Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Transformers/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Archive 1
| Archive 2 →


Contents

Series & Universes

Might as well kick this off while I'm here. Regarding the suggested merging of these two articles, I say thee nay. "Series" desparately needs to be cleaned up, and I've been meaning to do it for absolutely ages, but what that page should serve as is a master list of the assorted Transformers television series (some of which have their own articles to be linked off to). So in actuality, it should probably be renamed "List of Transformers TV series," or something like that). It's the same principle as "Transformers (comic)", which serves as a list of the assorted Transformers comics published - I don't see anyone suggesting that should be merged. "Transformers Universes" is a totally different thing from both of those pages, dealing in cartoon, comic and toy that lists how all those things are either separate, or how they inter-relate and form different fictional universes. - Chris McFeely 13:19, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

  • Chris, Initially I went to RV a little of your last change as it looked like it removed a couple reasonably significant links, but ultimately changed it all around to keep the "new" names that you had swapped out and also did a bit of reformatting in the same manner you had begun (and then expanded on it through a couple other parts of the article). Anyway, I wanted to mention it and say thanks for starting the idea out. You'll see the links to "list of..." articles are still there, but seeing as those two pages are small compared to the ones above it (and one even has a WikiWarning about it's quality standard), I moved it to minor articles, even though I had originally put those in the major section (with the "older" names), after looking at them again.
  • Anyway, that's all I had for now. Wanted to make sure to let you know how and why it looks changed and reassure you that it wasn't simply removed. Actually it started a pretty good upgrade in a few areas, I think.
  • VigilancePrime 02:40, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Sources of information

Not that there isn't enough already on Wikipedia, but this site, which specializes in SciFi stuff, has a good bit of info on Transformers and may be of use during the researching to add info and update TransPages.
VigilancePrime 08:19, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

User boxes for this project

I created two userboxes. {{User WikiProject Transformers}} is the "Autobot" version and {{User WikiProject Transformers2}} is the Decepticon version.
VigilancePrime 11:21, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
Since you changed the coloration on the colorboxes I created, I created two more, that way there are both lighter ones and darker ones for each person's personal preference (IOW: This as opposed to reverting them).
I also touched up the Userbox section when I added the two newest ones and also the Infobox paragraph format, bringing them in line with the rest of the page.
THOUGHT: I think using Prime as the example is a bad idea. This paragraph is tutorial in nature and thus we should use a less complicated example. Smaller so the average reader who is contemplating helping out isn't intimidated by the sheer size! (Comments from others? Anyone?)
VigilancePrime 02:28, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Images on template

  • Anyone else think we need to swap out one of the logo images on the template? I like these ones, but the Autobot one is 3-dimensional (note top line is beveled) while the 'Con logo is 2-D (notice all edges are flat). I don't know how hard or easy that is to change, but I am SURE that I have a set (many different sets, probably) of matching logos if someone else wants to swap them out for uniformity (on the off chance nobody else has a matching set, which I'm sure is not the case).
  • Anyway, it's a thought. I have those a lot this late at night... oh wait... morning...!
    • side note, I inverted this page cause in the long run, putting the newest questions at the top makes the pages generally easier to read (no scrolling a mile to get to the last post).
    • BTW, DB, I got your message. I agree, but would hate to see a revert war over the format... yes, it CAN happen!
  • VigilancePrime 08:08, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Consistency standard?

One thing I would REALLY like to see is a character standard format. For instance:
Brief Synopsis
1. Graphic novel
a. Marvel Comic G1 (Original)
b. Marvel G2
c. Dreamwave Comic
2. Hasbro toy
a. Original release
b. Re-releases
c. Repaints
3. Television character (cartoon)
a. First appearances
b. Transformers the Movie
c. Post-movie
d. Armada/etc. (add in those pertaining to character)
4. Transformers 2007 movie
a. Appearances (when they become known)
5. Trivia
6. Links/Fansites/References
Something along these lines where EVERY character could be put into the same order so there is a strong consistency among the character profiles.
Next, some profiles have a great set of pictures associated with and embedded in the page. Some don't. We ought to get somewhat standardized there too.
Just a few thoughts. I look forward to this endeavor. Any chance we'd all like to target 07-04-07 as a tentative/initial completion date?  :-)
VigilancePrime 06:27, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
Shouldn't television come first? That's how most people know them. The rest looks good to me!--D-Boy 06:30, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
I think the pic for the infobox should probably start with the cartoon, If that is unaviablable then a comic pic should be used. toy box art should be last resort.--D-Boy 06:36, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
"Most people know them" doesn't mean their most serious, significant, first, original or "true" run. If you really want to look that route, the Toyline would come first as many Transformers (and most of the original "G1" 'bots) didn't exist until Hasbro started selling them. Jetfire/Skyfire is the most stark example of that and how it went wrong!
The comic series was, granted in my (not so) humble opinion, the most careful with the plot and most successful. The toys sold nowadays are an abomination, most of them, to the original Transformers toyline and concept. The cartoon was, well, cartoon-y (way too much so). The movie was just an extra-long cartoon episode that killed Optimus Prime, and TF2007 isn't out yet.
All told, I heartily believe that the Marvel comic series (it was 80 issues... from what was supposed to only be a FOUR-issue limited series!) should be the lead-off batter and the considered the primary "canon" informational source.
(and yes, I do know that others will disagree with me...)  :-) VigilancePrime 07:53, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, I think starting with the comics is a bad idea. The toy section should probably be first, as almost all Transformers have a toy, but not all were in the comic or cartoon. The comic section couild also become confusing if read first, as several versions may need to be covered. Reading such versions would be less confusing to the reader if they are given a general back story first, i.e. the backstory from the toy or cartoon. I'm going to be computerless for a while, so I may not be able to continue this discussion. --Orion Minor 08:58, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
You hit on the biggest problem, though, in your last sentence. (Well, second-to-last.) The backstories from the toys and cartoons are so vastly incomplete, self-contradictory, discontinuous, and worse, that it is almost impossible to form a backstory from them.
Ultimately the cleanest, clearest, most continuous timelines for most characters are in the comic series. Yes, the comic series had contradictions, but they were most often explained away satisfactorily. The cartoon is miserable, though, and the toy line? The only constant in the toyline was Hasbro trying to squeeze more money out of kids' parents.
Thus I recommend - and campaign for - the Marvel comic starting off.
(see what I mean, by the way, about my earlier comments about needing to standardize it? this is why.)  :-)
VigilancePrime 09:33, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
Well, my vote goes for cartoon since most of the character pages start with cartoon. I'm mostly familiar with the g1 cartoon and some of the dreamwave stuff. Only read a little bit of the marvel. I think most people are familar with the cartoon. The comic was much more popular in the UK. --D-Boy 09:52, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for starting this people, I was getting frustrated with all the inconsistencies. I vote that we start off with the toy bio and a picture of the toy's box art. Transformers was a toyline, the cartoon series and the comics were there to promote the toyline. failing that I'd say go with the cartoon.
All the entries are in dire need of toy photgraphs. Those that do have them are always terrible. I've started taking a few of my own (like g1 Optimus Prime). Since Transformers is a toyline it's criminal there are so few.
Anyway, some more consistencies I'd like to see introduced, mainly minor grammatical quibbles. There's a lot of needless and confusing synonyms floating about-
redecoes/recolours/repaints - settle on one to use consistantly, and have a short article explaining what it means
remould/remold/retool - likewise
mold/mould - settle on one spelling (I favour 'mold' myself even though I'm English)
Generation 1/Generation One/G1 - need a system for using the different terms
Generation 2/Generation Two/G2 - likewise
Curis 14:43, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm biased because I instituted it, but I think that the layout that the majority of detailed TF articles have at the moment is the way to go. The method suggested above is for a single-character-dedicated article, so it doesn't really work - we should really want to avoid having to create separate article for every single character who has used the same name, for example, "Prowl (G1)", "Prowl (BW)", "Prowl (RiD)", etc, etc. Let's keep all the Prowls, all the Mirages, etc, on one page. So, the single-character-dedicated method doesn't really work. The layout I've been used for a goodly while now works like this:

Introduction: "(Insert name) is (the name of several/a) fictional character(s) from (one of the/several of the) Transformers universes.

Then we get to subdividing by fiction - not by chronological toy release, hence, Alternators and things like that go under the section for the G1 character, because they're the same character. G1 requires the most sub-sections, and I advocate starting with the most famous version of the fiction which is best known in the minds of casual public, that being the cartoon. So it goes:

1. Generation 1 (character biography - not a copy-pasted tech spec, but original text, obviously - and toy notes)

1.1 Animated series (summary of events in cartoon - subdivisions can be added for roles in Japanese sequel series to keep the separation between them and the US series clear)
1.2 Marvel Comics (summary of events in G1/G2 comic - possibly you could subdivide the G2 section if it's large enough to warrant it)
1.3 Dreamwave Comics
1.4 Alternators

And then add the Devil's Due G.I. Joe vs. TF and the IDW Comics if necessary. The next series starts at 2, and similar subdivisions carry on as necessary. When things get a bit more complicated is when the same characters appears across a wide number of series - Mirage is a good example of this. So, for that page, I went with a format like this:

1. The Original Mirage
1.1 Generation 1
1.1.1 Animated series
1.1.2 Marvel Comics
1.1.3 Dreamwave Comics
1.2 Generation 2(notes on the Go-Bot Mirage, who did not appear in the comics, hence couldn't be talked about under the Marvel Comics G2 section above)
1.3 Machine Wars
1.4 Robot Masters
1.5 Alternators
2. Beast Machines
3. Robots in Disguise
4. Armada
4.1 Cybertron (same character, y'see)
5. Energon
5.1 Animted series
5.2 Dreamwave Comics

Ravage has something similar, because the unique chronological nature of his story requiries it:

1. The Original Ravage
1.1 Generation 1
1.1.1 Animated series
1.1.2 Marvel Comics
1.1.3 Dreamwave Comics
1.2 Beast Wars
1.2.1 Animated series
1.2.2 BotCon Comics
1.2.3 IDW Comics
1.3 Alternators

Also, regarding characters from the most recent years - if a character appears in only one of the series, then I start the section with that name, be it Armada, Energon or Cybertron:

1. Armada
1.1. Animated series
1.2. Dreamwave Comics

However, if a character appears in MORE than one, then I used the master heading of "Unicron Trilogy," and subdivide the section into smaller ones dealing with each series. Rather than splitting up any DW comics stuff, though, I put that under one sub-section, since it just ran straight from one into the other without a break:

1. Unicron Trilogy

1.1. Armada
1.2. Energon
1.3. Cybertron
1.4 Dreamwave Comics

(Mirage and Prowl were a rare exception to that, as there was two different Mirages and Prowl in Armada and Energon, and being separate characters, they got separate sections headed up by the name of the series they appeared in.)

Due to the insistence of one user in repeatedly inserting references to toys that were repaints of characters, but were not actually those characters (sometimes creating entire subsections to put in that one sentence of information), I later started adding a "Remoulds and Redecos" section at the end to cover things like that.

So... that's my two cents. - Chris McFeely 13:01, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

I like your format, Chris. Just keep into account, that when the article for an individual transformer with appearances in various series must be split eventually if then become to large in one article. --D-Boy 07:07, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
I think the infobox is good. I was hoping to bring up a few things for talk in the consistancy department. One thing is on the voice actors, sometimes people will say a person's name then "US" or "Japan", others say "English" or "Japanese". I think English/Japanese is the best thing to say, since the show is often made and shown in multiple countries in both languages (Beast Machines was made in Canada for instance) and we are more taling about who did the English and Japanese voices for the characters, not what country the company that employed them is from. What do you guys think? user:mathewignash
Another thing is obscure foreign names for TFs. I think they SHOULD be mentioned, and in parantesis in the first line describing the characters. SOme users have been going adding foreign names, which is great. Others have been deleting them left and right, very annoying. Should foreign names outside US and Japan be mentioned? user:mathewignash
I wasn't bothered about them at first (Japan, after all, holds an important place in the TF mythos, so I was always including those names when I wrote anything), but the more I think about it, yeah, the more I feel they should be included. I think the reason some of them have been deleted, however, is because the user(s) going around putting them in are putting them in the wrong place. For example, take Snarl, since it's fresh in my mind - the article BEGINS be listing those names. But that's not accurate, because the names listed are only for G1 Snarl, not for the numerous other Snarls the article also lists. They should be down under the "Generation 1" heading, rather than on the top of the page. At least, that's what I've assumed the reason is, but I could be wrong there. Haven't moved any myself. - Chris McFeely 14:12, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
I agree here. Definitely the foreign names should be listed in the section that apply to. Foreign names for G1 sharl should be listed in the G1 section. I checked though and the Snarl page has always had the foreign G1 Snarl names in the G1 section, so I don't know why people keep removing them. I heard the arguement it's an English site, so it should be english only, but i don't see the problem in mentioning trivia like foreign names for something for the english users who care to learn user:mathewignash
Huh, you're right, they ARE in the right place on the Snarl page... dunno what I was thinkin'. Well, there are OTHER pages where they're placed wrong, anyway. The "English site" argument doesn't really wash with me... it's just a point of interest, really. I guess part of it is knowing how far to go... while I've no objection to foreign names, I think, just for example, that listing all a character's foreign voice actors would be too much. In a similar vein, I don't think it's necessary to put the Japanese names, terms and other things in the infoboxes. It's hardly essentiall that they all say "Autobot (Cybertron)" or what have you. - Chris McFeely 14:31, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
A third thing is that some users have been seleting funcitons and mottos on character with short entries saying they are copyright violations - how far will they take it? Is mentioning one line "Quote" a violation? How about one word? Functions and mottos are part of the infobox, are they legal? user:mathewignash
Another thing Christ has mentioned to me is links in section headers. he pointed out to me that the manual of style frowns on them because some browsers can't read them properly. Christ has been great about removing the links and putting them in the paragraph below the section header. I think those browsers just don't provide a link, but they still display the words. So leaving them in the header isn't a problem, as long as a link is ALSO provided in the text below so the users of browsers who don't link header links can click on that. It doesn't mess up the age to have excessive links, does it? user:mathewignash

Have you guys decided on a format yet? Here's my suggestion:

Brief Synopsis
1. Television character (cartoon)
a. First appearances
b. Transformers the Movie
c. Post-movie
d. Armada/etc. (add in those pertaining to character)
2. Graphic novel
a. Marvel Comic G1 (Original)
b. Marvel G2
c. Dreamwave Comic
3. Hasbro toy
a. Original release
b. Re-releases
c. Repaints
4. Trivia
5. Links/Fansites/References

--D-Boy 04:02, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

See, that's a bit all over the place. There isn't a need for so many minute sub-sections, when "pre-movie," "movie" and "post-movie" can all be simply and easily covered under "animated series," with dates included in the text to specfiy the time-frame. And it's styled to fit a single character - for a character like Prowl, where would you put all the different versions of him? Using this method, splitting up the article based on series, with subsections for each of the different media within the series, you wind up mooshing different characters with the same name under one section, then back-tracking and covering the same characters over again in a different way. The pages should cover one character, then move onto the next, hence dividing by series, with subsections for different media, is a more sensible way to go. - Chris McFeely 00:30, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Can you list the format you're are suggesting like I have done? It's lot easier to visualize what you are talking about for me if you do.--D-Boy 03:54, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

H'yawl righty.

1. Generation 1
1.1. Animated series
1.2. Marvel Comics
1.2.1. Generation 2
1.3. Dreamwave comics
1.4. Devil's Due comics
1.5. DW comics
2. Beast Wars
2.1. Animated series
2.2. Convention comics
2.3. IDW comics
3. Robots in Disguise
4. Unicron Trilogy
4.1. Transformers: Armada
4.2. Transformers: Energon
4.3. Transformers: Cybertron
4.4. Dreamwave comics
5. Remoulds and redecos

If the same character appears in various different toylines, for example, Mirage, then that would be divided thusly:

1. Original Mirage
1.1. Generation 1 (covering his original Generation 1 body)
1.1.1. Animated series
1.1.2. Marvel comics
1.1.2.1. Generation 2
1.1.3. Dreamwave comics
1.2. Generation 2 (covering his Go-Bot toy)
1.3. Machine Wars
1.4. Robot Masters
1.5. Alternators

That said, the Transformers Wiki has a good, fuctional method that divides toys from fiction that we could try out here too:

1. Generation 1
1.1. Fiction
1.1.1. Animated series
1.1.2. Marvel Comics
1.1.3. Dreamwave comics
1.1.4. Continue adding sub-sections for whatever other pieces of fiction the character has appeared in, regardless of the body/toy in which they appear, such as the IDW comics, the Alternators/Binaltech storyline, Robot Masters, the BW cartoon or comics, Timelines, or the BotCon/Universe comics, etc, etc.
1.2. Toys (A bullet-point list of toys representing the character, from Generation 1 to other series such as Machine Wars, or Universe. Mirage's list, for example, would include his G1 toy, his G2 Go-Bot toy, his Machine Wars toy, his Robot Masters toy, and his Alternators toy. In the case of, say, Grimlock, Beast Wars would go here too.)
2. Beast Era (or if the character is only in one of the two Beast Era series, just call the section by that name. Alternatively, if BW and BM feature two different characters with the same name - "Scavenger" is the only example coming to mind - then BM would be made into a separate category after BW)
2.1. Fiction (with subsections for BW, BM and Universe as before)
2.2 Toys (bullet-point list as before)
3. Robots in Disguise
4. Unicron Trilogy
4.1. Fiction
4.1.1. Armada
4.1.2. Energon
4.1.3. Cybertron
4.1.4.Dreamwave
4.1.5. Universe (if applicable)
4.2. Toys (bullet point list as before)
5. Trivia

The Transformers wiki, though, only puts one character per article, whereas on Wikipedia itself, we've generally stuck to putting all characters with the same name in one article (save the Primes and Megatrons), so this MIGHT be a bit on the long side. It'd be worth trying it out on an article to see what it looks like - I might overhaul Mirage with this design to see what it looks like, since he's got one of the widest-used names. - Chris McFeely 18:30, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

The second seems a little long but I like your first one. Let's get one of these standardized soon.--D-Boy 19:51, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
The main problem with my original one (which has been used on most large, complete TF articles) is that it gets a little fiddly when dealing with toys of versions of characters that weren't in the fiction the characters featured in - like Action Masters, or G2 versions, so they just sort of wind up stuffed in wherever. I've tried out Mirage with the second format... doesn't look too bad, but I'm not totally sold on it. I think a combination of the two versions would be best... the "toy" sub-section is especially good, and solves the problem I mentioned above, but on characters other than G1 Mirage, the "fiction" master header seems unnecessary since they mostly only appeared in one, or did so little as to not make the section seem worthwhile. - Chris McFeely 20:51, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Optimus Prime page

Okay, so, the Optimus Prime page has been a bit messy lately, so I've cleaned it up using a version of the "Fiction/Toys" layout. It works particularly well, since the page only deals with G1 Prime - it'll still need some work to make it apply to pages with more than one character, I think. - Chris McFeely 22:33, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Why would the page only apply to G1 Optimus? It's a page for Optimus Prime, and should cover all Optimi who don't have their own page. user:mathewignash
This isn't something I just randomly decided - I stopped and actually looked over the page. From the way it had been edited, and due to the separating out of RiD and Unicron Trilogy Prime out onto their own pages, the "Optimus Prime" article was ALREADY *ALL* about G1 Optimus. There aren't actually any other Optimus Primes from these three, apart from Yellow Spychanger Prime, who is mentioned under the "other incarnations" section. I'm afraid I get the very clear impression that you just blind-reverted the page without studying it - ALL THE INFORMATION THAT WAS THERE IS STILL THERE. It's just arranged in a different fashion (plus the Alternators, Classics and movie sections should have been up under the G1 Prime section anyway, as they're versions of him). Very little has actually changed - it's just been separated out into "fiction" and "toy" groupings. The links to RiD and Unicron Trilogy Prime remain. - Chris McFeely 00:07, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
Maybe we should set down both standardizations that u suggested since both may come into use depending on the situation.--D-Boy 05:50, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Started project

This really need to be done.--D-Boy 05:10, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

  • I put my name under participants. I'm a transformer fan with knowledge of all series, including the elusive G1 Japanese series. Glad to see this finally happen. --Orion Minor 06:13, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Definitely with ya'all on this one. I HAVE the entire 80-issue run of the original Marvel comic. (Currently in storage, I remember most of pretty well and will have it back and readily accessible soon.)
I heavily expanded the Ratchet and Bumblebee pages awhile back and since then others have helped those two along a ton. 'Preciate the help. VigilancePrime 06:27, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Fair use images in user boxes and WikiProject templates

Just wanted to give you guys a heads up, we can't use fair use images outside of articles, which excludes userboxes and Project templates. However, I noticed Image:Autobot-glow.jpg is a fan made image, and you might be able to use that. However, even that is unlikely, as WikiProject Anime and manga just went through a similar thing since we had been using a fan image as our "mascot". I know it seems strict, but that's apart of being a WikiProject too. Sorry to be the bearer of bad news. -- Ned Scott 06:38, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

That hurt, dude.....deep. -_---D-Boy 06:18, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Techspec/bio text

Just so this is clear, cases like this are unacceptable. Bio text is copyrighted by Hasbro and cannot be used by Wikipedia. When editing Transformers pages, please do not add bio text or remove them when you come across them. Thanks. ' (Feeling chatty? ) (Edits!) 09:07, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Also, I hate those tech spec boxes. But that's just me. - Chris McFeely 18:02, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I think we can thank Mathewignash for everything that's wrong with the Transformers articles. ' (Feeling chatty? ) (Edits!) 21:16, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
Rude Much? user:mathewignash
Much as I would like to agree with that sentiment, in this case, the tech spec boxes are actually the work of BassX, who was also the one who started putting infoboxes in the TF articles. He means well, but it's just so... UNTIDY. The infoboxes have been improved since (generally by making them specific to single characters), but there's really no improving those nightmare tech spec things. Mathew, on the other hand... just about everything he's tried to impliment himself is bad, yes. What it worse on top of that is that he'll see someone doing something and then seize hold of the idea and run it firmly into the ground - I'm sure he's added his share of info and tech spec boxes, and the sheer amount of COPY-PASTED stuff he shoves into articles curdles my spleen. Even when it's not appropriate! He's shove summaries of entire issues and episodes in articles without bothering to make the text specific to the character, and long lists of characters who appeared in one cameo group shot of one page of one issue will be inserted into the articles of every character on said list. Boy has zero restraint. He's the "one user" I mentioned above who was so insistent upon inserting repaint information in inappropriate places. - Chris McFeely 22:53, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
I cleaned up Snarl. Let's hope Matthew actually considers his edits this time around. High hopes, I know. ' (Feeling chatty? ) (Edits!) 23:46, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
Oh, I do a lot of editing of only the info specific to a character for an episode summary, trust me. I don't really like the tech spec number boxes BassX came up with either. Thing is if you see something excessive, try editing it dow to specifics. If you remove the whole thing, I'll just return it in it's entireity. Try not to just walk in and cut and slash everything in an article. Thanks. user:mathewignash
The biggest things I cut out were COPYRIGHT VIOLATIONS. Do you not understand this concept? I told you on your talk page that this is expressely not allowed on Wikipedia. I said it again here. The onus is on you to provide details in a non-copyright violation way, not on the one trying to keep Wikipedia legal. ' (Feeling chatty? ) (Edits!) 06:51, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
Let me ask you this then, why do you remove functions and mottos from the snarl entires, when also they are part of the infoboxs people do from this project for TFs? Either we should have them or not. I doubt mentioning what comes down to a job and a catchphrase for a fictional character is a copyright violation, but you remove them. Also, don't remove a picture unless you have a replacement for it. Stop removing EVERYTHING and be selective user:mathewignash
Ugh. Do you even understand the concept of prose? Throwing out meaningless job functions willy-nilly into the actual text doesn't make it a better article. It makes it ugly and unpleasant to read. This is an encyclopedia, not your fansite. Animated gifs are barely ever used in Wikipedia articles, and for good reason; they slow down some computers unnecessarily and have very little benefit for the trouble. Also, STOP PUTTING LINKS IN HEADERS. ' (Feeling chatty? ) (Edits!) 23:37, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
You really need to stop removing perfectly legitimate functions and mottos. It's a pain fixing your mistakes constantly. Thanks. user:mathewignash
Dude. The legitimacy of the material is not in question. It's the astonishingly disjointed, ugly appearance it gives the article when slapped into it. Put it in an infobox. The points about links in headers and animated gifs stand firm also - links in headers are discourged by Wikipedia's Manual of Style and there's no reason to include them, and animated gifs add little for the trouble they cause. - Chris McFeely 00:43, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
Are you saying that a motto and function should be removed rather than let it stand alone an article where it isn't pretty? While looking good is a goal, you'd remove INFORMATION for the sake of being tidy than keep it for the sake of being accurate? What sort of backwards reasoning is that? I put in functions and mottos where they are missing. If there is an infobox, I use it. if there isn't one, I'll put it in the article. I honestly don't see the words "fucntion: strategist" to be untidy anyways. Thanks user:mathewignash
I wouldn't REMOVE it, no, I'd arrange it in a manner that makes the article look tidy, which is to put it in an infobox. But frankly, the function of the character can be worked into the actual prose text biography when it's not copied ("Acting as the Autobots' Chief Medical Officer, Ratchet fixes blah blah blah....", like that), and mottos can make nice single-line intro-quotes when stood alone, lacking that ugly, redundant little "Motto:" at the start. - Chris McFeely 01:25, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
-----> I agree with Chris regarding the kindof annoyine preface of "Motto:" all the time. What I would like to see is the article START with it's first line, boldfaced (perhaps Italics as well?) with the motto, in quotes of course as it is a quote (and thus legal to reproduce). Line space. Intro (honestly, the box bio would be great, and because they are very short, I believe that they can legally be quoted... quotes, even of copyrighted material, are almost universally legal in educational purposes - which Wiki can be considered like any other encyclopedia - and most Tech Spec "bios" seem to be only 5-6 sentences.
-----> VigilancePrime 07:38, 5 July 2006 (UTC) (and I un-indented this 'cause it was getting REALLY crammed into the side of the page, could be difficult to read for many)
I'm late, but no. Fair use works on percentage of a creative work. Around 10% of something is fair use if used for informative and critical purposes most of the time. 100% of any creative work, small as it may be, is likely not to fall under fair use. ' (Feeling chatty? ) (Edits!) 17:09, 27 July 2006 (UTC)


  • I'd take Mathewignash over you any day. He's not nearly as sneid and categorically offensive in his manner. I've had disagreements with him, but he didn't make feeble attempts at insults like you did the first time you ever posted a reply to one of my comments. VigilancePrime 02:10, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Are you talking to me or Chris? Because I sure don't remember you. ' (Feeling chatty? )(Edits!) 03:20, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
    • I'm sorry if I've offended you in the past, but... I'm afraid I actually don't recall the instance. I'm not someone who tries to be unpleasant... I mean, I can be pretty frank sometimes, but I rarely actively seek to offend someone. - Chris McFeely 10:24, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Chris. Yeah, I didn't differentiate; my oversight. By the same token as above, though, I'd like to point out the convo at the top of this page where I thank Chris for some changes that inspired me to make a bunch more improvements in stuff I had written already and surrounding text. See how this works? Collaboration. I like it. We all ought to be as helpful and supportive of each other; let's face it, we're all basically on the same side anyway, right? Pro-Transformers. :-) VigilancePrime 04:06, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Thanks, I know I have not always added things perfectly to the Wikipedia, but I do try to do so, and I've learned quite a bit along the way about diplomacy and comprimise. user:mathewignash
  • I understand completely. I know I've made my share of being over-bold on Wiki. One of those instances you were there to snap me back and I appreciate it now (if I didn't totally then). I completely agree with your philosophy of change, don't remove. Sure, sometimes parts of a section need removal, usually for redundancy (I did that to this article earlier tonight from a duplicated line I originally added, not knowing at the time a better way to say it). This is ALL an ongoing project, all of Wikipedia.
  • Mat, I just hope you sign on for this project, as I see more knowledgeable edits by you than anyone else and hope to be able to tap into that in order to better all of Wiki's Transformerdom.
  • VigilancePrime 05:18, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Sources

Hi there. I've just joined, and I hope I can help some. But I have to ask - why have so many TF articles been tagged as unsourced? Example - Megatron/Galvatron. I'm looking through articles like these and I can't see anything that needs sourced, apart from the pictures and surely that's covered in the text? I've left a message on Madchester's page (the guy who cited it as unsourced) but he hasn't answered. Could you look through these pages and see if there is anything that actually needs sourced? Thanks in advance. --SMegatron 20:58, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

There is a guy, I fotget his name, who got on an unsourced kick a week or two ago and went through and unscoured tagged dozens of TF articles. I asked him what he expected (people just watch a TV show or own a toy and write about it!), and he wouldn't give a straight answer. I tried to remove the tags and he threatened to have me banned from Wikipedia. he's annoying, I ignore the tags now. He also deleted the Ransack page for no reason, but I put a copy of it at Ransack (Transformers). I'd just ignore him and he'll get bored and go away. user:mathewignash
God, you're hopeless. Wikipedia operates by WP:V and its own rules, not by your "i write anythin i want!". The fact that Transformers articles are unsourced is a problem, no matter how much you would like to ignore it. ' (Feeling chatty? ) (Edits!) 23:40, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

His name is Madchester. Sorry, Mathewignash, I didn't mean to repeat what I said on the Unicron Megs talk page. --SMegatron 22:14, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Again, you cannot simply say "I saw it on television, therefore if I write it down it must be fact." If information fails WP:V and is left unsourced, it can still be deleted. --Madchester 22:30, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Looks like Madchester went on another spree of adding dozens meaningless "unsourced" and "spoilers" tags to TF articles. Pretty lame, IMHO. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&target=Madchester In fact looking at his "contributions" all the guy does it delete, unsource and revert edits other people made, CONSTANTLY. user:mathewignash
Information added to Wikipedia must be properly referenced, per WP:V. Unsourced contributions can be removed by any editor. Please assume good faith on the part of other editors on Wikipedia, simply because they are removing or fixing your contributions. Thanks. --Madchester 00:07, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
That said - and I ask this seriously, now, because I'm not given to sourcing my own write-ups - how DOES one provide a source for a summary of a TV or comic book series? I mean, of course, factual real-life information about the production of the comic/series/toys or things like that are no problem to do, as you can link off to whereever the information comes from. But how does one provide a link for a summary of fictional events? Any site that one links to will simply be a summary of the episode/issue, which is already what's been written in the article. It seems redundant. - Chris McFeely 00:51, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
Right now, many of the TF articles read like fancruft because they lack appropriate references. Featured articles on television shows like Arrested Development or even comic-based films like V for Vendetta (film) provide sufficient documenation of references. It really shouldn't be that much of a problem to source the appropriate websites, television series or DVD sets that provide the information on the TF pages. --Madchester 01:00, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
Okay, but, see, on those articles, all the references are for pieces of factual information on the production of the media and results it garners. That, I get - that's important and straightforward to do. But the actual write-ups of the fictional events within the shows/movies do note source out individual episodes of "Arrested Development," or comic issues of "V for Vendetta" to detail where specific events happen - and for the very great part, that is all that Transformers articles are. Write-ups of the fictional events within TV shows and comics. And the names of said TV shows and comics are cited by name as the very header of each section. What more can one link to to prove the content of an episode that is any more valid that the article itself? By nature, fan websites with summaries are not official sources. - Chris McFeely 01:05, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
It seems to me that if an article is on a TF character, and information on the character says "animated series" then the source is pretty plainly stated to be the Transformers Animated series. If info is in the "Marvel Comics" section, then the source is the Transformers comic by Marvel, etc. Sometimes we even site the issue # or episode name something happened in. We got sources up the wazoo. user:mathewignash

Actually there are a lot of references to Transformer toys that could be linked to the appropriate source material from Hasbro or Takara. For example, where was the information for the Legends of Cybertron article obtained? Obviously, there's a specific page on the Hasbro site that contains this information, but there is no link anywhere for other editors and readers to follow up on it. --Madchester 02:01, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Problem is Hasbro is in the habbit of removing information from it's site after about 2 years. Just a few weeks ago they removed all references to Energon and Universe toys, and only have Cybertron, Alternators, Titanium and 10th Anniversary Beast Wars on the site. Any links to Universe, Energon, Armada, Beast Machines, or Beast Wars would now be dead. In addition they use a series of cookies for a lot of their info on the toys. A link to those pages, I don't think would work if you don't have the cookies on your browser.user:mathewignash
[The Internet Archive] contains mirrors of expired or deleted pages. --Madchester 10:04, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Great idea linking every piece of referencable material. Anyone seen the Transformers (2007 film) page lately? The "References" section is quickly becoming as long as the entire rest of the article! YES, some things ought to be referenced, but with the internet nothing is guaranteed to be here tomorrow. Even linking to an archive page is problematic (and credibility would be lost if every reference was on the same domain - think about it). "Optimus Prime was, in most continuities, leader of the Autobots" - would this need a reference? I don't think so as it is common knowledge and well established in a variety of places. The point is that while some references, especially in contested issues/sections, is necessary, there is no reason to cite a source for every sentence, claim, paragraph, statement or description. I'm with Matt on this one. VigilancePrime 07:31, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Spoilers tags

I noticed a lot of spoiler tags on transformers articles, but these are very vague. Like a spoilers tag at the top of the Optimus Prime page. I don't know if someone is afraid to let someone else know Prime dies in the movie, but I don't think this is appopriate - spoiler tag at the top of a page about the WHOLE article does nothing, since you don't even know what the spoiler is. I could maybe understand a big plot point being marked as a small part of an article. What are your opinions? user:mathewignash

I agree with you. It should be like articles on comic book characters where the spoilers tag only applies to the most recent events (like the Civil War stuff with Spider-Man). Having a spoiler tag on the whole article is just stupid. --SMegatron 22:18, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

True. It is recommended that editors avoid placing spoilers in section headers (unless the spoiler warning is before the table of contents) and avoid linking from another article to a section inside the spoiler area. --Siva1979Talk to me 12:32, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Proper Nouns?

Small question, I'd like opinions. I've often seen people use capitol letters for nouns like "Energon" (the substance, not the show), "Spark", "Beast Mode", etc. Are these really proper nouns? Should the be changed to lower case when they arn't the beginning of a sentence? user:mathewignash

I automatically tend to capitalise "Energon," but per the scripts of the original show, that's not actually correct - it should be spelled with a small e, apparently (but the desire to write "Energon Cubes" overwhelms me). - Chris McFeely 10:10, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
--- I agree with Chris on this one. (Both the lower-case "e" and the unnerving impulse to say "Energon Cubes"...in a very Soundwave-like voice!)
--- and FWIW, I SO HOPE they do not try to incorporate Energon Cubes into the 2007 movie!!!
VigilancePrime 11:45, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

made a template to put on pages

Template:Trans

Transformers
Transformers series The Transformers (TV series) | Transformers: Generation 2
Transformers: Armada | Beast Wars
Characters List of Autobots | List of Decepticons
Films The Transformers: The Movie | Transformers (2007 film)
Other Transformers (comic) | Transformers (toyline)
Video games Transformers (Atari video game) | Transformers: Convoy no Nazo

improve if u want but keep it small and simple. We don't need it bloated and ugly.--D-Boy 06:52, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Deleted Transformers pages by Madchester

I noticed that Madchester is deleting Transformers wikipedia pages again. He removed the Ransack (Transformers) page now. I have no idea why. Can anything be done about this? User:mathewignash

Did he consult anyone? If he didn't then something needs to be done, like reporting him to the admins. I mean if we all voted for it then fair enough, but as we didn't...--SMegatron 19:49, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I found claim that Ransack (Transformers) was deleted because it was similar to Ransack, which was ALSO deleted by Madchester a while back. I can't find any talk about why Ransack was deleted in the first place other than Madchester calling it "fancruft" and deleting it. It was no different than a hundred other Transformer articles on the Wikipedia, so I don't know how it offended him. User:mathewignash

Hmm. If it has been nominated for and won a vote for deletion then fair enough. How different was the current deleted article to the original deleted article though? --SMegatron 10:00, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

The vote for deletion took place over a day or two, and it had ONE vote for deletion! Madchester's vote. I would have voted to keep it, but they did it too quickly. User:mathewignash

Here is a cache of the page that got deleted: http://216.239.59.104/search?q=cache:A2H0NKXC8JgJ:en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ransack_(Transformers)+Ransack+(Transformers)&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=2 User:mathewignash

Hmm. I can actually see alot of things that could be improved - an expanded Marvel comics section, an expanded Dreamwave section, plus at least one image(the one I added to the Insecticon page recently) that could go on it. Maybe a better toys and repaints section. --SMegatron 10:19, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I was working on the page a little every chance I had, but then one day I went there and it was gone. User:mathewignash

Infobox additions

I wanted to suggest that a few items could be added to the infobox. How about "I.D. Number" where you can list the Takara code number for a toy. Like C-1, C2 etc. ALso, a line for Cyber-Code for the Cybertron toys with codes. Also, some characters have multiple mottos, and it's hard to list them with the auto-quoting. Any recommdations? User:mathewignash

How about getting article format down first? Personally, I think the infobox is big enough.--D-Boy 04:39, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Past or present tense and issue/episode numbers of character histories

A while back I added a lot of comic book history for comics UT Optimus Prime, and it was written in the past tense with a note on each paragraph as to what issue each thing happened in, but then someone rewrote it in the present tense, and removed the references to which issue of the comics. So this is really two questions - should character histories be written in past or present tense, and should (and if so HOW) we mention the issue episode something happened in? There was been a lot of screaming and yelling for referenes and sources, so I can't understand why anyone would be going around REMOVING mentions of episode names and issues numbers from the character histories. user:mathewignash

I'm all about the past tense, myself. Always write stuff that way. I don't generally include issue references, though - while I understand the importance of referencing your what-not, my Official Handbook of the Marvel Universe upbringing makes me detest imbedded references that disrupt the flow of the prose and break the fourth wall of the summary. - Chris McFeely 11:28, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

In fairness that was probably me at least on some of the Decepticon and Terrorcon pages(specifically Energon Megs). I admit it's personal preference, but I always wanted it to read like a proper character history like the TV versions have, rather than a list of issue summaries - thats what the comics section of TFarchive and the like are for and they do it far better. Also I didn't think it would matter to the sourcing, as Madchester tagged quite a few articles with sections written like that. Maybe if in future I make reference to which issues the most important events happened in that would help.--SMegatron 16:08, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Just read it a little closer - Unicron Optimus wasn't me, although I certainly thought about it before deciding to concentrate on the Decepticons and Predacons.--SMegatron 16:09, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I completely misunderstood you. That sort of thing is why I try to change them to character history layout when I see it.--SMegatron 16:11, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Is there an official call for past or present tense in writing a history of a character in wikipedia or in writing in general? I know you should be consistant, that seems obvious, but consistantly what? Present or past? I had been writing them all part myself, but if I'm wrong I will change. user:mathewignash

Present tense is guideline at Wikipedia. You can say stuff like "Optimus Prime was Orion Pax" because that's set in the past as you watch the series. ' (Feeling chatty? ) (Edits!) 21:20, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Do we need so many userboxes?

They don't even have pictures....--D-Boy 07:42, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

They WERE all different and WITH images until the WikiGestapo started deleting them all... VigilancePrime 01:03, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
What did you expect? Those images are trademarks. You can only use the images in the articles that describe them.--D-Boy 20:19, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
I didn't expect anything. There are many other userboxes with images of various types (including corporate logos - at least one I know of and use, even if it a non-profit). I just find it odd that some users (and not all those who "adjust userboxes) have NOTHING in their contributions except reverts and removals. That's all. VigilancePrime 05:00, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

support

Hey guys and gals, lots of talk going on here. I don't really have anything constructive to say, but I just wanted to show my support for the project. I've got to transform and roll out to basketball... Dawhitfield 22:14, 13 August 2006 (UTC) Insertformulahere

Let's get things nailed down

Some great discussions so far, but I don't think we've really come up with any hard decisions yet. I suggest each topic be proposed, refined and decided with a vote. Once finalized, it can be added to the main projects page so we can start applying to the articles. I think the first thing we should standardize is the character pages. My suggestion:

I. Generation 1 (G1)

A. Toy Description (with tech-spec info)
B. Cartoon (US and Japan, as appropriate)
C. Comic
   1. Marvel
   2. Dreamwave
   3. IDW

II. Generation 2 (G2)

A. Toy Description (with tech-spec info)
B. Comic (Marvel)

III. Beast Wars/Beast Machines

A. Toy Description (with tech-spec info)
B. Cartoon (US and Japan, as appropriate)
C. Comic
   1. Dreamwave
   2. IDW

IV. Robots in disguise

A. Toy Description (with tech-spec info)
B. Cartoon
C. Comic (note about the brief DW issue, if needed)

V. Unicron trilogy

A. Armada
   1. Toy Description (with tech-spec info)
   2. Cartoon
   3. Comic (Dreamwave)
B. Energon
   1. Toy Description (with tech-spec info)
   2. Cartoon
   3. Comic (Dreamwave)
C. Cybertron
   1. Toy Description (with tech-spec info)
   2. Cartoon

VI. Transformers Universe

VII. 2007 film

of course not every character will have an entry for each, but if needed, a section can link off to another page if necessary. MistaTee 23:09, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Good work. I would like, though, to point out that decisions and voting will surely be the real nightmare. For instance, there's purists like me (and with other perspectives unlike me) who will not relent on particular points. Of course, this is part of the reason why we're working on this, to overcome those dichotomies.
I would like to point out, back to my original position, that the comic line should be top-rated. Looking through this list, it is the one that recurs most throughout all Transformers lines. It only once did not appear. I would make every section go TOY, COMIC, CARTOON...even to the point that for Cybertron, for instance, the "B." section would be "COMIC: There was no Transformers Cybertron comic" so that "A." sections are always toys, "B." are always comic, and "C." always cartoon...this would add consistency and structure.
VigilancePrime 06:55, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
That's fine with me. Can we put this to a vote to all members on WP Transformers?
MistaTee 19:28, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Sounds really good to me. SMegatron 19:09, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I like the basic setup, but you might add Machine Wars, and seperate Beast Wars and Beast Machines into 2 sections - they are no more connected than g1 and g2. Are all Botcon things considered Universe now? They were originally part of Beast Machines (like Apelinq)? How about Timelines? BTW - There IS a Cybertron comic - in the OFTCC Magazine. user:mathewignash
The problem, I think, with putting "toy description" first (which I was originally doing myself) is that in the case of some characters, they have more than one toy in a given continuity, which can require a fictional explanation for their existence. So I've started to create a whole sub-section for toys. Still, I've only actually done this with the Optimus Prime and Megatron pages... we should really see how it looks for a page that covers more than one character.... Chris McFeely 10:14, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

SMegatron 09:03, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Infobox Replacment

As much as the current Transformers Infobox is good, it isn't great and up to the standard other comic book pages are using. For this reason I have designed a Template which I believe should replace the Infobox as the source of Transformers linkage. As soon as the members of this project agree I think we should replace the Infobox on every TF page and start making pages to makes the links from this box more professional (eg, Making the 'Generation 2' page the source of G2 Comics Info). If further adjustments need to be made let me know.
v • d • e
Transformers
Characters
Factions and Subgroups
Toy lines
Comic series
Marvel Series
Dreamwave Series
IDW Series
BotCon Exclusives
TV series
Generation 1
Beast Era
Robots in Disguise
 
Unicron Trilogy
Transformers: Animated
Films
Audio CDs
Video games
The Transformers (1986) · Battle to Save the Earth (1986) · Convoy no Nazo (1986) · The Headmasters (1987) · Beast Wars (1997) · Beast Senshi Saikyō Ketteisen (1999) · Beast Wars Transmetals (2000) · DreamMix TV World Fighters (2003) · Transformers (2003) · Transformers (2004) · Transformers: The Game (2007)
Daniel Guardian 13:32, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
I'd suggest removing the unnecessary Japanese names. This is the English Wikipedia; alternate Japanese names should be noted on the actual pages, not a template. Interrobamf 16:55, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
Well, I'd love to argue with you mate but it seems you are deleted.

Daniel Guardian 02:08, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Hmm. Tbe honest I quite like it (especially in comparison with some others), but its maybe a little excessive. SMegatron 13:43, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

If you can think of anything specific then let me know. I know its a little big, but then again, so is the Transformers Multiverse. Daniel Guardian 07:13, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, no argument there. Its just, well, does absolutely everything have to be listed? The main stuff, fair enough, but more obscure shows like Beast Wars 2? The relatively minor video games? Im also thinking of a few years in the future, because theres bound to be more Transformers comics and merchandise (maybe even a new toyline)> Do we put every one of them in too? Don't get me wrong - youre doing a great job. It just seems a bit much.SMegatron 09:50, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Ye-ess, I'm thinking the same thing as SMegatron. Particularly in regard to the "comics" and "cartoons" sections, where we've got nice master-list pages for them at List of Transformers TV series and List of Transformers comic book series that could be used for the box and would take up much less space. - Chris McFeely 22:08, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, it is huge. The video games I was happy to leave off completely if you want. I just stuck them on their because they were in the previous Infobox. The reason all those TV Shows are on there is because they are the main ones people recognise. If you agree certain ones should be taken off I'm happy to do it. I made it so that stuff would be taken off instead of added, for now. I just didn't know what was important enough to make it on. The master lists are good but this template is also a good navigator for them, and especially for people returning to Transformers because of the movie. The comics could be cut down to essentials if someone lets me know what they are. Keep the suggestions rolling. Cheers Daniel Guardian 09:40, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

You kind of hit it there. I was going to suggest that the various comic series( Marvel, Dreamwave, IDW, etc) only have one page each instead of a page for each mini-series. But Chris beat me to it though. The video games don't have to be removed, but I am against adding references to Beast Wars 2, considering that page is barely more than a stub at the moment. SMegatron 12:31, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I meant BW Neo. I do very much like the links to the differnet toylines though.SMegatron 12:35, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't mind the miniseries approach, though I think it would be nice to have a name to put the new IDW TF Continuity under which includes Infiltration, Spotlights, Stormbringer, Escalation and whatever is to come. And then to have Beast Wars with The Gathering, profiles, future miniseries. And then Evolutions. You get the idea. Then have Dreamwave separated out into G1 (Including Vol1, Vol2, MTMTE), Armada/Energon (Vol X + MTMTE), War Within, etc. But I'm not sure how Marvel would be separated as I'm not that old. So it would go something like
Marvel: Series 1 | Series 2
Dreamwave: G1 | Armada/Energon | War Within
IDW: -Ation Series | Beast Wars | Evolutions
And have a page for each of those headings. I hope that's understandable. As for BW Neo, I think that's just a matter of someone doing up that page. It's still has more information that it does on the series page.

Daniel Guardian 05:47, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Hmm. That looks much better than separate pages for each mini. As to Marvel the Gen 1/Gen 2 approach you had origunally still looks best. Keep it up.SMegatron 12:29, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I added a new section on this page to sort out the comic pages, but seeing as that is a separate issue how do we feel about implementation? Daniel Guardian 13:18, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

If its cut down a bit - and youve got our suggestions on that - then I think it would make a great replacement for the current infobox. If the others could leave some feedback, possibly we could reach a decision.SMegatron 10:05, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

What were the changes you wanted to make it smaller? I read through them but they kinda seemed

a bit jumbled. A precise coherent list would be helpful. Daniel Guardian 05:19, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Make the toyline bit smaller, possibly by pruning out less important toylines. Ditto on less important shows like the more obscure Japanese stuff. Possibly cut out video games altogether. And you have my suggestions on comics below. Again, if we could get feedback from the others that would help.SMegatron 09:10, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

This is the first I've heard of making the toyline smaller, and quite frankly I think its pretty basic now. Those are all the mjor toylines people recognise. As for TV Shows, we have the room in the G1 Line so why not use it? Dedicated TF Fans all know them pretty well, don't they? If 1 more person on this project says video games should go I'll take them out. I'm still really unsure about what changes, if any, to make. I really need 'specifics' because quite frankly I'm really now thinking its good as it is. Feedback from others would definately be appriciated. Oh, and the comics issue is really more of a 'what pages are we going to make issue' at the moment rather than a template problem. Until we get the pages sorted out I say we keep comics as is. Daniel Guardian 13:15, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

To be honest until we get specifics nailed down we should keep the infobox as is. But if you want to keep yours unchanged, go for it.SMegatron 08:31, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

The articles are a mess.

  1. Copyrighted bios. Illegal. Remove them.
  2. Excessive and superflous images. Spits on fair use. Remove them.
  3. Details and sysponses irrelevant to the article's subject. Spits on good prose. Tailor to the subject.
  4. Horrid "references". See Scourge_(Transformers)#Transformers:_Cybertron. All you simply have to do is say "In the Cybertron television series, Scourge...". There is no need for this nightmare.
  5. Excessive attention to Japanese and foreign names. The infobox has a place for the Japanese names. The other foreign names are utter trivia and don't belong in a place of good writing.
  6. Matthewignash. Haphazardly inserts whatever is to his fancy without considering its influence on the prose, and insists on reverting articles to his version instead of actually considering the edits.

All of those combine into making the Transformers articles possibly the worst batch in Wikipedia. I would like to see some actual support for what Wikipedia is, so I can see I'm not alone in this. Interrobamf 01:39, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

With you on every point, m'good sir. Everything you've listed is stuff I've always tried to keep out of articles (well, 'cept maybe the foreign names, they're not so bad), but one often loses the energy to argue with people who just come along a few days later and add it all back in... - Chris McFeely 20:38, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
Note, you spelled my name wrong. user:mathewignash
Laughably minor compared to what you're doing to the Transformers articles. Interrobamf 02:05, 31 August 2006 (UTC)


Comic Title Pages

As part of the new infobox project it has been proposed that new pages be made for different series. This could potentially make the comic masterlist smaller and simpler with the bulk of the info added to individual series pages. I suggest we agree on the pages that should exist from the list below:

Marvel
Generation 1 (US)
Generation 1 (UK)
TF: The Movie
TF: Universe
G.I. Joe and the TFs
TF: Headmasters
Generation 2
Dreamwave
Generation 1 + G1 MTMTE
Armada/Energon + Armada MTMTE
G.I. Joe + TFs
War Within
Summer Special
Micromasters
IDW
Beast Wars
Evolutions
'-Ation' Series (Needs name other than IDWTFU)(To include Stormbringer, Spotlights, etc)
Botcon
Wreckers
Universe
That's the inital plan but it's changeable.
Daniel Guardian 13:18, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Marvel: US and UK Gen 1 could be rolled into one. Most pages which have a Marvel Comics Section have intersplice the material anyway (for example Megatron. Gen 2 definitly. The movie adaptation isnt really that important and could probably be covered by a subsection of the Movie page. Headmasters and GI Joe are just extensions of the main Gen 1 series. Isnt Universe separate, or am I thinking of the wrong one?

Dreamwave: Gen 1, War Within and Armada/Energon. Summer Special and GI Joe vs the Transformers arent really that important, while Micromasters seems to be in continuity with the main series, so could be included there.

IDW: The Gen 1 series (Infiltration, Escalation, Devastation). However, Stormbringer is set in the same continuity so Im not sure about that one. BW should be included as its the first time they've really received a comic. Evolutions could get a page for all the Elseworlds series they're doing.

Help any?SMegatron 10:02, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Woops, forgot about Botcon. Ehhh, I dunno. Its unmainstream enough that it might appeal to a lot of people, and people like me, whove never read Universe but read abut it on many of the articles, may take the opportunity to find out what its all about.SMegatron 10:08, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

External Links

In Dead-End (and other pages) there are links to galleries & reviews of the toys at the top of that toy section. Is that preferred over having an external links section? Icefox 21:55, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Ive seen stuff like that before in articles like Jetstorm. I try to move them to a separate links section, but thats personal preference.SMegatron 14:39, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good. Icefox 18:25, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Ultimate Transformers

In relation to the above discussion regarding 'Comic Title Pages' I brought a suggestion to the IDW Publishing forum that a name be given to the IDW TFU. The consensus seemed to be that 'Ultimate Transformers' been the name given to the universe because of the Marvel series. Seeing as we're trying not to have a page for every miniseries I suggest we take some initiative and make 'Ultimate Transformers' the page for Infiltration, Stormbringer, Spotlights, etc. Any problems?

[1]

Daniel Guardian 08:44, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Judging by the amount of support you got for it I say, yeah, go for it. I have to say though, that it should still be made clear that these are still the equivalent of G1 comics. Regards.SMegatron 09:08, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Not saying you wouldn't, mind...SMegatron 12:03, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

It's a fan term, even if you have a large (and I mean LARGE) backing, it should not be used. Also, please sign your comments.--Orion Minor 15:39, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Sorry about the signature. You forget one time and... nevermind. Let's discuss the issue rather than shoot it down shall we (although I did notice you are a republican and from what I understand of American political ideaologies this might be difficult). Generation 1 is actually a fan term. Chris Ryall, creater of the IDW TFU has stated that's 'Ultimate' is pretty much what this series is and didn't say no to the fans giving it that name. The fact is, we're not calling the series 'Ultimate Transformers.' We're using the title as the name of a universe, (same as Generation 1, Beast Era or Unicron Trilogy) to convey the meaning of what it is, to simplify things for new TF Fans so they won't be put off, and most obviously so we can stick all the information from this particular continuity on one page as has been agreed previously in relation to TF Comics. The fact is whatever name we use is going to be a fan term for this page, because IDW haven't given it a name. We're simply doing our job as fans and naming it something cool to show how much we like it. If another name for the Universe becomes more popular, we'll use that. If IDW decide to give the continuity a new name, we'll change it. But until then I say this name is as good as any.

Oh, and SMegs, I already wrote on the page it is clearly based on G1 Comic and series and put links. I'd be silly not too ;) Happy trails Daniel Guardian 08:44, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Hookay. Well, I'm going to assume you were joking about that Republican jab, as personal attacks (be they focused on political ideologies or otherwise) are not allowed on Wikipedia. Moving on, Generation 1 was a fan term that was derived from the Generation 2 line and Generation 1 can be found in official statements now. The most accurate term should be used until an official title or one that has been adopted by a large, notable group of fans. For now, I suggest calling it the IDW Universe.--Orion Minor 16:55, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Sorry mate, didn't mean to offend, just being an Aussie :P As I said, IDW Universe is not a good name, drives people without 'acronym orientated minds' up the wall and is 'new fan unfriendly.' If you want I can go around to all the TF boards and ask them if we can now start calling the IDW Continuity 'Ultimate Transformers,' but why take the scenic route when you can just reach the destination? The fact is, from conversations I've had a majority agree (the same majority that agree G1 is G1), and that pretty much includes the creators. And also, the fact G1 had so much coverage allowed the G1 name to spread fast. Infiltration still has a reasonably small backing but most agree, it's an Ultimate. If another name for the Universe becomes more popular, we'll use that. If IDW decides to give the continuity a new name, we'll change it. But until then I say this name is as good as any. Daniel Guardian 08:49, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Sorry about that. Didn't mean to be patronizing. It wasn't my intention.SMegatron 09:57, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Adding my agreement to SMegatron Orion Minor. While some fan terms have made it into widespread use - and Generation 1 was one that most people came up with independantly in the first place, before the internet community, which is why it became so widespread - even though you recieved a lot of agreement to using "Ultimate Transformers," this one is NOT a universal term used across the fandom, and to be honest, I doubt it ever will. It's just pinched from Marvel, and less people are going to know it than people who do. No other versions of the continuity have "names" - just as it was simply the "animated series," or the "Marvel comics universe," or the "DW universe" this one should just be the "IDW universe." - Chris McFeely 10:50, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Party poopers :( Alright, IDW Universe, as painful as it sounds, it is. I would however like to state my disapproval with the name because of its unspecifity and ambiguity (it could apply to any comics by IDW, not just the new continuity) and because it just plain sounds stupid. And I sincerely hope IDW People give the continuity a proper name to make up for this lack of originality. Cheers Daniel Guardian 09:59, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and are we sure we want to go for the continuity pages approach? I can understand it for preIDW series but it seems people have rather taken to the miniseries pages for IDW. Daniel Guardian 10:12, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Unicron Trilogy Toyline

I know MistaTee wanted to link the toylines on the template so could someone please makes page toyline pages for these series. I would but I don't know all that much about them and can't be bothered. Daniel Guardian 09:59, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Siblings (Transformers) page up for deletion

The page Siblings (Transformers) was nominated for deletion. Remember to let your voice be heard on the subject. user:mathewignash

TfD nomination of Template:Trans

Template:Trans has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. EVula 01:33, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Classics that are not classics

I noticed there are three things people are calling the "Classics" line. One is the official Classics line, made up of Deluxes and Ultras with the words "transformers robots in disguise" and "Classics" on the box. There is also a series of "Micro" repaints, called Legends of Cybertron by some, and several sets of new 3 pack of Micromasters. Neither the Micros or Mini-Cons say "Classics" on the box, just "Transformers: Robots in Disguise", but they are in Classics style boxes. Should we call them classics? I've seen some early packages of those new Mini-Con molds, and they were in Cybertron packages. Should the Micros be called Transformers: Micros? Or Robots in Disguise (that's all the packages say). Opinions? user:mathewignash

Not an expert on the toys, I have to admit, but from the sound of it only the ones officially marketed as Classics should count. That the others have similar boxes is probably irrelevant. SMegatron 09:29, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I'd agree, but then I don't know what to call them. They boxes say the words "Transformers: Robots in Disguise". Should they be RiD toys? user:mathewignash

Well, is it more accurate to say they're not a subline of RiD the toys, just a subline that happens to be called that? If so, there could be a qualifier at the start of each section: you know " At the start of 2006, a new line of toys called Robots in Disguise appeared that were not linked to the original show." Something like that?SMegatron 11:32, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I'd certainly consider them all as Classics. The Micros, after all, are being redecoed as G1-continuity characters. And it was announced at BotCon that when the Fan Club Comic does Classics next year, it'll be incorporating the Mini-Cons into its story. So, they're definitely all part of the same mix. - Chris McFeely 22:15, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
This is one of the few gripes I have with the Classics line. Bumblebee gets a Deluxe sized toy, but maybe minibots and that sized TF should have just been Micro or Mini-Con sized toys. The G1 Bumblebee was about the size of a Mini-Con anyways. They could have just as easily have released all G1 Mini-Bots or even micromasters as a Mini-Con set and it would have sold like hotcakes. Oh well. Additionally, the "classic" Mini-Cons we are getting are almost entirely non-classic homages. Only Swoop is a homage to any G1 character. They have a Broadside, but he's a Decepitcon tank of all things. I believe thise "Classics" mini-Cons are just delayed releases from the Cybertron line, as we saw Bios for them leaked online that they were going to be sold in Cybertron 2 packs, but when the 2 packs didn't sell well (so many shelf warmers from the first and second line), Hasbro delayed them and moved them into 3 packs. Anyways as for the Micros, the Cybertron Micros were labeled "TFRID Cybertron" Micro Class, now these are "TFRID" Micro class. Maybe we should just call them all "Micro Transformers"? user:mathewignash

Project Directory

Hello. The WikiProject Council is currently in the process of developing a master directory of the existing WikiProjects to replace and update the existing Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Directory. These WikiProjects are of vital importance in helping wikipedia achieve its goal of becoming truly encyclopedic. Please review the following pages:

  • User:Badbilltucker/Culture Directory,
  • User:Badbilltucker/Culture Directory 2,
  • User:Badbilltucker/Philosophy and religion Directory,
  • User:Badbilltucker/Sports Directory,
  • User:Badbilltucker/Geographical Directory,
  • User:Badbilltucker/Geographical Directory/United States, (note: This page will be retitled to more accurately reflect its contents)
  • User:Badbilltucker/History and society directory, and
  • User:Badbilltucker/Science directory

and make any changes to the entries for your project that you see fit. There is also a directory of portals, at User:B2T2/Portal, listing all the existing portals. Feel free to add any of them to the portals or comments section of your entries in the directory. The three columns regarding assessment, peer review, and collaboration are included in the directory for both the use of the projects themselves and for that of others. Having such departments will allow a project to more quickly and easily identify its most important articles and its articles in greatest need of improvement. If you have not already done so, please consider whether your project would benefit from having departments which deal in these matters. It is my hope to have the existing directory replaced by the updated and corrected version of the directory above by November 1. Please feel free to make any changes you see fit to the entries for your project before then. If you should have any questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank you. B2T2 21:13, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry if you tried to update it before, and the corrections were gone. I have now put the new draft in the old directory pages, so the links should work better. My apologies for any confusion this may have caused you. B2T2 23:59, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

A Proposal

May God Bless You Always!

My name is Stephen P. Gentry and I have just joined this WikiProject. I use to love the Transformers when I was a kid and I still enjoy them. I have a few old episodes on tape that I watch from time to time. I am excited about the re-release of the Transformers the Movie and am looking forward to working with this project. Upon reflecting on my childhood, I realized that my television watching and toys were largely made up of Transformers, G. I. Joes, and Legos. I had other toys of course, but none of them were in the same quantity Transformers, G. I. Joes, and Legos. This leads me to an idea. The only 1980s cartoon and toy equal to the Transformers in coolness and popularity was G. I. Joe.

Ironically, G. I. Joe and Transformers has a lot more in common then most people realize. Both television shows and movies were produced jointly with Hasbro and Marvel. The Transformers and G. I. Joe toys were all produced and distributed by Hasbro. The comics were produced by Marvel and similarities to not end here because many of the voice actors were the same.

The best example is that of Christopher Charles Collins who provided the voice for Transformers’ Starscream and G. I. Joe’s Cobra Commander. Collins was also the voice for Wheeljack, and Sparkplug Witwicky for Transformers and Gung Ho for G. I. Joe. Then there is Michael Patrick Bell who provided the voice for Transformers’ Prowl, Swoop, among others and provided the voice for G. I. Joe’s Duke. Frank Welker provided several voices for Transformers and G. I. Joe. Welker’s voices included Megatron, Galvatron, and Soundwave in Transformers and Junkyard, Torch, and Wild Bill in G. I. Joe.

G. I. Joe and Transformers are, in my opinion, the two greatest animated series of all time. Since these to great series have so much in common I propose that WikiProject Transformers be expanded to WikiProject Transformers and G. I. Joe. Any WikiProject is monitoring not one of the G. I. Joe. I think that this is a shame and that this group is appropriate for filling that role.

Yours in Christ, (Steve 15:33, 17 November 2006 (UTC))

The Transformers Wikiproject has enough material to deal with. I'd suggest forming a seperate, Wikiproject: G.I. Joe and anyone who wants to do both can be part of both groups.--Orion Minor 18:31, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Its an interesting idea certainly (and those two shows were the coolest), but I have to agree with Orion Minor. GI. Joe is a very different set of stories to Transformers in spite of the various Marvel/Dreamwave/Devil's Due crossovers and probably has alot of fans that know nothing about Transformers (and vice versa). If we combined the two into a project I personally think thats asking one set of contributors to either know about both franchises or contribute to only one of two article sets. However, a project for G.I Joe is a great idea. Anyway, best regards.SMegatron 19:58, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Agreed for two reasons: 1. BOTH deserve their own WikiProject. 2. With all the WikiCops there have been around lately, I'm SURE that a flame war would erupt if someone tried to make one project based on two continuities, especially when the basis is, as they would frame it, "cause one user really liked both sets of toys." Right, wrong or indifferent, it's true that it would happen. Personally, I was never that into GI Joe other than the Marvel comic crossovers into Transformers. (I loved Lego!) I think they both deserve their own WikiProject. Awesome intentions, but I think there's a better way to go about it. VigilancePrime 23:59, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Orion Minor, two seperate projects, Transformers is large enough without the G.I.Joe. and also if you add G.I Goe, then someone will want to add all other Marvel titles and then it will be Marvel project no longer transformers. lets keep it the way it. Danrduggan 22:22, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Cybertron Defense Team up for deletion

The Cybertron Defense Team is up for deletion. Feel free to vote on it's status. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mathewignash (talk • contribs) 01:28, 4 December 2006 (UTC).

Bad Pages

Okay, don't make pages like this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Cybertron_Defense_Team

This is up for deletion, nominated by myself. Not all subgroups deserve their own page, especially one as minor as this. --Orion Minor 03:04, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

EDIT: Ah, I see Matt beat me to it. See above for more information.--Orion Minor 03:05, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Move Transformers universes to Transformers (characters)

Vote

  1. Support Wiki-newbie 16:25, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
  2. Decline Chris McFeely 19:44, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Comments

  • The article has come a long way, and has become the main page for the WikiProject and all Transformers related articles. But I feel Transformers (characters) would be far more encaspulating a name to describe the whole shebang. Wiki-newbie 16:25, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Er... huh? It's... it's not about characters. It's about universes. THIS would be a page about characters (just for the TV show, of course, but I'm using it as an example). I think I get what you're saying about the name of the page, but "Characters" really isn't an accurate name for it. "Franchises," perhaps? But that's really something for the "Toyline" page (which really needs a bit of work, now that I'm mentioning it). - Chris McFeely 19:44, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia Day Awards

Hello, all. It was initially my hope to try to have this done as part of Esperanza's proposal for an appreciation week to end on Wikipedia Day, January 15. However, several people have once again proposed the entirety of Esperanza for deletion, so that might not work. It was the intention of the Appreciation Week proposal to set aside a given time when the various individuals who have made significant, valuable contributions to the encyclopedia would be recognized and honored. I believe that, with some effort, this could still be done. My proposal is to, with luck, try to organize the various WikiProjects and other entities of wikipedia to take part in a larger celebrartion of its contributors to take place in January, probably beginning January 15, 2007. I have created yet another new subpage for myself (a weakness of mine, I'm afraid) at User talk:Badbilltucker/Appreciation Week where I would greatly appreciate any indications from the members of this project as to whether and how they might be willing and/or able to assist in recognizing the contributions of our editors. Thank you for your attention. Badbilltucker 17:00, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use images?

I noticed someone tagged the images from the Landfill (Transformers) page. I'm not familiar with this tag, what is it all about? user:mathewignash

The fact of the matter is that the toys are there, their existence is not copyrighted like a film frame or album cover. It's the same issue with people and buildings. It isn't really fair use. WikiNew 15:31, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Changing things

I noticed this user (The Matrix Prime) is running around changing "Transformers: Generation 1" to "Transformers: The Original Series". What is this Star Trek? Anyone else have an opinion on this? I didn't want to get into a reversion war with him, but he keeps changing it back. user:mathewignash

  • If I could throw in my two cents here after seeing the main bones of contention I think both of you have a point. I agree with Matrix Prime about the Transmetals issue. The Transmetal term is more a Beast Wars term than a G1 term and only really came into use with the Dreamwave profile comics. The fact that its extremely rare for the term to be used outside Beast Wars in TF merchandising, and that most fans disregard it in regards to G1, always indicated to me that only the Beast Wars Transmetals - the ones created by the quantum surge and the TM2 experiments - are true Transmetals. That said, I agree with Mathewignash about the original series bit. Original series is only a good heading so long as the section only covers stuff from the original animated series. Problem is, most of the G1 sections nowadays also cover other stuff like the Marvel, Dreamwave, Devil's Due and IDW comics, the various generations of toys and Japanese stuff like Kiss Players. Original series really isn't applicable to the entire section so I think we stick with the Generation One heading. Regards.SMegatron 11:24, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
    • That's fair, I can live with that, but I still find user:mathewignash reverting edits and refering to mechanical transformers as transmetal at times. Hopefully this will straighten out itself after a while. --The Matrix Prime 21:43, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

CFD notice

Removed cfdnotice, cfd has completed. --Kbdank71 14:55, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Please also note Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 February 20 for a review of the decision regarding Category:Actors by series. Tim! 08:09, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Archive 1
| Archive 2 →