Talk:Unicron/Archive 1

Archive 1

a question

A question about the article, it claims only Wells' did the voice acting, has the author of that comment seen said movie? ive got a copy of it on my hard drive and as a die hard StarTrek fan ive gotta say, that sounds like spock to me. Perhaps he and wells sound very alike i dont belive ive hear the latters voice.

• Susan Blu, the voice of Arcee in the movie and post-movie seasons, has confirmed that only Wells did Unicron's voice acting. The rumor that was going around was that Wells died before his final lines were taped, so Leonard Neemoy had to take his place, hence why the last lines sound a bit different from the rest of his lines. However, considering the decidedly poor health of Wells at the time, and the nature of the lines being spoken (said in incredulous panic over being destroyed, rather than the calm monotone of the rest of his lines), it's no wonder people thought they were done by a different actor.SynjoDeonecros 08:38, 17 September 2006 (UTC) ~~

Another question is he is not on the Decepticon team because Unicron attacks them.(Optimus the F22 Raptor (talk) 08:36, 17 November 2007 (UTC))

Unicron Toy

They did release an Armada version of the toy with some success.

[1]

• True, but Armada Unicron doesn't look all that great; a deflated orange volleyball than anything. Now the BW Neo prototype I could get behind. Looks like it has a similar transformation and robot/planet mode shape to that of the Primus toy, which is shocking, considering the time gap between the two. Maybe Takara dusted off the old BW Neo prototype mold and did some tinkering with it to turn it into Primus?SynjoDeonecros 08:38, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Unicron Trilogy

I think we should mention that until the last ark of Armada, it was unknown to the viewers (and perhaps even the producers, it's possible that Unicron was thought of later) that Unicron played a part in the show. No one knew that Unicron created the Mini-Cons. However, after Armada, the battle against Unicron shaped Energon and Cybertron.

The same goes for Beast Wars II. The fact that the Angolmois Energy came from Unicron wasn't mentioned until Beast Wars Neo. Evan1975 20:36, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

It needs to be cleared up whether the Unicron Trilogy is a TV or Comic book series. Gartner 23:53, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

On his apparent "affiliation"...

I was under the impression that Unicron only held allegiance with himself. 82.46.190.172 09:26, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

AFAIK, you're right... unless this has been changed recently. Perhaps his Transformers Cybertron toy was labeled a Decepticon? Evan1975 20:38, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Some of his toys has no alligance (Armada, Energon), some were Decepticon (Ttianium and Cybertron). user:mathewignash

Even [if] Unicron's Transfomers Cybertron and Titanium Toy was labeled a Decepticon, he cannot be written as "Affiliation: Decepticons". user:TX55

I agree, but what should it say? Hill of Beans 21:34, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Why shouldn't his affiniation be what HASBRO's toy department said it is? Mathewignash 02:02, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Did Hasbro actually ever clearly state that Unicron is a decepticon? The Titanium and Cybertron toys had decepticon sigil on the accessories, but not the toy itself. Unicron has also never been portrayed in any fiction as a decepticon. Takeshi357 13:12, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I think this is absolutely ridicilous. Unicron is definitely NOT affiliated with the decepticons. I bet the only reason some of his toys list his faction as Decepticons is because they were too lazy to come up with a custom logo for him...I vote for "none".84.250.41.125 17:04, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

However, it still stands that the people who MAKE THE UNICRON TOY listed him as Decepticon twice now. Are we to disallow Hasbro's opinion on the matter? Mathewignash 20:13, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, because he is NOT a decepticon, period. Unless some form of Transformers fiction actually portrays him as a decepticon, we're sticking with no affiliation. Takeshi357 10:32, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

The 3" Titanium Beast Wars Megatron and Orpimus Primal figures, from the same line as Titanium Unicron, also have Decepticon/Autobot logos, respectively. Likewise, Takara's Robot Masters Megatron and Convoy toys (who were based on, and who were supposed to represent the same characters as, Beast Wars Megatron and Optimus Primal, respectively) also sported Decepticon or Autobot logos. However, the characters were depicted as Maximals/Predacons in the show, and earlier toys of the characters also had Maximal/Predacon logos. Do the Titanium and Robot Masters toys invalidate the show appearances and earlier toys? Or are the toy logos merely conveniences because the lineup is mostly Autobots/Decepticons in those lines, and Hasbro/Takara don't want to use six or seven different logos in order not to confuse buyers?--87.164.100.15 15:57, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

That's exactly what I was thinking - the only reason the toys came with decepticon sigil was because a) he's a villain, and b) HasTak probably didn't wanna spend extra cash into creating a whole new logo for a stand and a cyber key that's going to be unique to just one toy. Takeshi357 16:28, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Optimus Primal was an Autobot in the Universe line. His TF template says "Maximal, later Autobot" so it's correct. Mathewignash 10:15, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Additionally his bio from the Transformers Collectors CLub states his affiliation as Decepticon. Mathewignash 18:13, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I think there's a big difference between a rule and an exception. Takeshi357 11:53, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Despite being an faction, the Quints sometimes allied themselves with the Decepticons, but in the end, was still going to destroy the latter, after the Autobots were taken out forever, and might l add, it was Starscream who set an nearing-death Megatron off for the latter's first and last encounter with Unicron.--Daipenmon 22:46, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

The bio for Unicron printed by the Transformers Collectors Club, which is licensed by Hasbro and 100% official lists him as a Decepticon. http://i28.photobucket.com/albums/c217/Guyver_Ultima/Unicronians%20Quintessons/Unicron.jpg Mathewignash 17:15, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but this is just absolutely fucking ludicrous. Unicron is not a Decepticon. He's had a few toys sold as Decepticons because they have to brand the toys with the recognizable logos so that the kids at home can tell if they're "goodies" or "baddies," but that's it. He's had alliances with Decepticons now and then, but his only true alliance is to himself. Fuck that solitary profile (which, I will bet money, only labels him a Decepticon because the Cybertron toy has a Decepticon logo on its key, which it only has because of the above reason). He's not a fucking Decepticon. To claim otherwise is just asinine, obstructionist and wrong, and everyone else except you wants his alliance listed as None. - Chris McFeely 22:55, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

What does hasbro selling to kids have to do with the TF clubs official bio for him, which has him as a Decepticon? Mathewignash 22:57, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I would agree with up making up a new entry on the TF character template, which mentions both. Something like "None, later Decepticon" or "None/Decepticon". Any thoughts on this? Mathewignash 23:01, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

But he is not "Later Decepticon." He is not a Decepticon. His profile has him as a Decepticon because his toy's got a Decepticon symbol on it, because it has to have on for the purpose of selling the figure as a "goodie" or a "baddie." The profile is not an example of "thinking things through sensibly" - how, fictionally, is Unicron a Decepticon? EVEN IN the context of the club's story, which the profile was created to go alongside, HE'S NOT A DECEPTICON! It's just an exercise in labelling him "good" or "bad," and he's "bad." And furthermore, this article has long gone past the "three revert" rule, and the topic has been discussed on here, and everyone else says "NOT A DECEPTICON." You don't get to make the choice for everyone. Listing his affiliation as "none" or "himself" or "Unicron," with a note that he has occasionally allied himself with certain Decepticons, or has had had toys sold as a Decepticon, but has ficitonally, never been a Decepticon, is the most accurate, appropriate description. - Chris McFeely 23:08, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Unicron seemed to sell as an unaffiliated toy in Armada and Energon - so you can't say it was for the kiddies little brains to understand that they did it. Cybertron and Titanium were Decepticons. I agree in the movie he was an unaffiliated planet entity, but the movie isn't the end all be all of Transformers. In the Universe line the Cybertronian affiliation with Unicron are Decepticons, even if they are former Vehicons, Predacons, Dinobots or Maximals. In the Dreamwave comics Unicron makes an army of Sweeps which are all Decepticons. He seems to be a Decepticon in these stories, he's just the head of them. Mathewignash 23:28, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Just because he creates Transformers branded with the Decepticon symbol doesn't mean he is one (specifically, in the case of Universe, that's because there needs to be a unified "baddie" faction for the toys to sell under - and that's not a "for the kids" thing, that's just common sense).

Cybertron and Titanium are the only instances of Unicron toys being Decepticon-aligned in any way. And even then... well, now, let's look at the Titanium packaging. In the spot where every other figure has their alliance listed, Unicron's says... NONE. He just has a Decepticon base, because he has to have a base, and he's evil, so he gets a Con one, with the package even SAYING HE'S NOT A DECEPTICON. And in the case of Cybertron, he's listed as a Decepticon because he's got a Decepticon insignia on his Cyber Key - even internal to the fiction of the Cybertron storyline, he's not a Decepticon.

So, that's precisely one toy that has called Unicron a Decepticon, and even the fiction assosciated with that toy does agree with that.

Not. A. Decepticon. - Chris McFeely 00:05, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and I've just had another thought about Cybertron Unicron. He could be sold as unaffiliated in Armada and Energon because the design of their packaging didn't change from Bot to Con. Cybertron, on the other hand, had the backing card specifically shaped to be on of the two. It would not have been good sense to create a third shape of card for one figure, who wasn't even in the show, so Unicron would have had to be placed on one of the two existing cards, and hey, he's "evil," so, Decepticon. The figure itself doesn't even have a Decepticon insignia stamped on it - the only Cybertron deluxe that doesnt have an insignia. - Chris McFeely 10:11, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

You know I was looking on the Takara/Japanese page for Armada, and Unicron's bio page had a Mini-Con faction symbol on it. Mathewignash 22:44, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

IIRC, Unicron has a Mini-con symbol is because Mini-cons were created by Him, DEFINITELY not because Unicron is a Mini-con. --User:TX55 03:42, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

So, umm...why does it still say "decepticon" there? Takeshi357 (talk) 22:13, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm changing it to "Evil God/None", since no-one has supplied any other alternatives. UNIT A4B1 (talk) 23:22, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Does size matter?

See Does size matter? section of The Transformers: The Movie talkpage.

Comparison to Galactus justified?

The parallel definitely exists, but is it really worth mentioning in the summary? I'm considering this line for deletion if no one wants to defend it.

Might be worth moving somewhere else in the article, but where would we move it? Gartner 00:04, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree, and I shall remove it. I don't see why the comparison needs to be made. Gunstar hero (talk) 07:53, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Decepticon?

Since when was Unicron a Decepticon? The article explicitly states he is neither Autobot nor Decepticon. JIP | Talk 19:40, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps you shoud read the above section of the talk page. Mathewignash (talk) 19:59, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

That may well be, but at least I find the very start of the page simultaneously claiming that he is not a Decepticon and that he is a Decepticon unacceptable. JIP | Talk 19:26, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

fact or fiction tag

the very first line reads "unicron is a fictional character"... how can it be any more clear that this page is about fiction? i suggest that tag be removed. Sato au (talk) 01:11, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Fun Publications

I removed this section for two big reasons. The first was that it smacks of original research and fan speculation, which can't be included. The second is that the section has been tagged for sources for over two years with zero improvement. I think it's more than fine to include again, but it drastically needs to be cleaned up and sourced. I am moving the text from there to here for both historical purposes and for those who may want to improve the section so they don't have to go digging through the history for it. --13² 18:25, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

The Transformers club comic has further developed Unicron's story for the Cybertron era, attempting to fill in the plot holes. Clarification states that Primus' chosen task in Energon was to imprison and burn away Unicron's disembodied spark within a fledgling sun. This sun was the one that was born to save Alpha-Q's world. Unfortunately, Megatron's spark, also inside, interfered and the sun collapsed, trapping Unicron's spark inside (bridging it between other universes). The black hole was born, and Megatron was freed. He used pieces of Unicron to remake his body, as well as revive Starscream, his most loyal subject. The black hole itself has begun to devour space and time, unravelling historical events and building new ones. This is the reason for the "errors" in the Cybertron animated series, as it is following a constantly reshaping universe.

A new Unicron figure was released at the end of the Cybertron toy line as a Deluxe-class figure with a tank-like alternate mode.[2] Although the character did not in Transformers; Cybertron or its Japanese equivalent Transformers: Galaxy Force, the Hasbro Club comic served to introduce this new version of the Chaos-Bringer. In this story, the black hole contains Unicron's essence and also links him simultaneously to all Cybertrons across the Multiverse giving him the potential to wipe out Primus in one fell swoop. This course is currently being held at bay by Transformers from across the Multiverse, usually consisting of characters derived from Convention and Club exclusives as well as Cybertron figures that play no role in the television series. In one issue, Soundwave was dispatched to Cybertron after Ramjet and Nemesis Prime's failure. He tosses the Dead Matrix into the black hole, releasing Unicron's spark which quickly overtakes a nearby world, converting its inhabitants into savage maniacs. With the destruction of the planet his body is reborn as a normal sized Transformer.

When Unicron eventually attacked Cybertron in the midst of the chaos caused by a Mini-Con civil war, Sentinel Maximus and Omega Prime fought him off with the help of their allies. In the end Unicron was driven off badly wounded again, this time by Primus himself.

Decepticon faction reverts

Before someone keeps reverting the listing of Unicron as00 a "Decepticon", please read the OFFICIAL profile of Unicron in the Transformers Collectors Club Magazine. http://s65.photobucket.com/albums/h214/Scaleface/Fun%20Publications/?action=view&current=mtmte-unicron.jpg Mathewignash (talk) 09:50, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

It's not official because it's just one toy, ONE toy. His canon from 1986 until now in every TF Media he's been in pretty much says he's of neither faction. --FaithLehaneTheVampireSlayer 20:48, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Okay, please read again. It's TWO TOYS and one official Biography printed by HASBRO, the owners and creators of the character, I provided a link. We include ALL official information that can be cited on the Transformers pages on Wikipedia, and we have THREE official sources saying Hasbro considered him a Decepticon now. Mathewignash (talk) 21:27, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

It should be made clear the differences between which versions have faction affiliation. Mabuska ^(talk) 22:25, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but if SOME of the versions ARE Decepticon, doesn't the page HAVE to have the Decepticon Category included? Also, I'm not quite sure where this notion that the toys don't count comes from. I'm pretty sure toy bios and boxes ARE mentioned in Transformers Wikipedia articles all the time. Why exclude them in THIS article? Mathewignash (talk) 23:34, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Unicron should be under "| affiliation = Unicron" instead of "Decepticons" since he is NOT a Decepticon in most of the continuities. HOWEVER, he needs to have "[[Category: Decepticons]]" because his toys ARE Decepticons. --TX55^TALK 02:41, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

That's a decent compromise. I can go with what TX55 proposed. --FaithLehaneTheVampireSlayer 03:32, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, all that really needs to be done is have a note stating that while some toys of Unicron have been sold in packages marked with Decepticon symbols, no officially published fiction has presented him as such. --Khajidha (talk) 19:36, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Only problem with that is the comic fiction from Fun Publications DOES call him a Decepticon. So by your logic, we do have to include it in his infobox, it was in the fiction. Is there EVER a faction called "Unicron" in any official fiction anyone can cite? I can't find one. In the 3H Enterprises comics the forces of Unicron were called the "Decepticons", and lead by Razorclaw (followed by Tankor, Reptilion and Obsidian). The Forces of Primus were called the "Autobots" and lead by Optimus Primal and Alpha Trion. Mathewignash (talk) 20:56, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Primus himself was an Autobot in various publications and even in an animated series. And there's a group known as Heralds of Unicron. Anyway why not split the article. Make it similar to Optimus Prime and Megatron. --FaithLehaneTheVampireSlayer 22:05, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

UNicron used to have seperate incarnations (G1 and Unicron trilogy), but sadly Hasbro announced that Unicron was a singular entitiy, where all versions we see in different continuities are the same guy. So they are all the same guy. Mathewignash (talk) 00:14, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

You mreally need to learn to compromise. --FaithLehaneTheVampireSlayer 02:24, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Just to note an overall consensus between editors can be achieved and implemented even if one or two editors always oppose. In regards to Unicron - as i suggested at the Transformers WikiProject - a simple note can be added to the infobox to state that in "3H Enterprise" comics that he is a Decepticon. That way we can have it state: Affiliation: Unaffiliated, Decepticon [note1], with note1 displayed at the bottom of the infobox. This is a method i've seen done in many places such as Northern Ireland has in its infobox, or in the way United Kingdom does by having the note shown at the bottom of the article. Mabuska ^(talk) 15:53, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Also if Unicron is stated as a Decepticon in one continuity and not in 50 others, he still qualifies to be categorised as a Decepticon due to that. Same if he was an Autobot in one continuity, he could be categorised that as well as a Decepticon. It does not mean that he is mutally exclusive. Mabuska ^(talk) 15:57, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

So we are in agreement that the Category:Decepticon should exist on this page? Right now we currently list all th factions a character has ever been with a slash between, like "Autobot/Maximal". I'd suggest a simple "None/Decepticon", although I personally think it's a bit excessive to list that a character isn't a member of a faction. Lots of characters were once non-alligned, but later became aligned, and we don't list usually "none" among their factions. Mathewignash (talk) 16:02, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

BTW - A detailed citation might a a bit much, as it would wave to read something like "Unicron is usually not considered a Decepticon, except in the Transformers: Cybertron, Transformers: Universe, and Transformers: Titanium toy lines, as well as in the comics by 3H Enterpises and Fun Publications, where is he a Decepticon." Might be simplier to say "he is sometimes considered a Decepticon" Mathewignash (talk) 16:12, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

It would be simpler by using just "| affiliation = Unicron".

Hmm, I didn't notice the page is lack of a notice like such, which should be one in the article. Perhaps "Unicron is label as a Decpeticon in the Transformers Collectors Club Magazine, Cybertron, Universe, and Titanium toylines."--TX55^TALK 01:00, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Wouldn't "Faction: Unicron" be a fan creation though? Can you cite any source for it? We don't generally report fanfic on an encyclopedia. Especially when the faction was given a name in licensed fiction, and it was called the "Decepticons." Mathewignash (talk) 01:09, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

No, it is not fan-made but merely means he only aligned with himself. --TX55^TALK 10:12, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

It does look like synthesis/original research as its not an actual faction. I'm going to do a WP:BRD edit as no-one decided to discuss my idea. Mabuska ^(talk) 12:45, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Article's locked so will have to post it here. Mabuska ^(talk) 12:46, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

I have discussed your idea, I suggested "None/Decepticon" as an alternate, and instead of adding a footnote, just add mention of the factions in the opening text something like "Isn't considered any factio most of the time, although is sometimes considered a Decepticon." Mathewignash (talk) 12:50, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Actually no you didn't discuss my idea. You made a fleeting reference towards it by picking out the making reference to more than one faction in the infobox, but you totally ignored the idea of using a reference note to explain it as it is done in those examples i provided you. Thats not discussing someones idea.

Anyways i think the affiliation bit of the infobox is more problem the way it currently is, and that it should probably be done the same as the rest of the characters information in the infobox, i.e. function, partner, motto etc. So instead of a coloured bar representing faction, we just simply state in the same style as the rest of the information: Affiliations: None, Decepticon etc. etc. So what if the coloured affiliation bar looks good - it leads to too many problems with multi-affiliation characters. Mabuska ^(talk) 23:13, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Well then, by this logic we should give Star Trek characters James T. Kirk and Worf the category Fictional dictators since in the Mirror Universe, whether or not it was TV, film, or Expanded Universe they were rulers of Mirror Universe's Terran Empire and the Klingon-Cardassian Alliance. That would at least make more sense than labeling Unicron a Decepticon.--FaithLehaneTheVampireSlayer 11:27, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

IF (and only if) the Wikipedia page covers both versions of Kirk, then yes. Some articles contain Shattered Glass versions of characters, and it contains categories that apply to either version of the character. It should be pointed out tough that Hasbro has stated that ALL versions of Unicron are the same guy, he is a multiversal singularity. So we only have one entry for him, and ALL Unicron depictions in official fiction are covered in this article. Mathewignash (talk) 11:48, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

No they are not the same guy. Each has their own history(ie. one of them tortured Optimus Prime which never happened in the G1-verse). If we are going to label him as a Decepticon, either make another infobox or split the article entirely. --FaithLehaneTheVampireSlayer 12:28, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

The article for the Thing mentions he his Avengers membership in affiliation (also, the Thunderriders, Yancy Street Gang, etc.), even though most people think of the Fantastic Four as the team the Thing is on. Why are they all listed? Because for a couple issues he was in the Avengers, back in the 90s. So it's part of his bio. He wasn't BORN an Avenger, he isn't actively one now, but he was at some point he was one in the long history in fiction different writers created. Mathewignash (talk) 12:37, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Same character yes. Only because it's within Earth 616 of the Marvel multiverse. Unicron on the other hand is in multiple Tranformers alternate realities. Also Wheelie (Transformers) and Fallen (Transformers) are prime examples how multiple infoboxes can work.--FaithLehaneTheVampireSlayer 13:00, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

All Unicrons are the same character in the current article. If you want to split up "G1" and "Unicron Trilogy" Unicrons then that's a seperate proposal you should make. Problem is that both the G1 and UT versions of Unicron have been called Decepticons in the past, so they would both be listed as Decepticons. What you can't do is to edit out certain fiction about Unicron from the article because it doesn't fit your "personal canon" about the character. Mathewignash (talk) 13:05, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

A) It's not a personal canon, it's canon...period and b) Unicron was only a Decepticon by your admission a toy which actually is your personal canon. Here's what a canon is according to this site:

In the context of a work of fiction, the term canon denotes the material accepted as "official", in a fictional universe's fan base. It is often contrasted with, or used as the basis for, works of fan fiction, which are not considered canonical. It is used in two slightly different meanings: first, "it refers to the overall set of storylines, premises, settings, and characters offered by the source media text". In this sense, canon is "the original work from which the fan fiction author borrows," or "the original media on which the fan fictions are based."Secondly, it is used "as a descriptor of specific incidents, relationships, or story arcs that take place within the overall canon"; thus certain incidents or relationships may be described as being canon or not.

In no place in that description does canon involve product lines(ie toys). --FaithLehaneTheVampireSlayer 13:41, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

And more to the point, if Unicron's considered one character, then Optimus and Megatron(except their respected Beast Wars incarnations) should all be merged. --FaithLehaneTheVampireSlayer 13:49, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

No, because Hasbro has not stated that all Optimus Primes are the same character. They HAVE stated that all Unicrons are the same character. He cannot die, he is merely damaged, moves through time and reality, rebuilds himself and starts again. The Unicron from the 1986 movie IS the same unicron from Armada, Energon, Cybertron, Universe, etc. Now as for "canon", can you prove to me the Unicron depicted in Universe is not the G1 character? Because it says he is. What Unicrons are different from others to you? Which Unicron is the one from the 3H and Fun Publications stories?Mathewignash (talk) 14:20, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

What you're talking about, according to this very article, needs citations first of all. Secondly, other than being evil Unicron's in no way like Wolfram & Hart or The First Evil. Thirdly, if it's only a product, he's not canonically a Decepticon. Sorry, but either the article needs to be split or needs additional infoboxes. Because not all TV shows, films, literature or even Video games says he's a Decepticon. --FaithLehaneTheVampireSlayer 14:44, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

SPLIT INTO WHAT? What things need to but in one page, and what things in the other. Please be specific. Mathewignash (talk) 14:47, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Look to Optimus Prime as a model of what this should be split into. This article should be made into a page similar to that. What is G1 should be put into Unicron (Transformers) or Unicron (G1) and the rest that does not belong in G1, put it in Unicron (other incarnations). And in the other incarnations page, we could label that as a Decepticon. --FaithLehaneTheVampireSlayer 15:36, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

There is not really a need to split pages for that, you could split into sections on this page, and even then BOTH G1 and Unicron Trilogy Unicrons have been called Decepticons. Only the one from Transformers: Prime has not, because he's never appeared, and only been mentioned in dialog. Mathewignash (talk) 16:29, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Why can't we just categorize him under Decepticon and give his affiliation either Unicron (which is the best), None, or None/Decepticon (course we need to created another parameter if needed.)? --TX55^TALK 16:48, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

I think this is the best idea. The part of the article dealing with the actual character (including the infobox) should make it clear that he doesn't belong to any faction. The toys section should mention that some toys made of him were officially labelled as Decepticons, and because of this, the article should be categorised under Category:Decepticons. We have many other Transformers articles about characters with multiple incarnations, or multiple separate characters that just happen to share a name, and they are in many different categories, of which not all of them apply to all incarnations/characters. I don't see why the same couldn't be done to Unicron. JIP | Talk 18:47, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Except that the 3H Enterpirses and Fun Publications fiction DO depict him as a Decepticon, it's not JUST the toys. So stop repeating that falsehood. Even if it were true, toy box information DOES go in the infobox all the time. It's where we get things like rank, function and motto. Why is group affiliation exempt from this in your eyes? Mathewignash (talk) 19:52, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Except that you are apparently treating these depictions by 3H Enterprises and Fun Publications as the be-all and end-all of the entire concept of the character Unicron. Unicron was originally introduced for Transformers: The Movie, years ago before there even was any "3H Enterprises" or "Fun Publications", specifically as a non-aligned and non-affiliated character. This is how he has appeared in most of the fiction (although not all, as you are so keen to point out). Do you mean that 3H Enterprises and Fun Publications labelling him as a Decepticon automatically cancels all of this? Do you mean that while an affiliation label for one incarnation of the character must be taken into account, the lack of one for another incarnation can happily be ignored, even if this incarnation was the one that invented the character in the first place, and is the most famous one? JIP | Talk 20:02, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

I never said he was created as a Decepticon when the character was created in 86. Do we only list the team a fictional character was on when he was created in the infobox? If so then any comic book hero not a member of the Avengers when he was created must have the Avengers removed from their infobox by your reasoning. Captain America must have the Avengers removed. She Hulk must have the FF removed from her infobox. Mathewignash (talk) 20:08, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, one incarnation of Unicron is non-affiliated and another is a Decepticon. Fine. But the infobox says right at the top "Decepticon". That provides no indication that he was originally conceived as non-affiliated. In my opinion, we need to either change it to say "non-affiliated", change it to say "non-affiliated" with a note saying another incarnation is a Decepticon, or modify the entire infobox to allow for multiple affiliation labels, with the first one saying "non-affiliated" and the second one saying "Decepticon". JIP | Talk 20:16, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm not aware of ANY fictional character who was both indepedent and in a team who listes "None/Team" in the infobox, since they are only sometimes depicted on a team. Please find me one. I think we can assume anyone who is listed on a team in an infobox isn't on that team from the moment they are created until the moment they die, just that they were on the team at some point. If a membership in a team requires qualification, I'd say you point that out in the body text of a character. So we do that here, explaining that he's only some times considered a Decepticon in some fiction. Mathewignash (talk) 21:54, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

I think part of the problem is that people are trying to put too much into the infobox. Infoboxes are for general overviews of the most relevant data about the character. All the minute details should be covered in the text of the article. --Khajidha (talk) 19:06, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

As far as I know you generally list all relivant information in an infobox, for instance the box for the Thing lists that he was a member of the Yancy Street Gang, the Thunderriders, and the West Coast Avengers, even of those memberships lasted a few issues (sometimes even ONE issue). If this isn't the correct take on an Infobox, let me know. Mathewignash (talk) 20:08, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

From the infobox MOS: "When considering any aspect of infobox design, keep in mind the purpose of an infobox: to summarize key facts about the article in which it appears. The less information it contains, the more effectively it serves that purpose, allowing readers to identify key facts at a glance. Of necessity, some infoboxes contain more than just a few fields; however, wherever possible, present information in short form, and exclude any unnecessary content. Do not include links to sections within the article; the table of contents provides that function." The words "summarize key facts" indicate that infoboxes should not go into extreme detail. Going by this guideline the Thing's infobox should probably only list the FF as his affiliation. Other affiliations could be mentioned in the article itself. Perhaps changing the listing to "primary affiliation" would help clarify its purpose. --Khajidha (talk) 21:16, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

You really are reading into that what you want to see. As the PURPOSE of affiliation is to say what group a character has been in, we should list that. Considering we have 3 toys and 2 comic book companies saying he was a Decepticon, it's not listing "extreme detail", it's listing the information described in the slot of the infobox. Captain America currently has TEN teams listed on his page, that is pretty detailed. Unicron isn't being overly detailed. Saying "none" for affiliation is leaving information out. Saying "Unicron" affiliation is original research. Saying "Decepticon" is informative. Mathewignash (talk) 22:10, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Explain to me how a paragraph that says that less is more can be read to support listing every possible affiliation (including those that last for less than one issue)? The MOS says that it should provide "key facts at a glance", Cap's membership in the Secret Defenders is not key to who he is and a list of ten cannot be read "at a glance". --Khajidha (talk) 22:23, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm saying ONE affiliation of "Decepticon" isn't "excessive detail", it's just right detail, meanwhile most other fictional characters I've checked go into WAY more detail. If you are worried about excess, try fixing pages like Cap and Superman. Mathewignash (talk) 22:59, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Is that one affiliation key to understanding the character? If not, it is excessive. --Khajidha (talk) 13:17, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Let's see. In the original movie Unicron rebuilt the Decepticon army to serve as his minions. In the 3H comics the Decepticons were a faction created by Unicron to corrupt sparks and feed them to Unicron. In the Fun Publiations stories Unicron was labeled a Decepticon in his bio in the back of the comic. In the live action movie his agent, the Fallen, started the Decepticons. 3 different Hasbro-made Unicron toys have Decepticon symbols on the toy or toy box. I'd say YES, Decepticons are key to understanding Unicron's roll in fiction. A heck of a lot more informative than saying "None" would be. Mathewignash (talk) 14:11, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

That doesn't really mean he is a Decepticon just for that reason. --TX55^TALK 00:39, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Mathwignash your only discrediting your own arguement again with what looks to be a lack of knowledge in regards to the original Transformers cartoon - or a over the top base summary. First it was your claims on Sharkticons, now its in regards to Unicron... Unicron rebuilt the Decepticon army? He rebuilt Megatron, Thundercracker, and Skywarp into Galvatron, Cyclonus, Scourge, and from some others the Sweeps - they and they alone where to serve as his minions. The rest of the Decepticon army who outnumbered these few were not Unicron's minions even when Galvatron assumed the mantle of Decepticon leadership. Mabuska ^(talk) 15:37, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

You are grasping at straws because your arguements don't stand up. Rebuilding a dozen members of the Decepticons, who become the top three commanders and elite fighters of the Decepticons isn't "rebuilding an army" to you? Whatever. I've still see pleanty of proff that Unicron was a Decepticon in SOME stories, and it's more than "excessive detail", as it's happened multiple times. Enough that it gets mentioned. I don't understand the campaign to ignore stories about a character just because some fans don't like his depiction in those stories. Mathewignash (talk) 15:48, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

He rebuilt a dozen Decepticons? Where do you get that figure? Elite fighters? Where in the cartoon are the other creations stated as being elite fighters? Where in the cartoon do they even act like they are? You said Unicron rebuilt the Decepticon army - where was it implied that they needed rebuilt or that they were a spent force? Nowhere. Galvatron and co. are simply minions, tools to be used and abused - that does not equate to him rebuilding the Decepticon army. I think you should be more clear or just cut out the personal take added to statements concerning the fiction of the cartoon. Though i'm not argueing on Unicron having being a Decepticon in some places - i'm argueing on a fallacy in your comment. Mabuska ^(talk) 22:11, 11 May 2011 (UTC) - this is going-off topic so i'm striking it and making it small. Mabuska ^(talk) 22:45, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Really, what would be the problem in having the infobox list two different alignments: "None" (what he was originally created as, and is best known as) and "Decepticon" (which Hasbro, 3H Enterprises and Fun Publications list some incarnations of him as)? JIP | Talk 18:35, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

It's a little unorthedox, since I don't know of any other fictional character who only sometimes works with a team - Like "None/Avengers" for the Swordsman or "None/Legion of Doom" for Lex Luthor, but not horrible in violation of any rules either I suppose. I wouldn't oppose "None/Decepticon" Mathewignash (talk) 20:13, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Ok I can compromise with this. Also this could eliminate the need for multiple infoboxes and article splits. --FaithLehaneTheVampireSlayer 14:12, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Split proposal

There is a split proposal tag on the main page. I generally oppose splitting Unicron into two pages, we don't need to Unicron pages, as the proposal states. If the author meant to split it into two sections of this page, I'd ask what he intends to split and why. Mathewignash (talk) 13:21, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't think the page should be split, since the diversity of various Unicron(s) is not like other characters, such as Optimus Prime, or Megatron. Not to mention Unicron is a multiversal singularity by far. --TX55^TALK 16:23, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Unicron is the same single character under different guises in different alternative realities. A split would proboably only end up with one of the articles being proposed for deletion or merging in the near future unless it can be verified that it is notable enough (whatever is split from this article) for its own article. Mabuska ^(talk) 20:43, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

None/Decepticon & Category: Decepticon

I put in a note in both the infobox and just above the Category section to not remove and/or alter it to make sure that it will stay that way. It should be considered vandalism if it were to be removed or altered in anyway. --FaithLehaneTheVampireSlayer 14:19, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

The only vandal I see here here is Mathewignash who is stubbornly refusing to let anything but his way on this matter. We already voted on this five years ago and I swear half these edit wars are because he refuses to admit defeat. Takeshi357 (talk) 03:18, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Movie series

It's been said that Unicron may appear until they can find the right story or a way to make him make sense - http://www.tfw2005.com/transformers-movie-just-movie-31/ehren-kruger-on-writing-transformers-no-live-action-unicron-yet-180574/. ChipmunkRaccoon (talk) 20:47, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Removal of in-universe tag

I have rewritten the article in the historical-present. I will remove the in-universe tag in a few days if there are no major objections. Laranesight (talk) 20:14, 24 March 2016 (UTC)