dictate what is and isn't mainstream "truth," everything got to live in its own separate "parallel universe," and that was that. The advent of multiversal storylines in TF fiction does complicate things, and this issue is a good one for testing how exactly we deal with canon now. My take is still that the story is the only "truth," author intent is noteworthy but not "canon," and ultimately every series exists unto itself by its own rules. - Jackpot 23:59, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Parts of this (the Geen 1 anime section) dont' seem very in-universe. -Derik18:34, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Name Origins?

Does anyone know from where the word Unicron came? Is it a Latin-type pun (uni = one; cron = time)? Or just an anagram of Unicorn? - NP Chilla 22:05, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

weirdness when printing page

I printed this article to read on my lunchhour, and the text blocks overlapped the pics in several areas, but it looks fine on-screen. I edited out some blank spots (thought maybe some random tabs or returns in there), and it looked better, but I saved and print previewed, and it's still showing up at 'Dark Essence' and 'Energon' sections. Anybody notice this before? Is it just my local print settings or something, or a legit problem? Evil-yuusha 17:44, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Appearances?!

I would like to know the appearances of Unicron, chronilogically thoughout all mediums (shows, movies, comics, ect.)

Take the 1986 movie and animated series appearances, put them at the front of the list, and then everything in the Fiction section files in order right after those. --ItsWalky 23:56, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

That's pretty much the order in real world chronology yeah. If he was interested in the in-multiverse fictional chronology... well I'm not sure it's possible to chart that but it would apparently start with the Marvel comic and work out from there. Right? --ZacWilliam 12:10, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Pretty much. --ItsWalky 14:41, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Cybertron Animated Continuity?

I understand the whole retcon'd storyline debate, but the Cybertron portion of the Animated continuity section (4.3.2.3)seems to include zero storyline originating from the Cybertron television series. I feel there should be something from the show if we want to put this information under the heading "Animated Continuity." Maybe something like "Unicron's remains became a shiny new outfit for Megatron, allowing him to turn into some kinda nutty space-car..." etc. --Starcrunch 18:03, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Minor question

Uh, just found Unicron is in the "Category: Decepticon", is the reason that he is in the category because some of his toy labeled him as a Decepticon? Just ask for confirming. ;D --TX55 03:30, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Suicide?

If Unicron's objective is to consume everything and rid the multiverse of it's existance, wouldn't he destroy HIMSELF after he was done?

His objective - and this is canon - is to take care of that infernal racket so he can get some goddamn shuteye. - Jackpot 05:46, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Symbol

Why are we using the silly looking symbol from Armada from this guy, when the Blendtron / Herald symbol has actually been used in the fiction and the Armada symbol has not? Not to mention, the Blendtron symbol is just much cooler. --Jimsorenson 15:53, 9 August 2009 (EDT)

Withered Hope/Unicron Phenomenon

After reading Withered Hope, I was curious about what caused Classics to begin overwriting the GoBots universe. This article claims it was Unicron being destroyed in the Marvel comics that caused Classics to splinter off. The footnote says the source of this info is Withered Hope, but Withered Hope does not specify beyond "Unicron Phenomenon". Does this "Marvel Comics Unicron death causes Classics" specifically come from anywhere, or is it an informed inference? Just curious! --Crockalley 22:37, 4 March 2010 (EST)

Main image

So...what happened to the main image? -- SFH 10:54, 21 May 2010 (EDT)

Oh, never mind. -- SFH 10:55, 21 May 2010 (EDT)

Marvel TFTM adaptation

So where's a good spot to throw the Marvel TFTM stuff in? Unicron spews weird pink mist that sucks life dry, and this must be chronicled somewhere that accommodates imagery. I don't think we have a real, consistent framework in place on other pages for information the Marvel adaptation of TFTM... --ItsWalky 21:33, 24 May 2010 (EDT)

I'd go for making it part of the Marvel UK future stuff. - Chris McFeely 21:38, 24 May 2010 (EDT)

It doesn't go there, though. The Marvel UK future stuff and the adaptation take place in entirely different years... and it's not Marvel UK stuff. I'm leaning towards adding it into the paragraph about Big Broadcast. --ItsWalky 20:50, 25 May 2010 (EDT)

Well, when the adaptation was released in the UK, I believe they did change the year to 06. :) - Chris McFeely 16:46, 26 May 2010 (EDT)

Sounds like we need another note. --ItsWalky 16:56, 26 May 2010 (EDT)

I Like The Wiki in all but on the description under pic's i would like them to stop joking around.

Risk

On my Transformers Risk board game, there is a location on Cybertron named "Unicron..." Does... does this mean we should move this to Unicron (character) and create a new page for Unicron (city)? D: --Ascendron 16:10, 14 January 2011 (EST)

Trollin'

Are we going to mention that, according to his Amazon Edition bio, Unicron literally "trolls the universe"? If so, what joke shall we make?

TF Prime Unicron

So are we still sticking with multiversal singularity, or does the Transformers Prime version get a separate page? Is Hasbro acknowledging the multiversal singularity stuff at all anymore?--MCRG 22:25, 27 September 2011 (EDT)

Based on that page, Hasbro has said that as of the advent of the Aligned continuity, anything goes. They might retcon the retcon so that the continuities where he IS a multiversal singularity are part of a larger meta-continuity, meaning anything contradictory is just its own story. My brain hurts. --72.215.154.250 11:27, 5 April 2012 (EDT)

Transformers: Prime

If Unicron is the Earth in TF Prime, does that mean that Dead End is suppose to be Earth's moon? Just Wondering.71.255.172.60 10:11, 20 May 2012 (EDT)

Good thinking! But no. They have said Prime Unicron is different from any other Unicron. - Starfield 11:59, 20 May 2012 (EDT)

Nightmare Unicron

His toy bio states that Nightmare Unicron is a somewhat separate entity from Unicron. Does this brief fiction belong on Unicron's page or on a separate Nightmare Unicron page? --Crockalley 08:07, 27 July 2013 (EDT)

Saturn/Satyr/Satan conflation

It seems worth noting that, if not in fact but assumption, that in occult lore the three are related. In addition, Elliot S! Maggin's antagonist in the Superman book Miracle Monday was the literal Devil himself using the name C.W. Saturn. So i mean, it isn't TOO much of a leap in design vs the Matrix being a thermonuclear bomb or Sharkticons being based on sharks. Antimatter (talk) 23:40, 24 June 2014 (EDT)

You don't even have to get into occult lore. The planet Saturn is named after the god Kronos, who is the closest thing to the devil in Greek mythology (if you rule out the Olympians, who are selfish dicks, and Tartarus, who is the incarnation of the pit rather than its ruler).KrytenKoro (talk) 10:21, 25 June 2014 (EDT)

Split

No. No no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no. This is fucking stupid. A micro-reference you have to fucking translate in a book that has no fucking business "dictating" things outside the series it's supposed to be about should not be considered Ultimate Word of God over everything else. This is basically the "up our own ass" I've been talking about lately writ large. "Everything is canon" has been mutated from its original intent, if not abused and weaponized. This micro-note should be noted, but it should not dictate organization.
NOW, considering the size of the page, splitting up the fiction sections into sub-pages like we do with other major characters who have a metric ton of stories, sure. That probably should have been done a long time ago. But no, we should not start making a bunch of "other Unicron" pages. --M Sipher (talk) 23:14, 11 May 2015 (EDT)

At the very least, I'm sure where the split template gets the idea that Aligned Unicron is a different guy from this new information. Sunbow and RID Unicrons can be considered weird mutations of the greater Unicron Phenomenon. --ItsWalky (talk) 23:31, 11 May 2015 (EDT)

Well, to be fair, THIS specific micro-note is restoring the G1 cartoon Unicron BACK to the original intent that a bunch of only-slightly-less-trivial stuff brutalised mercilessly... - SanityOrMadness (talk) 23:32, 11 May 2015 (EDT)

Right. "Unicron is a multiversal singularity" is a mercilessly stupid idea that's only attested to in an obscure comic. I don't think you can complain about changing things on the whim of an obscure reference while maintaining a status quo on another obscure reference. Saix (talk) 23:44, 11 May 2015 (EDT)

...did you see the split note I made? Describing something as "illegible background graphics" is not the way of saying "I think you must take this seriously". I was saying, in effect, "The Wiki has been taking this sort of thing seriously for years. Here it comes to bite you on the ass again, and hopefully come to a more sensible status quo". My actual POV is in the "That's the POINT" note below. - SanityOrMadness (talk) 23:58, 11 May 2015 (EDT)

I'm not sure why you're arguing with me? Saix (talk) 07:06, 12 May 2015 (EDT)

This wiki is an educational resource. That people--really, one or two people--can use our own systems to punk us, is not educational. I vote against indulging it. --Thylacine 2000 (talk) 23:38, 11 May 2015 (EDT)

Well, there's a lot of stuff to fix if we're going to treat the Almanac background stuff with the level of respect it mostly deserves. Notably on this page, the G.I. Joe vs. the Transformers Unicron was absolutely NOT meant to be the same thing at all past the generic idea of "(mostly) robot planet eater". Guess where the "explanation" "reconciling" it with the whole multiversal singularity BS, came from? - SanityOrMadness (talk) 23:42, 11 May 2015 (EDT)

It doesn't NEED to be "reconciled". It's just another instance of Unicron popping into a universe with its own odd rules. What the fuck more needs to be said?! This fandom's bizarre NEED to tie every microdetail together somehow, no matter how convoluted, is baffling. --M Sipher (talk) 23:47, 11 May 2015 (EDT)

That's the POINT - the whole "One Unicron Ever" thing COMES FROM obscure micro-references. The f***ing fan club comic strip should not get to overwrite something clearly stated without contradiction in a mass-market cartoon. A paragraph coming from a Q&A with someone entirely unconnected with a movie should not be considered to overwrite something seen by millions on millions of people (when the same Q&A series later said something entirely counter-factual in relation to the number of Constructicons that formed ROTF Devastator on-screen, we didn't say "welp, so much for those other guys".) Does it merit recording? Sure. Does it merit overwriting what was clearly shown & stated? No. - SanityOrMadness (talk) 23:53, 11 May 2015 (EDT)

Uni-Unicron was from the Ultimate Guide and the on-package toy bio. It is an inclusive, accommodating meta-explanation. This new latest prank is particularism that demands extra work in return for teaching less. And just as importantly.... Error has no rights. We didn't write up how the toys were decided after the cartoon's success just because Pat Lee said so. --Thylacine 2000 (talk) 00:10, 12 May 2015 (EDT)

This is why I take everything canon seriously in regards to the wiki, because once we say something doesn't matter, then we start arguing about how my favorite stuff matters and your favorite stuff doesn't, and that's completely arbitrary. Ignoring small stuff just because it's not your favorite canonical addition is no way to run a comprehensive Transformers wiki. If small stuff can retcon the Sunbow Unicron, then small stuff can retcon it right back. The point of contention shouldn't wait for when it changes it away from what we like. (Unless of course we're talking about Beast Wars Sourcebook, obviously, that just makes sense.) --ItsWalky (talk) 00:04, 12 May 2015 (EDT)

This is Animated Movie Sideways all over again, and it can be explained in the notes just like that was. --Thylacine 2000 (talk) 00:13, 12 May 2015 (EDT)

(re: ItsWalky)

My favoured line would be "every work^{[gratuitous note 1]} is complete in and of itself. Subsequent stuff can add - for wiki purposes, in the form of a new section or page - but never change/retcon prior works from our POV."

(Please note - this isn't the first time I've expressed these thoughts, just the first time in a while)

1. ↑ "Work" defined as a series, not individual episodes/issues/books/whatever within the series

- SanityOrMadness (talk) 00:16, 12 May 2015 (EDT)

It's late and I should have been sleeping at least two hours ago, but... let me throw this out there.
We don't split "Cybertron (planet)" into different pages via continuity. Or "Autobot" or "Decepticon" or "spark" etc etc. (Again, we probably SHOULD be making sub-pages based on major franchise/continuity to make the pages less goddamn huge like we do with "IDW continuity" deals on character pages, assuming we're not (safe bet).) While these are all in-universe "things" they're also broader multiversal concepts, and we already approach those with a slight... distance if you will. Not breaking the fourth wall exactly, but not being so... definite. Aligned Decepticon history does not supersede whichever G1 Decepticon history you care to name, and we don't treat either as "separate" ideas.
I feel like these meta-deals like Unicron, Primus, The Thirteen, etc, could benefit from treating them the same way we do those pages... stepping back a little and treating them less like concrete THINGS with a "welp this new information is newest so it supersedes everything prior" rigid this-is-exactly-it approach right out of the gate, and more as concepts with broad-strokes facets that are almost always true but the details will vary (sometimes wildly). And we already "weight" our intro sections for characters with varying portrayals as it is, I'm thinking we should just take it a step further with some of these bigger concepts-slash-characters.
Because as Thy has noted, Uni-Unicron has been a concept for a while though multiple sources, created directly via Hasbro edict (I'd need to go back and (ugh) re-read the 3H stuff, but I'm fairly sure seeds were being planted even back then), and I'd say the lion's share of what's been written about Uni for the last... oh, decade-and-change (which is really the start of when the fiction decided to get back to using Uni at all after a long hiatus) is based at least broadly on that concept. And yes, I have a very hard time not considering the weight of that versus, well, a margin-note slipped by because it was made to look like meaningless tech-readout.
And ALL of this once again ties into what I've been pushing lately for the wiki overall... the idea of taking what is already and inextricably a continuity clusterfuck and presenting it in a manner (at least initially) that's not going to scare off anyone who isn't in the fraction-of-a-fraction of the fanbase that's completely vested in every microdetail of TFs.
If someone wants to try a less "definite" top-section writeup of Unicron in a sandbox, please do. I'm really not up to it right now and there are still other messes to fix in the interim. --M Sipher (talk) 01:35, 12 May 2015 (EDT)

Really, all the intro needs is a sentence or few. Well, really just one, but I wanted to add in more information from "Withered Hope." --ItsWalky (talk) 01:52, 12 May 2015 (EDT)

And if we really want, we can have add, like, a section below for his appearance in RID-cluster and it can say "See: Unicron (RID)" and that linked page can be exactly as long as the section that links to it since that's all we know. --ItsWalky (talk) 01:54, 12 May 2015 (EDT)

I like the modification you made to the intro - it's fair and it doesn't unzip the whole world. --Thylacine 2000 (talk) 11:06, 12 May 2015 (EDT)

Yes, this is the best way to deal with this....development....not to split the page. Unicron is more concept than character anyway --KilMichaelMcC (talk) 12:20, 12 May 2015 (EDT)

Yeah, I'm gonna throw my weight behind doing little mini-pages like Cyclonus, with short summaries of his actions on the main page per section. Obviously his smaller roles in the Movie and Aligned universes could stay on the front page. But what is it that the Complete AllSpark Almanac says about him? -- Chopperface (talk) 10:07, 12 May 2015 (EDT)

Thing is, we split by iterations of a character in that instance. If Unicron is the same guy in every continuity, there's no way to split (in the same way Optimus Prime (Movie)'s fiction section isn't split, despite easily being long enough to merit it, while Optimus Prime (G1) has Marvel, G1 cartoon and IDW split out since they're different guys). - SanityOrMadness (talk) 14:42, 12 May 2015 (EDT)

Well now that's just creating utterly pointless imaginary distinctions. If we want to shrink this page down a bit by creating a sub-page for, say, Unicron/Generation 1 cartoon continuity, we can just fuckin' do that because why wouldn't we. -Chris McFeely (talk) 14:50, 12 May 2015 (EDT)

If you regard it as one chronology ("Uni-Unicron"), that forces people to jump back and forth between articles to read the whole thing. Would you create [[Optimus Prime (Movie)/Dark of the Moon]] - SanityOrMadness (talk) 15:05, 12 May 2015 (EDT)

And this is exactly the kind of pedantic, priority-misplaced nitpickery that's choking the wiki --M Sipher (talk) 17:16, 12 May 2015 (EDT)

If the whole article was written as one chronology, outside of putting the Marvel awakening first, that might be a factor, but it's not. There is literally no reason Unicron's G1 cartoon exploits and everything else under that header couldn't be split off if we felt like it. - Chris McFeely (talk) 15:08, 12 May 2015 (EDT)

If you regard it as "one chronology" the entire article is out of order anyway so what difference does that even make? Seriously, Unicron's journey through the multiverse is not some straightforward linear progression, or even if it is we have no way of documenting that since we have absolutely no idea when on Unicron's personal timeline any of this stuff happened in relation to any of this other stuff. --KilMichaelMcC (talk) 15:12, 12 May 2015 (EDT)

Page 206:

Question 1: Could Unicron Beat the Death Star?

Answer 1: That depends. Most instances of Unicron are expressions of an abstract force of nature, some spanning multiple universes. These instances could easily defeat the transforming battle station of Lukas 577.25 Beta. However, against non-singularity instances of Unicron with more mundane origins, such as Primax 984.17 Alpha or Viron 704.08 Gamma, Darth Vader's amazing mech would most probably prevail.

Question 2: Do you have a favorite book?

Answer 2: I enjoy many human books, though I am often too busy to read. Peter David and Alan Dean Foster are among my favorite authors.

--ItsWalky (talk) 10:57, 12 May 2015 (EDT)

"Non-singularity" versions

I hope I don't stir the hornet's nest too much with this question, but... what exactly is meant by this phrase? Our "multiversal singularity" page defines that as an entity/idea/concept that is aware of its existence and exploits across all of its incarnations/whatever throughout the multi/omniverse. Would that mean that, say, the "singular" version of Unicron isn't aware of what G1 Unicron experienced? That the latter version, a "non-singular" Unicron, managed to be created whole-cloth with almost all of the same qualities and "aspirations" of the "singular" verison?

I suppose this could be a bit meta and splitting hairs, but it seems to me that this idea of a "Unicron Phenomenon" is more in-line with the idea of a "singularity", or to put it in Doctor Who terms, a "fact": Unicron exists. It's stated that they might not be connected on a "mental" level, but they share so much else; why NOT their minds, their (anti-)sparks?

Again, I apologize for getting all forum-y in here (frankly I don't know if I could deal with posting this conversation on any of the TF forums I'm aware of), but reading up on this article after all this AVP information got my mind racing and wondering. Thanks for indulging me a bit. Magaroja (talk) 19:42, 6 August 2015 (EDT)

In-universe explanation: every rule, no matter how steadfast in the grand scheme of things, appears to have its exceptions. Most Unicron depictions are part of the singularity. Some are not because of... reasons. It's as simple as that, as we stand now, dealing with the fiction we've been handed. Out-of-universe explanation: there seems to be upcoming plans to change the nature of "multiversal singularities" because some authors were displeased about the retcons it implied.

TL;DR version: don't worry about it. Ascendron (talk) 20:33, 6 August 2015 (EDT)

There are Non-Singularity Unicrons because some people complained about different origins of Unicron in different continuities. So Habsro made that Non-singularity thing. Also shouldn't non-singularity versions have their own pages? Also I think Prime Unicron is a non-singularity since his origin is different and also Thirtheen Primes from Aligned continuity are different characters than their original counterparts.--Primestar3 (talk) 13:11, 5 September 2015 (EDT)

I concur with Primestar that at the least Shattered Glass Unicron should have his own page for consistency, since every other SG-universe character does; but I disagree that Prime Unicron also be split from this article; he is the Aligned universe's incarnation of Unicron, much like how we would classify a Bayformer Unicron as a member of the Singularity unless evidence that makes such classification impossible were to arise. Aligned is not a G1 universe, so it doesn't need to play strictly to the rules of G1 universes. MaximalBroadjaw (talk) 14:51, 1 December 2015 (EST)

After the shroud

Now that multiversal beings have been split by the Shroud, should Unicron's article be spilt? Cr85747 (talk) 21:22, 23 April 2016 (EDT)

No. We just re-added all of the the Thirteen articles back together, why would we do this with him? Escargon (talk) 21:30, 23 April 2016 (EDT)

UT split

Seems like the character's second-most prominent appearance should warrant its own page. Saix (talk) 18:16, 29 January 2021 (EST)

I agree with this. I don't follow much of the comic material, but to my understanding the multiversal singularity thing has been dead for quite some time now and as it is, the page is just too long.

As Saix has stated, it's one of the character's most prominent appearances and I believe it could do with the split. Fanofcoolstuff27 (talk) 04:14, 30 January 2021 (EST)

The article isn't really big enough to warrant a split based on length – this isn't even in the top 100 longest pages on the site – so IMO the real discussion should be whether we want to look at overhauling how Unicron is handled in general. The Sideways approach, with a more elaborate disambig that could cover some of the overarching info currently on this article, might be a potential option? Jalaguy (talk) 07:26, 30 January 2021 (EST)

Absolutely not. The way we have Sideways right now is an utterly contrived compromise where there's a bunch of crossover of information that isn't properly reflected, and it will be a cold day in Hell before I see this article, Primus, or any of the 13 having something similar happen to them. Escargon (talk) 08:46, 30 January 2021 (EST)

What crossover stuff isn't reflected by the current Sideways setup? It's always seemed to me like a good compromise that avoids the tail wagging the dog (where the tail is "documenting obscure fiction" and the dog is "documenting prominent fiction in a way that's accessible"). Jalaguy (talk) 10:13, 30 January 2021 (EST)

My impression of Saix's suggestion was not a fully separate "Unicron (Armada)" article (which I agree we should not have) but a "Unicron/Unicron Trilogy" subarticle connected to this one with another link in its suite, like the "Unicron/Generation 1", "Unicron/Aligned", "Unicron/Shattered Glass", and "Unicron/toys" subarticles we already have. --Sabrblade (talk) 10:17, 30 January 2021 (EST)

I agree with that change. --Thylacine 2000 (talk) 15:59, 30 January 2021 (EST)

I'm good with a UT fiction subarticle. --M Sipher (talk) 20:59, 30 January 2021 (EST)

Animated Sideways, for one, is treated as a separate entity despite explicitly being an a dimensional traveler. It's the most explicit amongst the Sideways material outside of AVP, yes, but Unicron and Primus and the Thirteen who have been singularities had even more crossover than that. Escargon (talk) 10:24, 30 January 2021 (EST)

Yeah, but then which other Sideways do you merge the Animated guy with? And then once you're merging Sidewayses again, you're right back at the "which ones should be merged and which should be separate?" question that lead to the current situation being invented.

My take on Unicron is that suites are just meant as a organisational/length-management thing, not for spotlighting prominent versions. Sections get split out to their own pages simply to prevent the parent page becoming unmanageably long (it's just that prominence often tends to correlate with long write-ups). And since it's not based on prominence, and this parent Unicron article is only the 305th longest article on the wiki, I don't see that there's any need to split out the UT stuff on a suite basis. But like I said, I totally wouldn't be opposed to re-examining the basis on which Unicron is handled on the wiki. Jalaguy (talk) 11:10, 30 January 2021 (EST)

I'm definitely in favor of re-merging the SG and Aligned versions back into the main section, considering how small they are. Grum (talk) 11:19, 30 January 2021 (EST)

Were it up to me, all the Sideways would be merged. Escargon (talk) 11:25, 30 January 2021 (EST)

More on topic, let's examine UT Unicron; the cartoon's version is mostly unrelated to the other Unicrons, yes, but it's the Dreamwave Armada comics that help to establish he is the same as other Unicrons. And Balancing Act shows Unicron in events both from G1 and the UT; I think that splitting them out would be far more confusing than just keeping them together. Escargon (talk) 11:49, 30 January 2021 (EST)

We can still have a brief write up on the main page that explains that UT Unicron is the same multiversal Unicron, I mean we already do that for multiple other uses of the character that have been separated by a suite, don't we? Categorizing UT Unicron in the suite doesn't necessarily ruin the article itself, it just makes it easier to read and helps pinpoint the particular part some viewers may want to look at without having to scroll through everything else. Splitting that particular use of the character into a completely new page separate to the article entirely is definitely the wrong way to go, so I can agree with that. Fanofcoolstuff27 (talk) 18:17, 30 January 2021 (EST)

Oh, I have no problem with the suite idea, what I am opposed to is splitting out everything into continuity specific articles. Escargon (talk) 19:17, 30 January 2021 (EST)

I feel pretty confident that Saix wasn't suggesting the latter. --Sabrblade (talk) 19:44, 30 January 2021 (EST)

Yeah, no, I think Saix mentioned on Discord that he meant splitting into a suite not splitting into an entirely new article. Given that he posted on Discord before posting here, the beginning half of the convo would've gotten lost to anyone who didn't see it. I admit, I probably worded my first post on here badly too, so I apologize for the misunderstanding I helped cause lol. Fanofcoolstuff27 (talk) 01:48, 31 January 2021 (EST)