Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Transformers

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

To-do list for Wikipedia:WikiProject Transformers: edit · history · watch · refresh
  • Gather support and attract TransFans to support and assist in the WikiProject.
  • Discuss standards, starting point, and come to agreement on some uniformity among Transformers pages (the most complicated and obvious being a standardized format for a Transformer biography).
  • Begin the task of updating individual Transformers pages.
  • Discuss the possible merging TF Series and TF Universes. Upon consensus, execute whatever the going-forward plan might be.
  • Review articles nominated for deletion
  • ...Dream of the future...
    • Get the project standardized...
    • Make a portal one day...

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Wikipedia:WikiProject Transformers page.
Archives: 1
Archive
Archives
1


Contents

[edit] Live action movie in G1?

As the title says, should we continue to put the info on a movie character in it's G1 sections of their pages, or should the movie characters be considered their own separate continuity? I know guys like Prime and Ratchet may seem like the G1 characters, but Barricade and Blackout are not their G1 Micromaster counterparts. For consistency, I'm thinking they can all be separate. Opinions? user:mathewignash

Im personally against it. The Movie version of Prime looks a lot like G1 Prime - but so do the RiD and Unicron Trilogy variants. Just because the film is more obviously based on G1 than some of the other TF stuff doesn't mean it should be lumped in with them. SMegatron 09:05, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Agreed - the movie is its own continuity. It uses characters similar to G1, but does not use exclusive G1 characters. --MistaTee 20:22, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

True, but because the movie is such a small continuity right now, I think it'd be fine to keep those profiles in the main articles until they grow too big. Alientraveller 20:48, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] What do we call the movie?

Does it have a real name, not just "The 2007 movie"? We can't call it "Transformers: The Movie" as that's taken. I know they called the leaked script "Prime Target", but I don't know if that's official. Ideas? user:mathewignash

Transformers (film). I'm sure if there's a sequel, we can call it Transformers I, or part one, etc. --MistaTee 20:24, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Sounds fine to me. The original animated movie had a very specific title, so there's probably not that much chance of going to the wrong page.SMegatron 20:28, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Whenever I'm writing on TFW2005, I abbreviate the animated movie TFTM86 and the new movie TFTM07. I don't know if abbreviations like that are kosher on Wikipedia, but I thought I'd put it out there. Spekkio 07:06, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Merge Transformers: Infiltration, Stormbringer and Escalation

[1] Considering it has been published monthly, and that the articles are so small, I think it may have merit to merge the limited series together into The Transformers (IDW Publishing). What do you think? I leave The Transformers: Spotlight out of this, as it really is an accompanying title. Alientraveller 20:50, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Disagree. I do think that the limited series be expanded more however. Perhaps The Transformers (IDW Publishing) can briefly summarize each series and how they relate to each other while the individual articles for each miniseries goes into more detail? I think to simply merge them all could get complicated and the article would get too big. Also, to be technical, Spotlight would be part of this universe, as well as the New Avengers/Transformers book, as they are all set in the same continuity. Same with the Megatron origin, Devastation and whatever follows that. --MistaTee 21:31, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Whilst giving the story articles a sub-page role may be of merit, I don't see why we should spend so much time on plot when they are clearly pieces of a bigger puzzle. But I'll expand this entry and use it to clean-up the navigation box. Alientraveller 10:31, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Disagree for the same reasons as Mistatee. The individual articles provide a lot more space for detail than a page for all G1 series, while the IDW page summarizes the overall history of the IDW universe. It does have a lot of merit (for example all Dreamwave's G1 series have their own page, ditto the War Within series. But for now I think its best to leave as is. Regards.SMegatron 19:59, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Suggestions for splitting Optimus Prime, Megatron, Starscream and Galvatron

I have a suggestion to make regarding four articles so I'll make it here, in that considering Optimus Prime, Megatron, Starscream and Galvatron are the most popular Transformers characters, or at least the ones who've had the largest roles in fiction and therefore the longest articles, should have splits for articles dedicated to their G1-based incarnations. I mean, the first three I would say give too much attention to G1 which isn't the facet of a neutral, comprehensive encyclopedia.

On another issue, I think as with Megatron (Beast Wars and Beast Machines), the Beast Wars characters named Starscream and Galvatron. I'd let this slide for most articles that discuss multiple characters like Soundwave or Ironhide as they aren't too long. Alientraveller 18:26, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

You know, Im honestly not sure. You make some really valid points about the articles being too long although I'd disagree about the too much attention for G1 bit: that was the whole point of originally moving the BW, RiD and Uni Trilogy sections of the respective articles - because they were getting too long and unwieldy. However, how do you think the articles should be split?SMegatron 19:55, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Something like Starscream (Generation 1) is a good sub-article, and then we can shorten each section in each article to effectively summarise each incarnation. Model it on Transformers (fiction) and things like Audio books, Kiss Players and Classics aren't necessary to mention in a main article, being that G1 means to many the cartoon, Japan, Marvel, the UK comic, G2, Dreamwave and IDW. Alientraveller 14:42, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Again, have to disagree. Regardless of how people percieve G1, the characters in Classics, Kiss Palyers, etc are the G1 equivalents of thoses characters, not a completely different version ike those featured in RiD or the Unicron trilogy. Still, moving other incarnations sounds like a good idea. The other versions of Galv in the current article are generally covered in the respective Megatron articles anyway, and the Movie versions of Prime, Megatron and Starscream will probably get their own articles anyway at some point. SMegatron 15:00, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

No, I mean Kiss Players etc aren't notable enough to be mentioned in the main article, but are good for a more in-depth sub-article focusing on everything G1-based. As for the Movie versions, indeed. Those are new incarnations of the characters and currently I have no problem, as they are such small pieces of media so far. When splitting them with the inevitable sequels, (I hope), I suggest something like Megatron (film character). Alientraveller 21:15, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

A subarticle for the more obscure stuff sounds a good idea. Also, I was just thinking of hivong off the movie sections into separate articles after the Movie comes out, then we can add sequel-based stuff at a later date.SMegatron 09:25, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually, for the G1 characters we can just leave the name as is. Most people going into Prime, Megs, etc will probably be looking for the G1 character anyway. If they want another incarnation, the links on the page will help. So the "G1 Character" bit of the name you were suggesting earlier probably isn't needed.SMegatron 09:28, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

It's not neutral to assume that most people will come looking for their G1 incarnations. Some people may have only ever seen the Unicron trilogy, for instance. Alientraveller 19:02, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Which is what the "other incarnations" section is for on the Prime and Megs page. If anyone wants to go to another incarnation of that character, all they have to do is check there (lets face it: a new fan is hardly likely to go straight to the Starscream (Unicron Trilogy) page instead of just plain old Starscream unless they really knew what they were looking for). I'm still not too keen on the "(Generation One)" naming convention for the main articles you're proposing if only for the sheer ungodly amount of liks we'd have to fix, as well as the fact I consider it slightly pointless. To be honest I think you're just creating more work for yourself than if we were just moving other incarnations of the four characters off their pages.. Regardless, I'd feel more comfortable either way if other members of the project (or anyone interested in Transformers articles for that matter) could leave some feedback. SMegatron 20:38, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, it seems there's no objections to splitting the pages further. The ball is in your court, AlienTraveller.SMegatron 10:06, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Should there be a Transformers Audio book page?

I have about a dozen Transformers story books on audio cassette made by different companies over the years. I started adding the information on each character page, but it's getting big. I was wondering if maybe we could have a page like Transformers Audio Stories, or even one for each story Autobots' Lightning Strike, that had a synopsis of each story, then on the character page, simplay state something like "Megatron apppeared in the Transformers audio stories X, Y and Z", linking to the audio story page. That way I only have to post each story synopsis ONCE, not on every page for each Transformers character. opinions? user:mathewignash

Sounds pretty good. AlienTraveller suggested something like it in the thread above.SMegatron 09:45, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I started a page for Autobots' Lightning Strike - feel free to add to it. user:mathewignash

On the subject of audio books... dude. You've got to stop copy-pasting the same, wholesale summary of the book into the same article over and over. It needs to be specific to the character in question, and if they don't do anything in the book, then it really doesn't need to be in their article. I just happened to look at the Ironhide article, for example... he's mentioned once in the whole summary, and doesn't do a single significant thing in the whole story. - Chris McFeely 00:08, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Maybe you havn't been paying attention Chris. That's what this subject is about. Instead of posting the story into every character's page, I'm just making one page with the book plot in it, and using links. That way I don't end up putting the same paragraph on 20 different character's pages. Anyways, there is now a page for Satellite of Doom as well, so I removed the plot of the story from all the character pages. user:mathewignash

Laserbeak's Fury is now up. user:mathewignash

Note: Someone nominated the Laserbeak's Fury page for deletion because they said it's not a notable book. Feel free to go vote to save it. user:mathewignash

[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 22:01, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

As a father of a son who's into Transformers as play toys, I think the two biggest rationals for fair use of an image are 1) to actually properly identify the exact right transformers, since there are so many types and variants with creative names, and 2) to relate the described transformer toy to real life, since few marketing pictures show a real boy's hand on the toy out of the packet, making scale (and hence value & complexity of use) very difficult to judge. Davemc50 (talk) 03:13, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Partners

There is currently some debate over what constitutes "partners", and I thought I would like to hear other peoples opinions. I have always limited it to characters of the same affiliation who are packaged with a characters. Other people want to list every character someone works with or combines with. For instance, on the Blaster page I listed Lumina and Flipsides as Blaster's partners - as they were packaged with the binaltech Broadcast and ehobby Twincast versions of the character. Other people want to list all the cassette-abots, even though they shipped in seperate 2 packs. I would only list, for instance, Ramhorn and Eject as partners. What do you guys think? user:mathewignash

Well, in all honesty I can kind of see both viewpoints. Up to now the partners option has been used for those other TFs who shipped with Sounders and Blaster (who seem to be the main issue) and thats a valid point . Taht said, you can see why the cassettes would be listed as partners, as they were always associated with them in the show and comics. I realise this may take up a lot of space but why not have something like: Rumble, Laserbeak, Ravage (show)
Wingthing, Spacecase (toy)? Might be the best way to get both viewpoints across.SMegatron 13:46, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I think there's a big difference between "packaged with" and "partners". A partner doesn't have to be packaged with a figure to be his partner, and there are many toys (I'm not speaking purely of Transformers here) that are packaged together that definitely AREN'T partners. Partner means someone who works closely with someone else as a team. For example, I don't think anyone would doubt that R2-D2 is C-3PO's partner, but they are usually sold on their own. By the same reckoning Darth Vader has been packaged with Luke Skywalker and they definitely are NOT partners! I know these aren't Transformers, but the premise still holds. -- JediLofty User ¦ Talk 14:14, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
Another comment that just occurred to me. When they reissued Kup (Takara Transformers Collection #20) he was packaged with Wheelie. Please don't tell me that you plan to list them as partners! -- JediLofty User ¦ Talk 14:31, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
I would list Kup, Recoil and Wheelie as partners for the ehobby reissue only. I wouldn't list those with opposing factions as partners, as the boxes usually say "vs." and not "With". For instance "Soundwave with Spacecase" as opposed to "Air Raid vs. Wind Sheer". If you listed EVERY Decepticon cassette as Soundwave's partner, you'd have to list near 20 guys, if you counted all the ehobby, and japanese exclusives. You'd basically be listing the whole sub group. I want to add text to the beginning of the section saying he frequently works with all the cassettes, but limit the partners in the infobox to only the few he shipped with - that way both sides are represented. user:mathewignash
So what if it involves putting 20 characters (a slight exaggeration) in the infobox? They are all Soundwave's partners (regardless of whether or not they shipped with him (see my R2-D2/C-3PO comment above)) so should be listed there. To be honest, I'd say that Frenzy and Ratbat were more important than Space Case and Wingthing as they have actually appeared in the G1 cartoon! -- JediLofty User ¦ Talk 17:43, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

The entry and infobot isn't just about the G1 cartoon. If something is pertanant to only the cartoon, maybe it should be in the cartoon section, as I suggested. To me is just looks like you are listing everyone under his command. It's a large sub-group. Do we list all the seekers as partners of Starscream? Or Do we list Runabout and Runamuck as partners they work together a lot? Red Alert and Inferno? If you want a category of Decepticon Communications, that would make sense. Definitely list all the guys who worked with Soundwave in the animated series in his animated series secton. I just don't think his infobox needs all cassettes listed - which is: Buzzsaw, Laserbeak, Frenzy, Rumble, Ravage, Ratbat, Beastbox, Squawktalk, Squawkbox, Garboil, Howlback, Overkill, Slugfest, Flipsides, the Autoscout and Grit - okay only 16, but we would also have to list all these in all the cassettes as partners to each other. I'd rather limit it to once packaged together, ie. Rumble and Ravage. user:mathewignash

It is my opinion that "partners" should encompass anybody that worked together on a regular/frequent basis. So yes, Runamuck and Runabout would be partners. G1 Bumblebee might be considered a partner of Spike Witwicky and Blaster. Sideswipe and Sunstreaker, Cybertron Hot Shot, Red Alert, and Scattershot...you get the idea. And I don't think that being packaged together necessarily means anything, as others have argued. For example, there's a two-pack available at Wal-Mart right now of TFTM07 Bumblebee and Barricade: definitely not partners.

If the concern here is cleanliness/appearance of Soundwave's information box, maybe it would just be easier to have it look something like this:

Partners
List of Soundwave's Partners

Would that satisfy everyone? Spekkio 21:38, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, Im not too keen on there being a separate article dedicated solely to Soundwace's partners - lets face it, articles like that tend to get deleted rather quickly. However, as all thses patners are symbiotically connected with Soundwvae, perhaps a separate subsection of the article could be devoted to it. Something like a "see below section" in the infobox" folowed by a partners section like: "Likely the most famous partners of Soundwave are the cassettes that have appeared in the various G1 universes - Rumble, Ravage, Laserbeak, etc have appeared as Soundwvae's servants in various continuities. Lesser known are the likes of Overkill, Slugfest, Squawkbox, etc who appeared later in the toyline and are less prominently known. Some, like the Autoscout only appeared in animated form and never received toys, while other like Wingthing and Spacecase received toys but have never appeared in any fiction."

Giving all an equal mention in a separate section would be more strreamlined than listing them all in the infobox, especially with the conflicting viewpoints. Thoughts?SMegatron 20:16, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I think that would be workable. It would have the added bonus of giving a little bit of coverage (maybe a couple of pictures) to the as-yet undocumented cassettes. Spekkio 04:13, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Good plan. The same argument can be made for Blaster - he has four partners (if memory serves) not all of which were packaged with him. -- JediLofty User ¦ Talk 08:51, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
Actually NONE of the four you are thinking of (Rewind, Eject, Ramhorn and Steeljaw) were packaged with him. Neigher were Raindance, Grandslam and Slamdance. His in-package partners were Flipsides with his ehobby release and the lady driver driver of his Binaltech toy. user:mathewignash
Ah. Thank you, mathewignash - he obviously had more partners than I remembered. -- JediLofty User ¦ Talk 08:39, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

OK, so does this strike all involved (Mathewignash, JediLofty, Spekkio and Gun Ship) as a fair compromise? If it works, then possibly it could be applied to Blaster too, as has been suggested.SMegatron 08:44, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

I think that a section for partners is a great idea. Definitely gets all the information across without cluttering the infobox. Spekkio 22:22, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I've noticed that mathewignash has been removing partners again, so I think we ought to instigate this. I'll do it when I get a chance, unless someone gets there before me! -- JediLofty User ¦ Talk 10:03, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Minerva vs Nightbeat - Chicken or egg?

Greetings, members of WikiProject Transformers!

In my browsing of WP, I have come across the following discrepancy: Minerva (Transformers) claims that the Minerva toy was repainted and released in the U.S. as Nightbeat. However, the Nightbeat (Transformers) claims the opposite: that Nightbeat came first, and was repainted to become Minerva! I do not feel comfortable enough with the subject to resolve this content problem, so I decided to bring it here. Can someone help with this? Thanks in advance! Charlie-talk to me-what I've done 21:43, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

They were both released in the same year by the two Hasbro (Nightbeat) and Takara (Minerva). They are both redecos of the same mold and came out about the same time. user:mathewignash

[edit] Barricade: Dead or Alive? (2007 film)

I've seen conflicting accounts about the matter of Barricade's survival in the new film. While the article says that you can see Barricade's door on the Navy ship that's dumping the remains of the Decepticons, I've seen the movie twice and still haven't seen it. Also, I've heard that in a comic book version, Barricade and Optimus fought before the main fight at the end, leading to Barricade being killed by Prime. But, apparently this was cut from the movie, leading to the question of why Optimus showed up so late to the battle. Anywho, I think most people know what I'm talking about in the movie, and here's the article I'm wondering about - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barricade_%28Transformers%29#Transformers_.282007_film.29

If this is in the wrong spot, or if this doesn't belong here or whatever, then just delete it, but I just want the correct information to be up and readable by all Transformers fans :)

On the official movie boards, Roberto Orci expplicitly confirmed that Barricade's fate was a plot thread for the sequel.I could get a direct quote in case that's required. I also read somewhere (don't remember where) that Barricade's death was explicitly cut from the final script so there would be more Decepticons other than Starscream who could return in part 2. Since I don't know the exact source here, please don't quote me on that.--87.164.100.127 (talk) 21:05, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sources (again)

Most if not all of the current Transformers articles are lacking proper references to reliable sources. Remember, the burden of evidence lies with the editor that made the additions, per Wikipedia:Verifiability. In a nutshell, the policy states that an article with no proper third-party sources can be deleted. --Madchester 13:39, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

I've been adding footnotes where I can. user:mathewignash

[edit] Armada article

Recently I was browsing the Armada article, and it needs alot of work, especially in the character sections. It's very "unencyclopedic" and feels more like it came from a fan site than from a wikipedia editor. I havn't seen more than a couple of episodes of the series so I'm not sure how to correct it (although I did do some cleanup on the videogame section), but if any of you do it is much needed.Beep Beep Honk Honk 00:16, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rank in infobox

mathewignash (talk · contribs) asked me to alert the project's participants to my queries about the utility of "rank" in the character infobox. It is thataway. --EEMeltonIV 12:41, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Keep - He wants to delete rank from the infobox. I say keep it as it tells us important information about how each character related to each other in the series. user:mathewignash

Please note that a) this isn't a vote and b) the appropriate place to have this discussion is on the template talk page. --EEMeltonIV 13:14, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

But, yes, I think it is minutiae that does not meet the manual of style's requirement that in-universe infobox material is "essential to understanding the entity's context in the overall fiction." I should have made that clear earlier. Please chime in on the template talk page. --EEMeltonIV 13:22, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Actually it is. Since it is a question of whether or not it Wiki says it can stay, every users' opinion, not just your own, is relevant. user:mathewignash is going out of his way to be nice to you, don't slam him down for it! --The Matrix Prime 19:24, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Template

Is there a reason there's not Transformers template on many of the articles? I was going to add it to most of them that I could casually find, but if there's a reason they're being removed I'd rather know so I'm not wasting my time. WLU 03:57, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Incidentally, if the template's size is the concern, I've seen other templates that are compressible, and only expand when clicked on. 'Tis pretty huge and that might be a way of including it without it being overwhelming to the articles. WLU 04:02, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Not sure, can we get some more opinions?--MistaTee 12:37, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Always thought it would be best to add it to the most important articles, like the various incarnations of Op, Megatron and others like Magnus and Starscream. The various comic articles all have it, and I think the various toyline articles all do as well. However, if the consensus is add them to all articles, go for it. SMegatron 09:22, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

All the TF articles shoudl have a link to Transformers universes in the top line. I always thought the template at the bottom was only for the pages devoted to the toy line, comic and characters listed in the template. Mathewignash 09:34, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hot Rod/Rodimus

User:Mathewignash keeps on moving the Hot Rod (Transformers) page to Rodimus, saying that the name's been changed for the last five toys to "Rodimus". However, wiki rules that the most common name should be used, and Hot Rod has been known as "Hot Rod" since G1, marvel comics and others.

Well, I vote Rodimus, but if others have different opinions, I'd like to hear it. Mathewignash 09:34, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Hmm. Can see the rationale for Rodimus, as there are other TF pages that have been renamed after the more recent toy names (Silverstreak comes instantly to mind), but I have to say that Hot Rod is by far the better known name. Going by fictional apps and not toys, he's only been called that in the Timelines comic (and even then Op nearly gets it wrong) and the BotCon comics. In the vast majority, including his IDW apps published around the same time the Rodimus toys were released, it's Hot Rod. If people look for the character on wikipedia, that's probably the name they'll look for. I know it'll redirect, but as the page calls him Hot Rod in most instances it seems more sensible to go by the original name. Opinions? SMegatron 09:49, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually, speaking of Rodimus, where has the Rodimus Prime page gone? It seems to redirect to Rodimus, which is exclusively about the Hot Rod character and doesn't contain any of the old page's info at all.SMegatron 09:51, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I undid the Redirect to Rodimus since the Rodimus page neglects to cover Rodimus Prime completely, with the exception of his transformation to and subsequent actions in the movie. Until Rodimus covers the Rodimus Prime information more thoroughly we should leave the Rodimus Prime article as a separate article.--The Virginian 12:58, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Cheers mate.SMegatron 11:24, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Hmm. Having had a look over this on [2], Im going to put a request on this to be moved back to Hot Rod. According to this, the common name takes precedence, and Hot Rod is far better known than Rodimus. I will place a request for it to be moved. SMegatron 13:46, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Someone moved the article from Hot Rod back to Rodimus. --89.247.211.153 (talk) 21:44, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lio Convoy

Leo Prime should be moved back to Lio Convoy the most recent Beast Wars comics give his name as Lio Convoy not Leo Prime. The page talks about his fictional history foremost and mentions any toys as side note on the bottom. All fictional accounts of the character lists him as Lio Convoy never Leo Prime. Support the move on his Talk Page so it can be corrected.

Arguments for moving back to Lio Convoy:

  • Transformers: Beast Wars - The Ascending - http://media.comics.ign.com/media/956/956780/img_4801494.html
  • Wiki rules that the most common name should be used, so if that is the case his page has to be labeled Lio Convoy. Two animated shows used Lio Convoy, numerous toys mostly Japanese and one American used the name Lio Convoy, most recently comics used the name Lio Convoy. As 80.141.70.136 put it one obscure toy used Leo Prime. Having this page labeled Leo Prime is violation of Wiki Rules.

--The Virginian 12:55, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Arguments for remaining on Leo Prime prominently listed on the Leo Prime talk page:

  • There are numerous instances where one fiction contradicts another, such as with Rumble and Frenzy of G1.
  • If we deem in favor of following the Wiki rule, then many more pages must change to the Japanese name as well, because the Japanese tend to reoccur characters more often, as well as give them more repaints. This commonly happens with Prime/Convoys, and thus would result in the renaming of all of our pages to the Japanese names if we are to follow this rule.
  • Hasbro did declare that Classics figures are meant to represent the character they are named after. There was never a Leo Prime, prior to Classics. Therefore, it implies that Leo Prime was the name Hasbro decided to use for Lio Convoy.
  • Leo Prime has no bio but does have a function, which is the same as Lio Convoy’s, which only further supports the notion that he is indeed the same character.
  • The comics are licensed by Hasbro, but are not written by Hasbro. Simon Furman explained that he decided to use all names as they originally appeared, despite changes over the years.
  • We have another page that also falls into this dispute: Gigatron/Overlord. As many of you know, the figure was sold in Japan first, later sold in Europe under the same name and then an American figure was released under the name Gigatron. Then we have the dispute of two English names. On the page, we recognize him first as Overlord but later do recognize his presence as Gigatron.

--TriPredRavage 15:07, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Those piddly little arguments mean nothing. Leaving it as is, is a violation of Wiki Rules. Besides it also clearly states that the Leo Prime toy is not strictly classics. Thus your argument that Classics figures are meant to represent the character they are named after is invalid. Not to mention that argument is completely invalid since Leo Prime never existed thus the figure can't represent the character it's named after.

There is only one way I will support Leo Prime is Lio Convoy and that is if it is done exactly like Overlord.--The Virginian 10:59, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

  • I don't know when it was changed to say that it wasn't a Classics but that person was out of line considering that the they are listed as Classics and are explained on the Classics page. Those "piddly little arguments" do mean something. In fact, they mean a lot. We have so many characters that are falling into this "who are they?" thing, but only Leo Prime/Lio Convoy is discussed. In reality, we have practically every character from Masterforce, Victory, Zone, Beast Wars II, and the secondary characters of Beast Wars Neo. In a majority of those pages we have the character listed under their English counter part and then have the page list their Japanese series counter part on the English one's page. It seems like the only characters that we aren't willing to do that with is leaders. And as far as the Wiki Rules go, I'm cool with following the rules, but if we are going to rule in favor of that, then most everybody must change. --TriPredRavage 15:15, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
  • If you want to list English name and mention the Japanese name fine and dandy with me as long as absolutely every single character gets that treatment. As of right now they don't and that is unacceptable. Either fix all Japanese original characters to English or fix them all to Japanese. If we go with the English name for the Japanese original Characters we must include the Japanese along side the English name as depicted in the sample Infobox on the project page. --The Virginian 18:43, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

These Wiki pages are done in English, so it makes sense to give the characters' their English names first - then mention their other names in other languages. TriPredRavage's arguements are quite correct. --The Matrix Prime 19:24, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

  • I suggest to change the article to something along these lines:
Leo Prime was a redeco of Legends of Cybertron Leobreaker, released as part of Hasbro's Classics line. Previously, Hasbro also released an imported Japanese Beast Wars toy via their now defunct Hasbro Collectors website, named Lioconvoy. The character appears in IDW's Beast Wars comic books, named Lio Convoy.
Trivia Leo Prime had a far more prominent role in the Japanese Beast Wars The Second cartoon, named Lio Convoy. In Japan, he had several toys released, of which only one was ever imported to the USA.

That should give proper weight to the American side of things.--87.164.100.127 (talk) 21:19, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Copyvios?

Almost every Wikipedia article about a G1 Transformer contains a direct copy of either the toy's Tech Specs or the character's Marvel Universe profile. Do these constitute a copyright violation, or is the material assumed to be "fair use"? JIP | Talk 19:45, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually those texts have generally been avoided in favor of people explaining what they said in their own words. Can you point out a DIRECT copy of a tech spec or profile book in an article? Mathewignash 20:22, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

To be completely fair while most of the articles did contain exactly what you describe (tech specs, Dreamwave MTMTE bios) myself, Mat and several other contributors have edited a lot of the articles so that the bios have been pruned and rewritten so that it doesn't violate copyright (as far as I know anyway). If there's any specific articles you could think of let us know and we'll have a look at it. So long as no-one adds the BW Sourcebook profiles verbatim we ought to be OK. SMegatron 09:16, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Name and affiliation blender

Can't we just stick to using the original names? For example, Optimus Prime's original name IS Optimus Prime, since the character was conceived by Americans first; "Convoy" is the name of the original Diaclone toy, but not a Transformer character; hence, Optimus Prime was renamed Convoy in Japan and not the other way around. With Japanese characters, we should stick to the Japanese names, even if the toy is released later in the European/American market under a different name, unless of course, the toy is used to represent an entirely different character with no ties to the original, such as with Overlord/Gigatron.

Also, what decides the affiliation of the character, their fictious representation or the toy box? Takeshi357 13:28, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Affiilations of Primus and Unicron

Okay, so anyone who's viewed the Primus and Unicron pages recently will probably have noted that there's been a bit of a dispute over what their Affiliations should be listed as. mathewignash is insistent that because their Cybertron toys were sold as an Autobot and a Decepticon respectively, that means that that's what they should be listed as - even though, as several other editors have contested through their alteration of the info only to have it reverted right back, this ignores twenty years worth of fiction (and even the fiction associated with the Cybertron toys themselves) that labels them as unaffiliated. Unicron, at least, has been beaten down to being labelled "None/Decepticon," but that does not sit right with me - because fictionally, he's not a Decepticon. It should even be noted that the Primus and Unicron toys are the only individually-avaiable Cybertron toys that do not have faction symbols tampographed onto their bodies, furthering their unaffiliated status, which is enforced only by gang-molded Cyber Keys and their toy boxes. So I want to put this to bed by having a vote, so we can establish a consensus. Yes, they should be listed with those affiliations (in adherence with their Cybertron toys), No, they should be listed as "None" (in adherence with the fiction surrounding them) or they should be labelled with a Mixture, as Unicron is now, or as something like "None (toy sold as Autobot)". Go for it. - Chris McFeely 21:43, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I could go with Primus being "None/Autobot" and Unicron as "None/Decepticon". Mathewignash 22:01, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I vote no. In fact, I've already argued that, despite being sold with autobot/decepticon sigils, the sigils are on the packaging (and the cyber key). The toys themselves do not have faction symbols printed anywhere on them. Also, there already is an entry for N/A (which is basically the same as "none") in the template. Takeshi357 (talk) 17:34, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Many Transformers were sold without sigals. Micromasters, G2 Gobots, Safeguard, Movie Armorhide etc. Doesn't mean they are not Autobots and Decepticons. Mathewignash (talk) 17:45, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
Unicron and Primus are, however, the ONLY two individually-available Cybertron figures who don't have symbols. That's a MASSIVE distinction that you're refusing to make, and are trying to justify by quoting examples that are nearly all from over ten years ago. EVERY other Cybertron toy except these two have symbols on them that denote their allegiance. Not including them on Unicron or Primus is VERY CLEARLY a specific decision made by Hasbro, because they are not... say it with me now... an Autobot or a Decepticon. - Chris McFeely (talk) 20:09, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
You are missing Safeguard. He has no Mini-Con, Autobot or any other symbol. So he's not a Mini-Con by your standards? Also, SDCC Legends Skywarp. No symbol, released DURING the Cybertron line release. Mathewignash (talk) 20:39, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
Safeguard not having a symbol is a knock-on effect from neither he nor Vector Prime having one in his Japanese release, and VP having one added later for the Hasbro release. No Mini-Con sigil tamograph existed (they had all had moulded sigils before), so Safeguard couldn't be stamped with one, since it didn't exist, and they weren't going to make one for just one tiny figure. So he winds up with no sigil because they couldn't give him one. Plus, once again we come to the fact that you are IGNORING THE FICTION - you talk about "my standards?" I think you'll find you're imposing YOUR standards on me. *I* am not ignoring the fiction, and basing my views on factions purely on what the toys say. If anything, you'd have to accuse me of doing the opposite! Which is to say, directly addressing the question raised - "by my standards," Safeguard is a Mini-Con, because he's presented as BEING A MINI-CON in the cartoon, even if his toy doesn't have a sigil, and Primus and Unicron ARE NOT PRESENTED AS AN AUTOBOT OR A DECPTICON, with toys that CORROBORATE THAT. And SDCC Skywarp wasn't strictly a Cybertron figure. So there we go. - Chris McFeely (talk) 20:56, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and I vote No, obviously enough. Thought I'd better just do that. - Chris McFeely (talk) 20:15, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Not sure how much weight my vote has as a non-registered IP. However, I also say No. Otherwise, Alpha Q would also be a Decepticon as per the toy's packaging, even though that directly contradicts the show.--87.164.100.127 (talk) 21:01, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
In the Dreamwave comics Alpha Q was pretty clearly working with the Decepticons though, so I don't think this is a problem. Another point I might mention about Cybertron Unicron is his purple inked instructions with the biug honking Decepticon logo on the top. YOu can argue he wasn't affiliated in the fiction, but since his toy WAS affiliated, I wanted to see BOTH mentioned in the infobox, which is why I thought "None/Decepticon" was a comprimise. Mathewignash (talk) 21:51, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
It's the fact that it's a totally meaningless affiliation with no relevance to the character. I mean, stricly speaking, the physical toy itself isn't even affiliated - just the toy's box and instructions, out of necessity and nothing more. I mean, if it's the way the wind blows, the compromise "Mixture" option does not revile me, but my personal preference is for "None" or "N/A." The infobox, after all, is for a character, not for a toy, and the characters have never been affiliated. - Chris McFeely (talk) 22:06, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
It's fairly important to the mythos that Unicron and Primus are neither Autobot nor Decepticon. Certainly, the Decepticon cause means nothing to Unicron, and their respective goals are ultimately in conflict with one another. Given that Primus is good and Unicron is evil, it makes sense at times for these deities to be aligned according to the obvious faction, but alliance does not indicate allegiance.
This does not mean that there were times in which, due to Transformers material being created within an Autobot/Decepticon template establishment, Unicron wasn't shoehorned into one side or the other to avoid having to create individualized packaging. For example, his 3" Titanium figurine comes with a Decepticon logo stand ...though, there were only two stands available to choose from, which is why he comes with the bad guy one. I don't think this should be an indication of allegiance. At least, not honestly. Meanwhile, there's even less contextual evidence to label Primus an Autobot. He's never been released with either symbol, ever. Even the Lucky Draw gold-chrome Rodimus Prime version of him gave him his own factionless box.
--ItsWalky! (talk) 21:52, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
Primus in both the US and Japan have Autobot symbols on the boxes. Anyone look at his instructions? It's funny you'd argue the Decepticon base for Titanium Unicron are just to save money, when the Fallen and Cheetor have unique bases. Mathewignash (talk) 22:00, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
Only the little removable nameplates on the front of the Fallen and Cheetor's bases are unique, they're moulded separately to the bases themselves, so it's not redoing the whole thing. But regardless, they're a wholly different size-class, with different rules, which cost significantly different amounts of money to buy at retail. That sort of thing can be *justified* for figures of that size. But the 3" figures? Making a different base for one single figure - that's as big as the figure itself, which only costs a few bucks? That doesn't make sense. And even then, what are you saying when you make this point? That you think Hasbro specifically said to themselves: "You know, we could spend the extra money and give Unicron a specific base, but no, we'll forget that, and give him a Decepticon one, because he's absolutely a Decepticon, but then we'll totally contradict it in his bio for shits and giggles?" That's just silly. Because, I mean, it's either that, or the infinitely more obvious and sensible explanation - that they just weren't going to make more than two types of bases. To try and say that Hasbro intended for Unicron to be a Decepticon... I mean, what, do you just WANT for him to be a Decepticon or something? Because you're bending over backwards to ignore both the logic of production costs, and of common sense. - Chris McFeely (talk) 23:02, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm not the one here unwilling to comprimise by listing both. Mathewignash (talk) 23:11, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
So, no actual answer, then. That's about par for the course. And it's funny, I could've sworn it was you who deleted my compromise "None (toy sold as Autobot)" from Primus's infobox (which is infinitely more correct that "None/Autobot"), restoring it to a non-compromised form... - Chris McFeely (talk) 23:14, 18 November 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Instructions

I wonder if the loyal transformers fans could consider adding "transform" instructions to the template for each page for each model. I came searching at Wikipedia, being the authority on all things, looking for instructions. I was surprised not to find them. Especially as actually "transforming" is their whole claim to fame. Contrary to popular belief, six year old boys can not instantly transform a transformer from bot to object and back again. They need practice and patience, both in short supply in the moments after being handed the article. Hence the task falls immediately to Dad, often at a party, often after a beer or two. Along with the added pressure to teach the child the tricks and secret hatches along the way. Dad could successfully restore his status as "the best" if a Google search of "Transformers Instructions" brought up a suitable Wikipedia index page, helpfully showing a miniature of each item, aiding in quick identification. A textual sequence of steps or abstract diagrams would be ideal. Perfect for user generated content, as the original manufacturers sometimes can't express the steps in a suitable way. Davemc50 (talk) 03:28, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

That was a very well articulated idea, Davemc50. Personally, I think that might be a good idea to have an instruction section. Maybe just a scan of the original instructions for the TFs uploaded onto Wiki would suffice. Also, I believe the guys over at Unicron.com are working towards adding the instructions to their character pages. I know some characters over there already have their instructions uploaded. You should click over their and try to find the one you are looking for, they may already have it available. --TriPredRavage (talk) 16:50, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

While an admirable goal, the sheer number of Transformers toys would make a textual list of transformation steps dominate any article they were in. Take, for instance, Optimus Prime or Megatron, and see just how many individual toys they have. Detailing how to transform each one would likely double the article in length. No, I really can't say that I think Wikipedia is the place for something like that. However, to fulfil your instructions need, I reccommend checking out this site - click the white tab under each thumbnail for a scan. - 81.156.242.176 (talk) 16:02, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Guidelines

[edit] WP:FICT has been revised

WP:FICT, the notability guideline for elements within a work of fiction (characters, places, elements, etc) has a new proposal/revision that is now live [3] Everyone is encouraged to leave feedback on the talk page. Ned Scott 22:01, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Notability (serial works)

There is a proposal to split WP:EPISODE into a more general notability guideline, Wikipedia:Notability (serial works), and make the rest of WP:EPISODE just a MOS guideline. Please join in at WT:EPISODE#Proposed split of EPISODE and/or Wikipedia talk:Notability (serial works). -- Ned Scott 22:01, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Contributing Toy Photos

I gave away my toy robot collection some time ago. But before I did, I took pictures of all the the toys and posted them on my blog: http://multimedia.cx/eggs/category/robots-of-the-80s/

Anyway, I thought it would be nice to preserve some of these photos for posterity at Wikipedia. Can anyone lay out some general guidelines for contributing photos? What size they should be? Where they should live on a page? How I should go about writing the licensing documentation (looks complicated)?

Oh, and most of all, I will need help ID'ing many of the 'bots. Thanks --Multimedia Mike (talk) 04:33, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Short answer: You can upload them to Wikipedia. Licensing is simple; select the option of "self-made, released under GFDL" (or GDFL, I always forget). Note that this means you are giving anyone anytime the permission to do anything anytime forever with the photos.
Then you can post links here - use [[:Image:Transfomerimagename.png]] to make a link rather than place the image... note the leading COLON (:). Then we can go look and ID, placing the ID information on the image page.
I personally would love to help on a project like this, and you can leave me a note directly on my talk page if you'd like and I'll go take a look. As for image size, generally larger is better... some images are in the 4000x6000 pixel size or even larger. Wiki will automatically resize them for pages and previews.
Best of luck; glad to help! • VigilancePrime • • • 18:40 (UTC) 24 Feb '08
Thanks for the tips. I am fine with using the GFDL for my contributed images. It's just that I remember seeing some other toy photos that had some legalese along the lines of "this is a photo of a copyrighted toy and is posted using the assumption that it's okay under fair use guidelines." I still have the original 2272-pixel width digital images so I will be sure to spare no quality in the uploads. And thanks to those who have visited my blog to help identify the robots. Invaluable! --Multimedia Mike (talk) 06:56, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
I have been reading some guidelines over on Wikimedia Commons (I thought it would be a better idea to upload them over there). I can't find the document now, but it was clear that toy pictures are covered as works of art and are often not okay to upload. --Multimedia Mike (talk) 05:54, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

This merely means you need a proper non-free picture rational for "3D art" attached to the picture. if you need an example of one I can provide it. Mathewignash (talk) 09:06, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Help protect Transformers articles

The article Oil Slick (Transformers) has been nominated for deletion. Feel free to go add to the article or voice your opinion on it's proposed deletion. Mathewignash (talk) 14:28, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

The article Santon (Transformers) is also up for deletion. Feel free to go vote to keep it. Mathewignash (talk) 09:23, 9 April 2008 (UTC)