Talk:Bumblebee (Transformers)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is part of WikiProject Transformers, an attempt to promote better coordination, content distribution, and cross-referencing between pages dealing with Transformers. Please participate by editing the article Bumblebee (Transformers), or visit the project page for more details on the projects.

1 Bumblebee on the Internet
2 Bumblebee Toys
3 Film Bumblebee - Year?

[edit] Bumblebee on the Internet

Obviously you don't see what I'm getting at, so I'll write it out in longhand rather than a short note. This is the seed for expansion of this section. In the Intro we state that BB was one of the more popular figures. In the BotI section, we are more specific AND expect to have more added in the future. Instead of just off and hacking off pieces that you don't like, how about adding to the article itself? Either add/expand, enhance specificity, or even rework the sections so that the same information is presented in a simpler format (if you are not understanding the current format and/or find it too wordy or vague).
Considering how almost this entire article was written by one person, I think it perfectly reasonable to retain that flavor and feel unless others ADD to it instead of just slicing it apart one bit at a time.
Reverted to the more complete version (once again).
VigilancePrime 07:10, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

While I understand you're viewpoint, I think that the section is just unencyclopediac (see WP:NOT). I'm afraid that there really isn't much to add to that section at all, in my opinion- what else could you possibly say? He's popular because he was a cheap toy and because he interacted with Spike, the audience indentification character. I don't think that having the section really adds anything to the article.--Sean|Bla ck 07:50, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't expect that you would understand, as Transformers debuted in the US before you were born. Significantly before. As this (and every Wiki article) is an ongoing project, it cannot be expected to be complete, and because YOU cannot see what else one could possibly say or write in this section, doesn't mean there isn't anything to say. It just means that you don't know (as you said).
There were a LOT of cheap Autobots. Why does almost nobody remember Huffer and Windcharger? Why is it that Seaspray (one of the second run of micro Autobots) is rarely seen? Bumblebee has a lot more than being just a cheap toy. Bumblebee has been seen in no less than three different versions (Bumblebee/original, Goldbug, and Pretender Bumblebee) in the (real) TF Universe and no less than five toy versions (Bumblebee/original, Bumblebee/chromed, Goldbug, Pretender Bumblebee, Heroes of Cybertron Bumblebee).
Bumblebee was a trusted confidante to Optimus Prime.
Bumblebee was the most fearless Autobot. Nay, not fearless, for he was afraid at times, but courageous, as he accomplished the mission regardless.
Bumblebee is one of the most popular transformers and nowhere is this more visible than online. In fact, there is no toyline Bumblebee (copyright issues), and yet he remains one of the transformers that represents the entire series.
Transformers was not just a toy line (and the cartoon was little more than a toy propoganda advertisement). Bumblebee was not just a "cheap toy."
Patience. This section will grow.
VigilancePrime 02:44, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
- While it's nice to know that you've read my userpage, my age is not relevant to this discussion. I recognize that Bumblebee was, and is, one of the more popular characters, which is further verified by the fact that the character has existed in so many incarnations, but I don't think that that information deserves a seperate section. Why don't we expand the intro with to say more about it, or add to the G1 section? It's perfectly encyclopediac information, but it's not being presented in an encyclopediac manner.--Sean|Bla ck 03:07, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Bumblebee Toys

I was thinking of removing this section, unless anyone objects, since the article should focus on the character and not the toy. Bmounger
- Transformers started out as a toyline, and remained a toyline- keep it simple, yes, but I certainly think it should stay.--Sean|Black 04:48, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  - I agree that the toy should be mentioned, but looking at the Optimus Prime and Megatron entries as reference, they do not mention the toy in a seperate section. I think a simple sentence and link to the Transformers toyline and the removal of the section will lighten up the page. Bmounger 05:03, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
    - Hmm, alright. That sounds okay to me.--Sean|Bla ck 05:07, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Lighten the page? I didn't know it was heavy. VigilancePrime 06:51, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't know since I haven't tried to lift it :). Bmounger 12:05, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
- Seriously though, I think it helps conform the page to other Transformer character entries. Please see my above example. There are enough toy variations of Bumblebee (both Japanese and US) that an expert could generate a seperate article just on the toy. Bmounger 12:10, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

WHEN that expert adds an entire article's worth of info to this page, then perhaps it could be seperated. Many, many articles are almost infinitely thorough, and this nowhere near scratches the surface of oversize. I thought the whole point of Wiki was to be a thorough (if not exhaustive) source of information?

VigilancePrime 02:37, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

A major goal of Wikipedia is to encourage authors to design articles that conform to encyclopedia standards, therefore this article's subject matter is on Bumblebee the character and will likely grow in size as he is used throughout the Transformers universe. Adding detailed information about his toy incarnations to this article will make it bloated in my opinion, again, please see my examples with Optimus Prime and Megatron. There is no need to argue though, I suggest we create an article named Bumblebee(toy) or something to that effect since between the two of us we have the knowledge and resources to make an exhaustive article on the subject matter. Perhaps it will encourage other Transformer contributors to begin distinguishing between the character and the toy in seperate articles. If you examine the Megatron article closely, you will see that they have already begun splitting off the different character incarnations of Megatron into seperate articles and it is only a matter of time before someone does so with the toys. We could add a link to Bumblebee's toy page under a "See also" section. The toy pages could even be designed with an info template that has a layout of the toy tech spec. How does that sound? Bmounger 05:43, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Moved

I have seen the previous argument for keeping the page as "Bumblebee (Transformer)" - which is simply that all the revisions to the article have been made to the other page - and I don't accept it. Almost every single other Transformers article on Wikipedia that requires the qualifier uses "Transformers", not "Transformer," and I've moved the page in the interest of promoting consistency between articles. - User: Chris McFeely, 7th December 2005

I agree, but next time you move a page, please use the "move" tab in the upper right hand corner to preserve the article's edit history. I fixed this one for you.--Sean|Bla ck 00:21, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I clicked the button, but got a message claiming I couldn't make the move. Clearly, THAT was a load of arse. :) Chris

Yeah, I had to delete this page to move it here. No biggie, Chris, just ask me if that happens. I'll do it.--Sean|Bla ck 00:27, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Classics Bumblebee

I really think we should remove the assertion that the Classics Bumblebee toy is based on the Peugeot 206 WRC for a couple of reasons, number one it bears little or no resemblance to the 206 (or the 207 for that matter) and there are other cars it looks much more like (the Scion xA for a start although a three door version), number two is that I can see no official information to back up the assertion and think the article would be better with no reference to what car he is rather than an inaccurate and unproven assertion! CartmanUK26 13:41, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Well no response after one day so I am going to go ahead and make a change, let me know what you think about it here! CartmanUK26 08:52, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Prime Target

Hey Matt, do you really think the section on "Prime Target" is notable for this article? The only reference to Bumblebee is that he was captured. In the grand scheme, it seems as though this is hardly worthwhile (whereas others perhaps are). I'll go with your judgement on this one, but I'm really not comfortable with something that seems rather insignificant being included. Thoughts? VigilancePrime 02:55, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Scale

Is it really so necessary to have the scale of the toy in the article? That type of information is beyond minutiae; it is trivial information that most fans and collectors do not know or care about let alone the random person browsing Wikipedia. In addition, I do not believe that the scale used is valid considering that one, most Transformers exhibit some form of mass-shifting from bot to alt mode, and two, Hasbro and Takara are not always reliable nor accurate when it comes to bios and stats; they are written for children, after all. I can understand having the scale included for toylines such as Binaltech/Alternators and the Masterpiece collection as it's part of the advertising gimmick for collectors, but for toylines such as Classics and Legends which are clearly aimed for children, it is unnecessary to include. Djseifer 18:04, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

There is no reason NOT to have the information included. The scale was, as demonstrated in earlier messages, based on actual measurements and not anything Hasbro stated. The mass-shifting is not common, actually, and widespread only in the Decepticons (Megatron, Soundwave, and the various cassette tapes). The Autobots were supposed to be true mass (and, incidentally, the movie is very dedicated to making sure that fuzzy-math mass-shifting is NOT a part of the bots). It's not a major point, and worthy of a mention in this article. VigilancePrime 09:55, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of items of information. That something is 100% true does not automatically mean it is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia. What is the meaning or relevance of this information as it pertains to the article? Why/How is this information vital to understanding the article? Currently, this information sticks out like a sore thumb and does not follow the flow of the article. Djseifer 22:09, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

During an article on a toy car, mentioning the scale of the toy car seems justified. user:mathewignash

However, most toy cars tend to be licensed representations of real-world cars. In addition to (or perhaps because of) a higher attention to detail, the scale of the toy is usually advertised as a marketing ploy to better link to toy to it's real-life counterpart. Traditionally, the Transformers toyline has avoided linking any Transformer toys to real-world vehicles in any way in order to avoid lawsuits and/or avoid paying a licensing fee. I can only think of two cases where a Transformer was linked to a real-world vehicle - the Binaltech/Alternator toyline (which features licensed detailed vehicles to begin with) and the character Side Burn from the Robots in Disguise series. In the latter's case, Side Burn's detailed alt. mode resembled the Dodge Viper too closely for Dodge's taste, resulting in the Viper logo appearing on the packaging for all toys based on the Side Burn mold except the original releases. Djseifer 23:26, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Most of the original Transformers toys were based on real world cars. Datsuns, Volkswagons, Toyotas, Lamborginis, etc. Many are still based on real ones - Cybertron Crosswise, Evac, etc. Alternators is special because it's one line that's all one scale, where other lines the scale is all over the place - which only makes it MORE IMPORTANT to mention the scale. Other toys you can figure the scale with simple math. For instance Side Burn's toy was 12.5 cm long, and a Dodge Viper is 445 cm long, this gives us a scale of 1:36. I don't see a problem mentioning the scale of a toy in the toy subsection of the character. user:mathewignash

Yes, the toys are based on existing vehicles, but they are never advertised as such. In such cases, there are changes made to a mold so that while it resembles the real world vehicle, it isn't an outright replica. In any case, I still see no point in adding the scale of a toy in an article about a toyline which has for the most part ignored it for most of its history. As stated earlier, just because something is 100% true does not automatically mean it is suitable for Wikipedia. There is trivia, and there is trivial. Djseifer 00:04, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Gallery

I think we need to make two galleries on this page, one for Bumblebee in media, and another to reflect its toys. I have the new Movie version (the store I went to broke street date :) ), so I'll take a pic of it and put it on here tonight.--Bedford 20:36, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Speaking of galleries, there was, at one point, HUGE pictures of the Autobots up. I was sad to see them gone, as I was trying sketch Bee's face from the 4000pixel x 4000pixel+ picture. Does anyone have them? Why were they removed/scaled down?--Amantetosca 09:01, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Autobot logo s.jpg

Image:Autobot logo s.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 21:57, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Film Bumblebee - Year?

Im sick of the chopping and changing between 75/76/77/78/79 and 2008/9. Can anyone find a concrete source on what models were actually used? Otherwise I think the only rational thing to do is remove the years altogether. Metao 02:09, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

In discussion of this matter over Bumblebee's entry on the Transformers film page, it was decided not to differentiate the two. However, this is important information for this Bumblebee-specific page. Since GM themselves did not provide the new Camaros for the film there is no reliable citation for what model year it is suppsoed to be - the ONLY thing we know based on what is shown in the movie is that it could most likely NOT have been the CONCEPT(Concept cars are rarly road-legal), but it would have most likely been a prototype or production model. To eliminate this confusion, I propose changing the entry to either "Fifth-generation Camaro" or "New Camaro." Since we KNOW this version of the Camaro is going to be produced, either one works. I am going to edit it to say "New Camaro." If anyone feels Fifth Generation Camaro is better then say so and we'll figure out which to use. With the lack of accurate citations of what it was MEANT to be in the movie, these two methods of listing it work much better because they cover all possibilities - Concept(as UNlikely as that is in the film version), Prototype, or Production version Camaro. I'm also going to change the old Camaro listing to say 1974-79 since the toy version is the only one that lists a model year (74), and we know due to Brawl/Devastator that they may not be completely accurate. The listed years are all the version Bumblebee could have been meant to be. -Bolt Crank 02:49, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Fifth-Gen is probably better than "New", but I dont care enough to change it. I do remember reading that the car used was a prototype or concept - apparently the car had its own bodyguards, and the actors were warned to treat the car like it was made of gold. Im not sure where I read that, though. So Im fairly certain that the car was pre-production. Road-legality is pretty irrelevant for making movies anyway - they close down the roads they film on anyway, and none of the cars (iirc) had license plates. Metao 04:38, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree "Fifth Generation" would be preferable to "NEW" as it wouldn't need to be changed should another "NEW" Camaro be released. Most "Concept Cars" these days are called such right up until a final production version is unveiled and have certainly undergone some "real life" testing at some point so saying they are rarely road legal whilst being inaccurate in itself also does not preclude it being so in this case. Also on the subject of Brawl/Devastator I am pretty sure the toys represent what was meant to have been changed in the movie and wasn't and so the movie is in error and the toys relaiable.CartmanUK26 10:28, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Movie Pic

Why is the picture for the movie Bumblebee an actual bee? 72.74.117.222 21:44, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

That Good Faith (but still in error) edit has been reverted to the proper image. VigilancePrime 21:56, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Rodimus and Bumblebee.JPG

Image:Rodimus and Bumblebee.JPG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 17:29, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Transformers l1.jpg

Image:Transformers l1.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

BetacommandBot 19:09, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:CbB.jpg

Image:CbB.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 21:52, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Split article?

The article is very big, and there is presidence for splitting Transformers articles, like Optimus Prime and Megatron ip when more than one character share the same name. Maybe the 2007 Movie character of Bumblebee should get his own page? Mathewignash (talk) 13:57, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Categories: WikiProject Transformers