Jump to content

Talk:Transformers: Dark of the Moon/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3

Protection

Since the page has recently been unprotected, there has been lots of "edit wars" going on. Currently asked for semi protection again. Fanaction2031 (talk) 05:48, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Coleogdon, 6 July 2011

the film received mixed reviews, if it recieved negative reviews itd be 35 percent to 0 percent Coleogdon (talk) 23:25, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

I would say that anything under 40% is almost clearly negative. You fanboys are lucky it still says "mixed to negative". 40% means majority doesn't like the film because only 40/100 do. So anyone can see why under 40 should just be classified as "negative". Somebody please keep this article protected for a long time to stop fanboys from vandalism. Seriously. AndrewOne (talk) 13:50, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Not done: See the discussion 4 discussions up. You can't create an arbitrary limit because you don't like that it got negative reviews.Darkwarriorblake (talk) 23:28, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Summary Clarifications

The summary assumes some background on the Transformers universe. I don't have that background, so I can't say exactly what's missing. Here are some questions that the summary should answer:

  • The good guys are the Autobots, the bad guys Deceptacons. The Ark is Cybertronian--is that good, bad, or neither?
  • Is Sentinel himself an Autobot? Sentinel betrays the Autobots, but apparently used to lead them too. What race was he trying to ensure the survival of through this betrayal?
  • What is Cybertron, and why is transporting it (him?) to Earth helpful to the Deceptacons?
  • Why does any of this happen on earth or the moon? Maybe this is just a plot hole.

24.220.188.43 (talk) 09:36, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

You can't give an extensive rundown of the background of two films or the summary will be huge. It is stated in the summary that Sentinel used to lead the Autobots. It happens on Earth ebcause they want the resources, this is also stated in the summary and they want to bring Cybertron there to rebuild it, again stated in the summary. I'm not sure what the Ark is, it just states that it is a ship carrying a weapon. Anything else happens on the moon because thats where the Ark crashed.Darkwarriorblake (talk) 11:04, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Sellings

In its first week, 834.000 people saw Transformers: Dark of the Moon in Germany. This made the film reach No. 1 on the country's Cinema Charts and caused Bad Teacher, which was No. 1 the week before, to leave the top. It's the best opening week number surpassing Transformers and Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen which were seen by 596.000 respective 816.000 people in their first weeks source.

Please include! --79.199.45.90 (talk) 15:47, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Added. Since your information seems legitimate and you've also included a source, this has been added to the article. If you have any questions about what I've written accordingly to you, come visit my talk page. Fanaction2031 (talk) 00:11, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Alternate names

Regarding this edit, I would say that this film is known as Transformers 3 to most people. In the same way that Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen is known as Transformers 2; both are even called that in the Critical reception section of this article. We have the redirects Transformers 2 and Transformers 3 because that's what people commonly call these films. I'm pretty sure most people don't say the full name when talking in casual conversation. They just say Transformers 2 or Transformers 3. Flyer22 (talk) 03:56, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

I take your point, but if you look at other franchise articles we don't tend to say that Dead Man's Chest is also known as Pirate's of the Caribbean 2, or Prisoner of Azkhaban is also known as Harry Potter 3; we tend to give the formal name, and say it is the second/third film in the series etc. Can't we just do something along those lines on this article? Betty Logan (talk) 09:02, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
We could and already are doing that, but I don't see the problem in mentioning the alternate names Transformers 2 and Transformers 3. It's not WP:OR, and alternate names are perfectly allowed and even encouraged in the leads of our articles, especially if those alternates names redirect to the article. I know there is something addressing this in guideline or policy. But, anyway, I just wanted to point that out. I'm not hard-pressed either way. Flyer22 (talk) 09:45, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

In this particular case, there was promotional material calling it Transformers 3, so I'd say it's not a fanmade name. --uKER (talk) 13:48, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Split "Production" into two new Sub-sections

Discuss here if you have an problem with this change, explain the reason why, and make sure your reason is relevant. Thank you. Fanaction2031 (talk) 23:55, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

GA Review

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Transformers: Dark of the Moon/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Elencia (talk) 04:45, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)
  1. It is well written'.
    a (prose): b (MoS):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    a (fair representation): b (all significant views):
  5. It is stable.
    Had edit wars going on, but has stopped lately, and seems that it is stable. Pass.
  6. It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.
    a (tagged and captioned): b (plenty of images, relevant to the topic the images were placed in) : c (non-free images have fair use rationales):
  7. Overall:
    a Pass/Fail:

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Transformers: Dark of the Moon

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result: Withdrawn by nominator. Replaced all references to a proper format, removed all unreliable sources and replaced them with reliable sources, fixed grammatical issues, added proper text to uploads and images, added alts to images, improved cast section, and corrected errors involving formatting and Wikipedia guidelines. Reassessment reviewer approves of all the changes.

The problem here is that the article is not a Good Article. User:Elencia very first edit was this, something strange on a newbie. Simple sight, the references have not the correct format, e.g.:

Now checking the article itself:

  • 18 references in the lead. If the information is (supposed to be) in the article, it is not necessary to cite here (expecting WP:LEADCITE.
  • The cast section should be like this.
  • The infobox includes Japan release, per Wikipedia:FILMRELEASE: "Release dates should therefore be restricted to the film's earliest release, whether it was at a film festival or a public release", and it already includes Moscow International Film Festival and North American ones.
Prose review
  • It is the sequel to Transformers and Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen and was released on June 29, 2011 -> It is the sequel to Transformers and Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen, and was released on June 29, 2011
  • The film was released in both 2D and 3D formats, -> The film was released in both, 2D and 3D, formats
  • As the Autobots continue to work for NEST - a United States military-Autobot alliance, they discover a hidden alien technology in possession of humans, -> As the Autobots continue to work for NEST—a United States military—they discover a hidden alien technology in possession of humans,
  • "and John Turturro reprise their starring roles, also Peter Cullen returned as the voice of Optimus Prime and Hugo Weaving returned as the voice of Megatron. Kevin Dunn, and Julie White have also reprised..." -> copy-edit needed
  • "who collaborated in the writing of the second film, was again involved in the writing." -> per above.
  • "their roles as Sam Witwicky's parents." -> Who is Sam?
  • "With Fox's character (Mikaela Banes) being dropped," -> What's doing Banes there?
  • "The film is currently" -> "Currently" is not appropiate
  • "The film is also currently the highest grossing Michael Bay film," -> The film is also the highest-grossing film directed by Bay,
  • and the highest grossing Paramount-DreamWorks film of all time -> Overlinked
  • The film was then released one day earlier, June 28, in select 3D and IMAX theatres, nationwide.[15][16] The film is currently the 2nd highest grossing film of 2011 (behind Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows - Part 2) internationally. The film is also currently the highest grossing Michael Bay film, and the highest grossing Paramount-DreamWorks film of all time and also currently stands as the 7th highest-grossing film of all-time and highest-grossing film in the Transformers series and the only film in the series to gross over $1 billion.[17] The film is currently the 10th film in cinematic history to cross the $1 billion mark-in unadjusted dollars-and the third film in 2011 to cross the billion mark.[18] -> The film is currently, and, and, and, and. This deserves a copy-edit.

Discussion – This is just the lead and the references. I'd continue my review, but it is just a waste of time. This article does not meet the WP:GA? criteria, and it was only a bad review made by Elencia that would ended in a quick-fail. Tbhotch.™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 06:21, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

The issues you've left me here have been addressed by me. If you would review this article any further, I'd be more than happy to correct them to retain the article's GA rating. Fanaction2031 (talk) 05:49, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
Well, not all of them. The references still needing the correct {{cite web}} format. As you are working on the article I'll review all the article in the next days. Tbhotch.™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 05:59, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
Still working on the references. It is indeed a mess now that you've mentioned it. Fanaction2031 (talk) 06:09, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
Also edited the Cast section so it could be similar to the one in Ironman.
Fixed most of the references, please review the article now. Fanaction2031 (talk) 01:17, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment I'd also like to verify the authorship of File:MichaelBayShootingin3D.jpg. The image is claimed to be self-made by Fanaction2031, by the metadata indicates photo credit to go to Jaimie Trueblood, and a quick Google search pulls up images by the author here and here. If image's rights are not owned by the uploader, it needs to be deleted. File:OptimusPrimeTF3DOTM.jpg should be reduced in size and the fair use rationale expanded. More details need to be included to warrant the inclusion of the image of Prime per WP:FILMNFI, otherwise it currently looks decorative by its inclusion. If File:Transformers3Promotion.jpg is considered non-free, it needs to be reduced in size for fair use requirements. --Happy editing!

Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 06:24, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Fixed the problems. Fanaction2031 (talk) 01:17, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
You resized the images, but the bus image should still be a bit smaller, try shooting for a 300px side for one of the dimensions. If you did not photograph the Michael Bay image, it should be put up for deletion. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 05:37, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
I deleted the Michael Bay image. I'd also agree with Geometry guy about the character image for Rosie Huntington-Whiteley. As a free image of here is potentially available (have been searching over the last few months but haven't secured one yet), it's inclusion is merely decorative. There are other free images of the cast members, search Wikimedia Commons for some others to add to the article. Looking at the content in the article, I think you'd be better off including a screenshot of the Driller rather than Prime. The quote indicates it's more complex than animating Prime, so it would better assist with the readers' understanding rather than showing something that required less work. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 00:49, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
Alright, I'm going to upload a screenshot of Driller. Fanaction2031 (talk) 03:08, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
Done. Fanaction2031 (talk) 03:54, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
I reworded the caption for the image. I also was able to get a free image of Huntington-Whiteley, which I added to the release section. Feel free to move it if you have a better place. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 04:38, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for your contributions! Fanaction2031 (talk) 05:17, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Keep Practically all of these complaints are examples of WP:What the Good article criteria are not:

  • Fails ALLCAPS? Who cares? ALLCAPS is not one of the five MOS pages that GAs are required to comply with.
  • Dead links? Who cares? Dead links are permitted, and their removal may be prohibited by WP:DEADREF (which was revised earlier this year).
  • Dab links? Who cares? GAs are not required to be free of dab links.
  • No alt text? Who cares? GAs are not required to have alt text.
  • Inconsistently formatted citations? Who cares? GAs are not required to have consistently formatted citations.
  • Citations in the lead? Who cares? LEADCITE permits citations in the lead.
  • Cast section not formatted in your favorite way? Who cares? GAs are not required to have any particular style of cast section.
  • Infobox doesn't comply with FILMRELEASE? Who cares? GAs are not required to comply with FILMRELEASE.

While I'm glad that the article has been improved, none of this is grounds for de-listing. This should not have been listed here. If the nom wanted the article to exceed the actual criteria, then he could have done that on his own. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:07, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Another user that uses essays as rules. I'd be rich if I won a dollar each time I find a person like you. I have to remember you that the first point of the WP:GA? is: "Well-written: the prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct"; not "Well-written: the prose may be clear and concise (sometimes), and the spelling and grammar are correct, when is possible. I really like to know if you understand the WP:GA criteria, becasue as if "no one cares" about "essays of people that are mad with P&G", let me nominate Doug DeMartin as a Good Article right now. Tbhotch.™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 03:49, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
I've pretty much did everything you've listed on the article reassessment page. If you would kindly review the entire article, I'll fix the rest of the problems you will list. Fanaction2031 (talk) 03:54, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
No, I'm not exempting the article from the requirement that it be well-written. You will not find your (already fixed) complaints about the clarity, concision, spelling or grammar of the prose anywhere in my list. I have listed as non-criteria only those things that are actually not criteria.
You may be interested in reading WP:The difference between policies, guidelines, and essays. Some of our most important and widely supported advice pages, including WP:Use common sense and WP:Bold, revert, discuss, are "just" essays. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:08, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
Just because an essay is used by people, does not mean that it is a policy or guideline, nor that should be followed. Either way, "common sense" redirects to an essay, not the simple policy (and there is nothing that can be ignored here). Tbhotch.™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 05:30, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment The lead must not contain references (because it must not contain anything new that is not present in the article; it only summarizes the below mentioned information) unless they are direct quotations. 50.19.78.29 (talk) 15:52, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
Good point, removed the references from the lead. Fanaction2031 (talk) 22:16, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
The IP says "The lead must not contain references," but nowhere does WP:LEAD state that. It used to state that the lead does not need references (two or more years back), per the rest of what the IP stated, but it does not state that anymore. In Wikipedia:LEAD#Citations, it says, "Because the lead will usually repeat information also in the body, editors should balance the desire to avoid redundant citations in the lead with the desire to aid readers in locating sources for challengeable material. Leads are usually written at a greater level of generality than the body, and information in the lead section of non-controversial subjects is less likely to be challenged and less likely to require a source; there is not, however, an exception to citation requirements specific to leads. The necessity for citations in a lead should be determined on a case-by-case basis by editorial consensus. Complex, current, or controversial subjects may require many citations; others, few or none. The presence of citations in the introduction is neither required in every article nor prohibited in any article." So I'm wondering where the IP got the idea that "the lead must not contain references." Plenty of good and featured Wikipedia articles include references in their leads for more than just direct quotes. Sometimes the lead may even include something that is not covered in the lower body of the article, which can be fine. I'll mention this below in the #References section, where the most recent discussion is being had. Flyer22 (talk) 23:20, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

This is just the first part of the review. Due it is very long, I need additional time to check every phrase and reference on in. I'll add the second part tomorrow. Tbhotch.™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 07:10, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

First review
*Lead
Link Autobot, if Cybertron is linked why the first not.
"Shia LaBeouf, Josh Duhamel, Tyrese Gibson and John Turturro have reprised their starring roles, and Peter Cullen returns as the voice of Optimus Prime. Hugo Weaving returns as the voice of Megatron, and Kevin Dunn, and Julie White reprise their roles -> this still wrong, "reprise" and "return", both, are used twice in the same sentence. This needs to be copy-edited.
"The film was then released one day earlier, June 28, in select" -> in selected
"The film is the 2nd" -> wP:NUMBERS below ten are written out
"the 5th" -> as above
"in the Transformers series," -> overlinked
  • Plot
Autobots and Decepticons -> link both
"During a mission to Chernobyl to investigate" -> During a mission to Chernobyl, to investigate
Done. Fanaction2031 (talk) 02:13, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
"fuel cell from the Ark," -> The first "The Ark" is italized. Consistency needed.
Done. Fanaction2031 (talk) 02:13, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
On second thought, since a user named "Boycool42" suggested that spacecraft should be italized (Enterprise, Millennium Falcon et cetra), what are your thoughts on this? Fanaction2031 (talk) 03:19, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
Nevermind that, scratch it, I removed the "Ark" from the lead, and re-italized and linked it to the plot. Fanaction2031 (talk) 03:48, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
"There they discover a comatose Sentinel Prime" -> Remove the "there"
"They locate two surviving Russian cosmonauts who reveal" -> They locate two surviving Russian cosmonauts, who reveal
"concealed Decepticons from the Moon to Earth and Carly" -> concealed Decepticons from the Moon to Earth, and Carly
"avoid war but as their ship leaves Earth it is destroyed by Starscream" -> avoid war but, as their ship leaves Earth, it is destroyed by Starscream
  • Cast
stated that this would be his last film in the series, he also concludes that the director will not return for the fourth installment. -> As a living people. needs a source.
"franchise like Transformers 3 or even" -> franchise like Transformers 3 or even
"or even now Hangover 2" -> "or even now Hangover 2", and link Hangover 2 to its link
Per consistency, File:OptimusPrimeTF3BotCon.jpg needs ALT.
link Industrial Light & Magic.
transforms into a police car, & -> WP:& should be replaced for "and"
  • Production
"As a preemptive measure, Michael Lucchi and Paramount announced a July 1, 2011 release date in IMAX 3-D for another Transformers film before completion of Revenge of the Fallen." -> As a preemptive measure, Michael Lucchi [who is this person, what he did on this film], and Paramount [Pictures] announced [when?] a release date on July 1, 2011, in IMAX 3-D for another Transformers film, before completion of Revenge of the Fallen. Replace the bracketed comments if it is possible
Industrial Light & Magic -> unlink it here, and put a "(ILM)", because you'll use it later
Done. Fanaction2031 (talk) 02:09, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
the next Transformers film being -> the next Transformers film being
he'd found -> if this is not a quote, make it encyclopedic
"In a hidden extra for the Blu-ray version of Revenge of the Fallen" -> "In a hidden extra for the Blu-ray version of the previous film" "Revenge of the Fallen" is mentioned later.
"Orci said he would like" -> Orci has not been mentioned beyond the lead, mention his name and link it here
Don't really get what you're saying here. Sorry. Fanaction2031 (talk) 02:09, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
In simple English: change Orci said he would like to Roberto Orci said he would like Tbhotch.™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 02:27, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
Okay, done. Fanaction2031 (talk) 02:32, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
Ultimately the producers decided to forgo -> Ultimately, the producers decided to forgo
.[27]</ref>[28] -> typo
and Moscow.[30][31]. -> and Moscow.[30][31] (remove the extra period)
Ironic, a small little mistake took me forever to find. Fixed. Fanaction2031 (talk) 03:08, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
There is an easy way. Just press "Ctrl + F" and later a searcher will appear. Tbhotch.™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 03:13, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
I know, but there were two reference codes that were making it harder to find the period. Fanaction2031 (talk) 03:26, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
were spent in Chicago. -> unlink Chicago here and link it before
temporarily delayed on September 2, 2010 in -> temporarily delayed on September 2, 2010, in...
What happened with Cedillo's family lawsuit. If there is information include it
I've added some information. Wonder why it isn't crossed yet. "Her attorney, Todd Smith, said "This was an attractive 24-year old girl who had dreams and aspirations involving acting, and this kind of injury may well have a serious impact on her dreams."[51] The filed complaint reads that "Cedillo has endured and will in the future endure pain and suffering; has become disfigured and disabled; has suffered a loss of the enjoyment of a normal life; has been damaged in her capacity to earn a living; has incurred and will in the future incur expenses for medical services, all of which are permanent in nature."[51] In response to the suit, Paramount released the following statement: "We are all terribly sorry that this accident occurred. Our thoughts, prayers and best wishes are with Gabriela, her family and loved ones. The production will continue to provide all the help we can to Gabriela and her family during this difficult time.”[51]" Fanaction2031 (talk) 02:09, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
"The film's lead visual effects company is Industrial Light & Magic" -> The film's lead visual effects company was ILM.
"ILM's Scott Farrar, the VFX supervisor" -> Scott Farrar, the VFX supervisor,
""not only were the film's effects ambitious, they also had to be designed for 3-D.[12]" -> Remove the reference here, the quote has not ended
Michael Bay considered -> Bay considered
"Michael also stated that he wasn't going to do all" -> "Bay also stated that he was not going to do all"
"Bay also stated that he was not going to do all his films in 3-D, but he felt that this particular film was appropriate for 3-D.[56] The film was shot partially with Cameron-Pace Group’s 3-D Fusion camera rigs developed by James Cameron’s team." Should be crossed also. Fanaction2031 (talk) 02:09, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
"I did some tests with the robots,”[56] he says," -> Shouldn't be "he said"?
" "I did some tests with the robots,”[58] he said, "where we were close-up on a robot – and you know Optimus Prime has 10,000 pieces[58]. Should be crossed. Fanaction2031 (talk) 02:09, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
"In one sequence, when Bumblebee catches" -> Bumblebee is mentioned before, but not linked there
"Farrar says, "This shot is a good example of why I enjoy working with Michael Bay so much. "It’s like a big magic..." -> typo between 'much. "It’s'
Bluescreen -> Link it to Chroma key
"Though the Chicago battle in" -> overlinked
Central to Michael Bay’s -> Central to Bay’s
for a Transformers film -> for a Transformers film
to real cityscapes." -> remove the ", apparently the quote continues
I don't really get it. "So for a couple of months there, I was in a helicopter shooting aerial plates of the real buildings. And we’d add destruction to all the backgrounds – smoke, fire, debris, fighter planes, war, battles, torn up streets – to real cityscapes." The quote ends here. Please elaborate. Fanaction2031 (talk) 02:15, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
"the shots in Chicago" -> overlinked
Since Michael Bay always -> Since Bay always
Done. Fanaction2031 (talk) 02:09, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
6 months -> six months
"According to Farrar, "just under 600 3-D shots"[52] were made for the film and digital domain did about 200 shots." -> I cannot acces to the video, but it shouldn't be "According to Farrar, "just under 600 3-D shots" were made for the film and digital domain did about 200 shots.[52]"?
The external audio located on the right is pretty much the exact same thing without the video. Fanaction2031 (talk) 18:55, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
I refered that the reference should be after "200 shots" not "600 3-D shots". Tbhotch.™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 00:13, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
Oh. Okay, done. Fanaction2031 (talk) 02:09, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
Sentinel Prime, the film's main antagonist, before Leonard Nimoy was cast into the film, ILM had everything -> Before Leonard Nimoy was casted into the film, as Sentinel Prime, ILM had everything
battle to Michael so -> battle to Bay so
"work on the film and finaled work" -> I do not speak English, but, what does "finaled" means?
"The film had many positive reviews" -> by whom?
Fixed pretty much everything you've currently listed. Still waiting for more. Fanaction2031 (talk) 18:55, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Here is the second part of the review. The only part that is missed is the References, because thare are many of them. I'll have them as soon as possible. Tbhotch.™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 03:56, 18 August 2011 (UTC)


I pretty much did everything, except for ""A thirty-second television" -> Consistency needed with the numbers". Please elaborate more on that, sorry. Fanaction2031 (talk) 05:29, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Throughout the article you have written out numbers bigger than ten, excepting here. thirty-second -> 30 second. Tbhotch.™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 05:34, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
Resolved comments
*About this edit, if spacecraft is italized, put italics in all "The Ark". I just told you that consistency is needed
Done. Fanaction2031 (talk) 04:36, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Marketing
"on FOX" -> on Fox, per MOS:TM
Done. Fanaction2031 (talk) 04:36, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
the next day on May 19 -> The "May 19" is unneeded
File:StevejablonskyDOTM.ogg "Listen to a clip from "Transformers: Dark of the Moon" composed by Steve Jablonsky, featuring 30 seconds of his work." -> Non-free material is used to explain something that cannot be expressed by words alone or couldn't be replaced, (e.g. 1, 2). Add a better summary or remove it.
Also, per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Music samples it has to be reduced from 31s to 27.
Done, but I need help of deciding what the "back up" tune is. Like in "Alejandro", where it was described as "synth beats." Fanaction2031 (talk) 04:55, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
Nevermind, I got it. Fanaction2031 (talk) 04:58, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
June 28, 2011 but Amazon -> June 28, 2011, but Amazon
but Amazon -> but Amazon.com
Done. Fanaction2031 (talk) 04:36, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
It was available for download on Amazon on June 30, 2011 -> unsourced and too short. Try to merge it
is approximately fifty nine minutes and fourty seven seconds long -> why not 59:47 minutes long?
and Michael Bay. -> overlinked
"The single follows "What I've Done" being used" -> The single follows "What I've Done", being used
"The app was developed by EA.[86]" -> Too short, merge it. Also EA -> Electronic Arts per MOS:TM
In a High definition -> "High-definition" and unlink it
  • Release
Its special effects — and 3D shots — are -> Per WP:MDASH: "Do not use spaced em dashes"
File:RosieHuntington-WhiteleyJun2011.jpg -> Since you are using it on the Reception section, you should talk about how critics received Rose's acting.
"IGN gave the film a 7 out of 10, also " -> IGN gave the film a seven out of ten, also
rating it 3 and a half out -> rating it three and a half out
the TIME magazine -> MOS:TM
"$347,440,989 in North America, as of August 15, 2011 (2011 -08-15)[update], and $731,278,472 in other territories, as of August 15, 2011 (2011 -08-15)[update], for a worldwide total of $1,078,719,461," -> This may need an update (not necessary for this GAR)
behind the #23.2 million debut -> $23.2
(16 days) in record time but lost all records -> (16 days) in record time, but lost all records
records to Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows - Part 2. -> Overlinked, and should be "– Part 2"
the United States and Canada, -> Countries are generally not linked, per WP:OVERLINK
behind Harry Pottger and the Deathly Hallows Part 2 -> two typos: behind Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part – 2
non-opening Thursday of all time[113] as well -> non-opening Thursday of all time,[113] as well
Dark of the Moon's -> Dark of the Moon's
"marking the second largest opening weekend of 2011 behind Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows - Part 2" -> "marking the second largest opening weekend of 2011, behind Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows – Part 2", and overlinked
Spider-Man 2's -> out-grossing Spider-Man 2's
out-grossing Spider-Man 2's $88.2 million gross -> Synonym needed
#1 spot -> number one spot
that of Revenge of the Fallen -> Recently linked, overlinked
($139.6 million) and its -> ($139.6 million), and its
better than Pirates 4 in... -> better than Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides in all 58 markets where 70 percent of the grosses came from 3D (this was a higher 3D share than Pirates 4...
surpassing On Stranger Tides's previous -> overlinked
surpassing On Stranger Tides's previous -> surpassing On Stranger Tides's previous
record of Pirates Of The Caribbean: On Stranger Tides -> italics
The "Accolades" subsection is based only on the TCA. I suggest to merge it into prose in the reception section until it receive more nominations.
Done with pretty much everything except for the audio preview, which I will fix right now. Fanaction2031 (talk) 04:36, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
"A thirty-second television" -> Consistency needed with the numbers
Are you suggesting to put it in numerical form? Fanaction2031 (talk) 04:36, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
Yip. Tbhotch.™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 20:56, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
Done. Fanaction2031 (talk) 21:11, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
ocean of Haterade — the snarking, the Razzie Award, the mean reviews — that -> WP:MDASH: ocean of Haterade—the snarking, the Razzie Award, the mean reviews—that
Done. Fanaction2031 (talk) 21:11, 18 August 2011 (UTC)


I am finally done with the references. Fanaction2031 (talk) 23:04, 19 August 2011 (UTC)


Fixed references
:Ref 1.- Paramount Pictures -> "|publisher=Paramount Pictures. Viacom" (Just change the |work= to |publisher=); Also add |date=2011-05-23, because the work was published that date.
DoneFanaction2031 (talk) 20:17, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
Ref 2.- Paramount Pictures -> |publisher=Paramount Pictures. Viacom
Done. Fanaction2031 (talk) 20:17, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
Ref 3.- Jeff Labrecque -> Labrecque, Jeff; insidemovies.ew.com -> |work=Entertainment Weekly |publisher=Time Warner; |date=2011-05-20
Don't get how to add (insidemovies.ew.com) after the name. Sorry for being so naive. Fanaction2031 (talk) 20:17, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
Actually, the insidemovies.ew.com is incorrect. The site is published by EW. Tbhotch.™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 20:56, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
Ref 4.- link the British Board of Film Classification
Done. Fanaction2031 (talk) 20:17, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
Ref 5.- It is published by Prometheus Global Media
Done. (Was already done.) Fanaction2031 (talk) 20:17, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
Ref 6.- It is published by Amazon.com (|publisher=Box Office Mojo. Amazon.com)
Done. Fanaction2031 (talk) 20:17, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
Ref 7.- Why Andrew McCants is a reliable source?
Seems like this is already done. Fanaction2031 (talk) 20:17, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
Ref 9.- It starts with "Rumor", so, why we are posting rumors?
Done. Fanaction2031 (talk) 20:17, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
Ref 10.- It is published by TV Fanatic; its author is Marsi, Steve
Done.
Ref 12.- I don't know if TFW 2005 is a reliable source, but I would use http://www.craveonline.com/tv/interviews/161975-ken-jeong-on-community-hangover-2-and-transformers-3 , which is the source where the interview was taken from. (|author=Topel, Fred |publisher=CraveOnline. CraveOnline Media, LLC |date=2011-03-23)
Already done by someone. Fanaction2031 (talk) 20:17, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
Ref 13#b.- "giant snake-like creature used in the film led to many challenges, and confusion" -> "confusion"? where? I see nothing on the reference
Most of the effects section was reworked by Igordebraga and Boycool42. So, technically this is done. Fanaction2031 (talk) 20:17, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
Ref 14.- Sciretta, Peter made the interview; Slashfilm -> /Film (ignore the redlink here, it'll be normal in the article)
Already done. Fanaction2031 (talk) 20:17, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
Ref 16.- Overlinked (already linked in Ref 15)
Refs are changed. Don't know what's overlinked. Fanaction2031 (talk) 20:17, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
Ref 17.- Sciretta, Peter made the interview; Overlinked
Already done (I think). Fanaction2031 (talk) 20:17, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
Ref 18.- Variety -> |work=Variety |publisher=Reed Business Information
Already done. Fanaction2031 (talk) 20:17, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
Ref 19.- MTV -> |publisher=MTV. Viacom; Ditzian, Eric made is the author
Done. Fanaction2031 (talk) 20:17, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
Ref 20.- UsMagazine.com -> |work=Us Weekly |publisher=Wenner Media, LLC
Already done. Fanaction2031 (talk) 20:17, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
Ref 21.- /Film. People.com -> |work=People |publisher=Time Inc; Authors= David Caplan and Jennifer Garcia on May 19, not May 20
Already done. Fanaction2031 (talk) 20:17, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
Ref 22.- GQ -> |work=GQ |publisher=Condé Nast Publications
Already done. Fanaction2031 (talk) 20:17, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
Ref 23.- Alex Billington -> Billington, Alex; date=2009-06-30; FirstShowing -> FirstShowing.net
Done. Fanaction2031 (talk) 20:17, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
Ref 24.- How it is a reliable source?
Changed source. Fanaction2031 (talk) 20:17, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
Ref 25.- As I noted before, how TFW 2005 it is a reliable source?
Done. Fanaction2031 (talk) 20:17, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
Ref 26.- Fischer, Russ is the author; Slashfilm -> /Film
Done.
Ref 27.- Ditzian, Eric is the author; |publisher=MTV. Viacom; |date=2010-05-19
Done. Fanaction2031 (talk) 20:17, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
Ref 28.- Inside Indiana Business -> Inside INdiana Business
Already done. Fanaction2031 (talk) 20:17, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
File:Sean Connery 1980.jpg needs ALT per consistency. Tbhotch.™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 20:56, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
Done. Fanaction2031 (talk) 21:09, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
Ref 12.- TheHollywoodReporter -> The Hollywood Reporter; it is published by Prometheus Global Media
Done. Fanaction2031 (talk) 21:09, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

To be continued tommorrow. Tbhotch.™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 07:22, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Ref 7.- It is published by Associated Newspapers Ltd
Ref 10.- |publisher=RelzChannel. Hubbard Broadcasting
Ref 11.- Accessdate missed
Ref 12.- THR is overlinked
Ref 17.- Michael Bay is overlinked
Ref 18.- People.com -> /Film, which is the correct publisher
Ref 20.- it is published by Gannett Company
Ref 21.- |publisher=Michael Bay Official Youtube Channel. YouTube
Ref 27.- Alex Billington. -> Billington, Alex
Ref 28.- calcuttatube.com -> calcuttatube.com or Calcutta Tube (without italics)
Ref 29.- /Film -> /Film
Ref 32.- it is publisher by Entertainment News International
Ref 33.- |publisher=comingsoon.net. CraveOnline Media, LLC
Ref 34.- |publisher=WTSP. Gannett Company
Ref 36.- myfoxchicago.com -> |publisher=WFLD. Fox Television Stations Inc
Ref 38.- worst previews -> worstpreviews.com
Ref 39.- Milwaukee-Wisconsin Journal Sentinel -> |work=Milwaukee-Wisconsin Journal Sentinel |publisher=Journal Communications
Ref 40.- Any Blogspot page is an unreliable reference.
Ref 41.- As ref 35
Ref 43.- Variety -> |work=Variety |publisher=Reed Business Information
Ref 44.- Simon Wakelin -> Wakelin, Simon
Ref 46.- Unlink MTV. |publisher=MTV. Viacom
Ref 47.- Sciretta, Peter is the author
Ref 48.- |publisher=Moviefone. Aol |author=Jancelewicz, Chris
Ref 50.- It is published by Tribune Company
Ref 51.- Link BBC News
Ref 52.- RadarOnline -> RadarOnline
Ref 53.- Deadline -> Deadline Hollywood Daily (per consistency)
Ref 54.- It is published by The Wrap News Inc.
Ref 55.- jalopnik -> Jalopnik
Ref 56.- |publisher=DCist. Gothamist LLC
Ref 58.- FX Guide -> Fxguide
Ref 59.- CG Society -> CG Society
Ref 60.- it is publihsed by Internet Archive
Ref 61.- As ref 58
Ref 62.- Legend3D -> Legend3D
Ref 63.- As ref 35
Ref 65.- Slashfilm -> /Film. Sciretta, Peter is the author
Ref 66.- it is published by CBS Studios Inc
Ref 67.- As ref 35
Ref 69.- As ref 35
Ref 70.- Publisher, author, date and accessdate missed
Ref 71.- As ref 35
Ref 72.- Matt Joseph -> Joseph , Matt
Ref 73.- Kofi Outlaw -> Outlaw, Kofi
Ref 74.- |publisher=Box Office Mojo. Amazon.com; accessdate missed
It is boxoffice.com, I will update the accessdate. Fanaction2031 (talk) 21:16, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
Ref 75.- "Apple Inc.." -> To avoid the ".." put it like this: Apple Inc. Also remove the italics
Ref 76.- FilmMusicReporter -> FilmMusicReporter
Ref 77.- Amazon -> Amazon.com
Ref 78.- MTV -> MTV. Viacom. Authors Montgomery, James and Kim, Audrey
Ref 79.- Twitter -> Twitter
Ref 80.- DeVILZn1ght is not the copyholder, so WP:ELNEVER apply
Ref 81.- Michael Kelly -> Kelly, Michael
Ref 83.- WP:ALLCAPS; publisher missed
Ref 84.- "Seibertron.com is an unofficial Transformers fansite", fails WP:RS
Ref 85.- WP:ALLCAPS. |publisher=EA -> |publisher=Apple Inc
Ref 86.- As ref 35.
Ref 87.- |publisher=Rotten Tomatoes. Flixster
Ref 88.- |publisher=Metacritic. CBS Interactive
Ref 89.- It is published by Sun-Times Media Group
Ref 91.- Rolling Stone -> Rolling Stone. Also, it is published by Wenner Media, LLC
Ref 92.- The Philadelphia Inquirer -> |work=The Philadelphia Inquirer. Philadelphia Media Holdings
Ref 94.- New York Post -> |work=New York Post |publisher= News Corporation
Ref 95.- Consistency needed (Ref 7)
Ref 99.- daily.bhaskar.com should be Dainik Bhaskar, an it is published by D B Corp Ltd.. Author (Samira Shaikh), date (02/07/11) and accessdate missed
Ref 101.- Screenrant -> Screenrant
Ref 102.- Neil Schneider -> Schneider, Neil
Ref 103.- Anders, Charlie Jane is the author
Ref 104.- The Hollywood Reporter-> The Hollywood Reporter. Prometheus Global Media
Ref 107.- The Hollywood Reporter -> The Hollywood Reporter. Prometheus Global Media
Ref 108.- Box Office Mojo. -> Box Office Mojo. Amazon.com; Subers, Ray did the work on 2011-07-05
Ref 109.- MovieWeb -> MovieWeb
Ref 111.- McClintock, Pamela is the author; The Hollywood Reporter. Prometheus Global Media -> both missed
Ref 114.- Gray, Brandon is the author and he did it on 2011-07-04
Ref 119.- Subers, Ray did the work on 2011-07-10. Box Office Mojo. Amazon.com, both missed
Ref 120 and 121.- The Hollywood Reporter -> The Hollywood Reporter. Prometheus Global Media
Ref 108, 123 and 125 are the same
Ref 124.- Bare link: title='Transformers 3' Scores $400M+ Opening at Global Box Office ||publisher=The Wrap News Inc. |date=July 04, 2011 |author= Frankel, Daniel |accessdate=
Refs 105, 106, 108, 110, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133.- Box Office Mojo. -> Box Office Mojo. Amazon.com
Ref 35.- why it is a reliable source?
I keep this. It still being a fansite
Found reliable source, from Current TV, positive this problem will now go. Going to go to sleep, and will do more tomorrow. Fanaction2031 (talk) 09:06, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
Ref 49.- As ref 35
I keep this, "This blog works with caffeine and WordPress."
New source. Done. Fanaction2031 (talk) 18:08, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
Refs 134 and 135, as ref 35 (why it is a reliable source)
As before. Tbhotch.™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 06:45, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
Isn't ref 134 "The Hollywood Reporter"? Fixed 135. Also fixed 136, as it was linked to "TFW2005" which is an unreliable source, but was not spotted by you (surprisingly). Fanaction2031 (talk) 18:08, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Comment: As I stated in the #Discussion section above, the IP says "The lead must not contain references," but nowhere does WP:LEAD state that. It used to state that the lead does not need references (two or more years back), per the rest of what the IP stated, but it does not state that anymore. In Wikipedia:LEAD#Citations, it says, "Because the lead will usually repeat information also in the body, editors should balance the desire to avoid redundant citations in the lead with the desire to aid readers in locating sources for challengeable material. Leads are usually written at a greater level of generality than the body, and information in the lead section of non-controversial subjects is less likely to be challenged and less likely to require a source; there is not, however, an exception to citation requirements specific to leads. The necessity for citations in a lead should be determined on a case-by-case basis by editorial consensus. Complex, current, or controversial subjects may require many citations; others, few or none. The presence of citations in the introduction is neither required in every article nor prohibited in any article." So I'm wondering where the IP got the idea that "the lead must not contain references." Plenty of good and featured Wikipedia articles include references in their leads for more than just direct quotes. Sometimes the lead may even include something that is not covered in the lower body of the article, which can be fine. Flyer22 (talk) 23:20, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

And you needed to put this two times? Although WP:LEAD does not say "The lead must not contain references" there is no valid reason to have references on it, is it? The information is in the article, and have references on it is redundant and useless. Tbhotch.™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 23:50, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
No need for the attitude. I posted it twice because I wanted to. I certainly was not going to leave it higher where it may not be noticed. And WP:LEADCITE makes it quite clear that there may be valid reasons to have references in the lead. It also says "The necessity for citations in a lead should be determined on a case-by-case basis by editorial consensus." Saying "The information is in the article, and have references on it is redundant and useless." is simply opinion. To some editors, having them in the lead is useful for quicker reference. I don't care much that the references have been removed from the lead. I just wanted to point out that the IP was/is wrong that "the lead must not contain references." And I did. In my opinion, clarifying this to Fanaction2031 was/is useful, for future reference, so that Fanaction2031 doesn't feel the need to remove references from any and every lead. Flyer22 (talk) 20:27, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
I will only do something when I feel it is right. If doing something "big" like removing references from the lead, I will have to either discuss it on the article's talk page, or only do it when being told to. Fanaction2031 (talk) 21:18, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
There is no consensus to have/have not references here. If there is one add them. Tbhotch.™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 21:16, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

This is it, if those references are fixed or replied its all by my part. If no one have more objections this will be kept as GA. Tbhotch.™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 02:55, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Dear God, this is gonna take a while. Will do them tomorrow. It's 1:42 here. Fanaction2031 (talk) 08:42, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
FINALLY, I am done. Took me a while. Fanaction2031 (talk) 23:05, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
I have no other concern about this article. If no one has one this GAR can be closed. Tbhotch.™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 21:16, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
How do I close the GAR? Fanaction2031 (talk) 00:50, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
See "Guidelines for closing a community reassessment discussion." at WP:GAR. Tbhotch.™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 00:55, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Reception: "Generally mixed to negative," not "generally mixed"

A few editors will change the Critical reception part away from "generally mixed to negative" to "generally mixed." Well, let's be real here: 38% is not "mixed." That is "mixed to negative." Some would even classify that as "generally negative." Rotten Tomatoes encompasses more film critics than any other film site, and they have reported 38%, meaning that most film critics (the remaining half being too many to classify as "mixed") do not favor this film. The first film in this franchise, Transformers, has a score that is "generally mixed," which is 57%. 38% is nowhere close to 57%. I have had to add a hidden note in the Critical reception for fanboys who cannot accept that.[1] Flyer22 (talk) 14:27, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps it's just me, but I find the "generally mixed to negative" wording plain horrible. I'd rather have a "negative/mostly negative/mixed/mostly positive/positive" rating system, which would define five "zones". "mixed to negative" sounds like someone instructing you to make a gin tonic told you to mix a 50% mix of gin and tonic, with a glass of gin. Why not make it 75% gin and leave it at that? Let's not mention the "generally" part, which adds to the mess in saying that there's stuff left out by this already ludicrous definition. In short, I'd just leave it at "mostly negative". --uKER (talk) 13:56, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
I agree. "Mixed" means the reception ranges from from positive to negative, so "mixed to negative" translates to "positive to negative to negative". --Boycool (talk) 14:11, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
I would've thought mixed would be something that hovers around low 50's, high 40's. 37% is flat out negative. If you get 40% in a test they don't say you had mixed results. You just failed. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 14:24, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
UKER, I often see the "mixed to negative" wording or "mixed to positive" or even "positive to mixed" wording on Wikipedia. Maybe we should just drop "generally"? As stated in my edit summaries,[2][3], I wouldn't just leave it as "mostly." At 38%, which is close to 40%, that's not neutral enough. It's likely to cause even more edit warring. Also, having a hidden note about this helps to deter IPs from changing it to what they'd like it to actually say. Another reason I wouldn't leave it as just "mostly" is because most critics have liked the special effects; most simply have been divided on whether they also like the script/acting. Leaving it to only numbers is lacking an initial summary of the reception, so I wouldn't choose that either. If we do leave it as only "negative," I would prefer "generally negative" than "mostly negative" (and I did state above that "Some would even classify [the score] as "generally negative.") The reception for this film isn't quite the same case as Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen, though. Flyer22 (talk) 16:07, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
I'm perfectly fine with "generally negative". Despite WP:OTHER, "mixed to negative" doesn't seem right for the aforementioned reasons. --uKER (talk) 16:11, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
The general opinion should be given and the general opinion is negative. It doesn't stop you talking about things that they liked ala "despite the poor reception, many critics favoured the visual effects". That doesn't change their opinion of the film which is negative. You can't say a film has "mixed reviews" when it receives 2% but the critics liked the font used during the credits. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 16:15, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
I understand that. I even stated in my first post above about this that, "Some would even classify [the score] as "generally negative." But do regard the other factors I stated about leaving it as "mixed to negative." Like I stated, this is not quite the same case as Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen. Anyway, consensus here seems to be for leaving it as "generally negative." I'm not going to revert or contest any of you changing it to that. I do ask that you leave a hidden note about this discussion having taken place on the talk page for others to see, even if small. Flyer22 (talk)
Wait, Metacritic gives it a score of 42 based on 37 critics, which means "Mixed or average reviews." So should we factor this in and word it as "negative to mixed" instead? Unlike Revenge of the Fallen, which was panned by both sites, Dark of the Moon has more of a "mixed" component to it. Flyer22 (talk) 16:36, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
WE can mention Metacritic but its still a low score. Theyre a bit more generous than I would be but NEGATIVE on metacritic starts at 40, the score for this film is 42 so its still much more in the negative. Using Fast Five as an example, it had pretty decent reception in the 60%+ range but I still discussed the negative aspects such as acting, running time, cliches. Its the same here, that the metacritic score is in the low 40's indicates that teh reviews were generally geared towards the negative and negative is the most applicable description of the reception to this film by professional critics. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 16:42, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
Uh... can we just stay clear from the "mixed to" wording? It's either mixed, or mostly something, be it positive or negative. "mixed to [anything]" just doesn't make sense. --uKER (talk) 16:44, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
Darkwarriorblake, good point about Metacritic. UKER, I understand why "mixed to [anything]" bothers you, though it doesn't bother me and I feel it can even be an accurate description of things. But per this talk page, I will change the wording to "generally negative" and change the hidden note accordingly. In the meantime, be on the lookout for edits such as this one. Flyer22 (talk) 17:21, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Typing Error?

Roger Ebert gave the film three out of four stars, calling it "a visually ugly film with an incoherent plot, wooden characters and inane dialog. It provided me with one of the more pleasant experiences I've had at the movies." According to the source, it should be one out of four stars, and unpleasant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.135.139.197 (talk) 12:05, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

No, not a typing an error. Vandalism.[4] As the section I created above shows, some fanboys cannot accept that this film has gotten mostly negative reviews from film critics. It has been fixed now. Flyer22 (talk) 13:41, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Editing of the Critical Reception Area

Small parts of the critical reception area have been edited to downplay and misrepresent the elements of the negative reception. For example Roger Ebert gave the film a one star, not a three star, and Rotten Tomatoes records 38%, not 68%. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.8.88.118 (talk) 12:15, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

It was vandalism.[5] And has now been fixed. Flyer22 (talk) 13:41, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
I think it wasn't so much as fanboys nt being able to accept it got a bad review, but more of just people either honestly disagreeing with the reviews (As many critics seem to be incredibly biased themselves) or just reading an incorrect source. Calling them fanboys is a little unneeded, as it has got some positive reviews not noted on this site, and aparently, thr public reception has been positive (In fact, for most of it, only professional critics seam to really dislike it). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.22.183.117 (talk) 14:12, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Where's Metacritic?

I have added a Metacritic article by myself. Don't think I am a fanboy of the film. I haven't even seen it once yet. Metacritic assigns the film a mixed score. Although, 42 is pretty close to the number 39 (which is where Metacritic's "negative" starts). I don't know why this hasn't been added yet, but I just decided to.

See above, in the main section: #Reception: "Generally mixed to negative," not "generally mixed". Flyer22 (talk) 18:49, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

What does Dark of the Moon mean?

Is it the same as Dark Moon? I am trying to get the meaning of the title to translate it properly into other language on Wikipedia Transforers 3 project.

Dark of the Moon probably means the far side of the moon, although it could have an entirely different meaning (unlikely, but eg maybe a black-ish moon-sized transformer?). It's probably safe to translate it as far side of the moon, but that may be incorrect. Once the movie is released, we'll know for sure. UNIT A4B1 (talk) 19:14, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
The dark side of the moon and the far side of the moon are not the same at all given that the dark side of the moon is never constant. For us on Earth we never see the far side of the moon since it never faces us, but as the moon orbits the Earth every 27.322 days, different sides of the moon are lit and dark. For example, when it's a full moon the lit side of the moon is the side we see facing Earth, but when it's a new moon, the far side of the moon that we never see is the lit side. So with that said, the dark side of the moon is NOT always the same as the far side except during the new moon period. You are correct in the fact that we won't know what "Dark of the Moon" means until it's official stated or the movie comes out, but it doesn't make sense to say it specifically means the far side of the moon. Chadwpalm (talk) 02:28, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
Dark side of the moon/ far side of the moon ARE interchangeable, DARK doesn't refer to it's literal amount of light but the fact that it's hidden to us. Dark being used to mean secret, stemming from the historical trope of light meaning known, understood and dark meaning hidden or obscured from our knowledge. 66.214.218.24 (talk) 20:01, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

IF YOU ASK ME "NEW MOON" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 113.210.96.3 (talk) 13:17, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 38.110.28.146, 31 August 2011

Blackout was in the movie too (Autobot prisoners scene.)

38.110.28.146 (talk) 18:49, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. — Bility (talk) 00:06, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 98.151.176.195, 3 September 2011

you should include Que dying in the plot it is important.

98.151.176.195 (talk) 22:28, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

No it isn't. Wheeljack is a minor character with hardly any screen time. He isn't worth mentioning in the plot. Fanaction2031 (talk) 22:31, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Nintendoboy3, 2 October 2011

Please edit " It is the highest-grossing filmof the franchise." to " It is the highest-grossing film of the franchise." because the words are not separated.

It is under the "Box Office" section.

Nintendoboy3 (talk) 05:40, 2 October 2011 (UTC) It appears to have been fixed now. --Jnorton7558 (talk) 01:17, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Dark side of the moon flub: When the autobots go to the moon they land near the point the Apollo mission did. In fact, the COMPLETE lunar lander is shown in the background, signifying that the astronauts never ever left the moon, as that lander was their ride home. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.64.21.64 (talk) 14:51, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Star Trek trivia

Good references, but there was at least one more. Bumblebee talking to Sam, quoting Spock in STII: The Wrath of Khan, "I have been, and ever shall be, your friend." Nimoy's voice from the movie was used for at least the last 2 words. Someone with the DVD could check the exact location in the movie where it occurred - I just remember laughing when I heard it. I want to say there were more ST references, but one viewing of this movie was enough for me. Cynsayshi (talk) 19:51, 8 October 2011 (UTC)Cynsayshi

Edit request from , 14 October 2011

{{edit semi-protected}} released. The Walmart exclusive version does NOT contain any additional footage even though the walmart.com website has the movie length advertised as 157 minutes instead Under the "home media" section of this article, it states that an exclusive version containing 3 extra minutes was of 154 minutes. Please remove the false statement and corresponding reference link.

I purchased the Blu-ray/DVD/Digital copy combo at Target and the exclusive Blu-ray disc from walmart.com specifically for the extra 3 minutes - the "exclusive" version is the exact same as the 154 minute version.

Sjleake (talk) 19:01, 14 October 2011 (UTC) sjleake

I removed , with an additional three minutes of footage - leaving the apparent fact that the Walmart exclusive edition of Transformers: Dark of the Moon also was released on September 30. I suppose the running time they quote might not represent anything extra; however, beware original research, and please ensure requests have reliable sources, thanks.  Chzz  ►  06:33, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Box office questions.

This is my first attempt to use this & hopefully I will not make a mess of it. I am curious about who updates the Box Office takings though & in the case of Transformers, Dark of the Moon, am wondering why it has not been updated since October 13th, especially in light of the fact that the other 2 currently-in-release 2011 titles, Lion King & Harry Potter & the Deathly Hallows Part 2, are being updated every few days. All three films are still shown as currently in theatre release, yet for some reason, the box office for Transformers: Dark of the Moon has not been updated for 2 weeks. Can anyone tell me why? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.166.225.247 (talk) 10:33, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Change and Suggestion some text

I would prefer some more details that would describe what happened in the movie and if you think Sentinel Prime is now the film's main antagonist just because he was on the moon and turned himself into a disgraceful threat and by betraying the autobots and causing the main conflict, then I strongly suggest that we refer to him as Nemisis Prime when he was working with the decepticons and purposely against Optimus until he was defeated by Megatron.Mark (talk) 23:52, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

No. This is original research, point-of-view, and speculation. The character is referred to in the film and other media specifically as Sentinel Prime. --Boycool (talk) 00:20, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Title box

The box containing the information at the top right of the screen has been removed, and should be put back. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DETHREAPER (talk • contribs) 11:12, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Sequal?

I have been constantly hearing rumours of a sequal based on the Beast Wars. I think that this should be investigated and/or mentioned. Jdaniels15 (talk) 18:33, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Movie ignored prior discover of Megatron in the 1800s?

So in Transformers 1 Sam's relative discovered Megatron in the 1800s and in the 1930s Megatron's body was moved, by the US Government to Hoover Dam. How is in in Transformers 3 the US Government treats the Moon crash landing as if it were the 1st case of alien contact? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.126.255.175 (talk) 15:29, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Reception Section

I did a minor rewrite of the "Critical reception" section, improving the phrasing and grammar, and making various other fixes. One thing I noticed though, is that the review by Roger Ebert doesn't actually contain the quote attributed to him. Rotten Tomatoes attributes the quote to him, and a brief Google search reveals several other websites that attribute the quote to him, but for whatever reason, the actual review (at least the version of the review that has been uploaded to Ebert's official site) doesn't have it.

I see that this article has been an FA candidate a couple of times, and if anyone still has aspirations of achieving this for the article, I would suggest paraphrasing a lot of the quotes in the Reception section. It would also be a good idea to explain why several critics felt that the film was a slight improvement over Revenge of the Fallen and why they felt that it was still inferior to the first film in the series. --Jpcase (talk) 05:06, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Transformers: Dark of the Moon. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 04:16, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Lead Too Long

The lead is significantly too long. Yes, guidelines say that the lead should be 3-4 paragraphs for a page of this length, but there isn't that much essential content. For example, we don't need to list all the potential upcoming sequels, just the one that immediately followed and a note about the franchise as a whole. Smith(talk) 16:03, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

This article needs protection

Not done: Requests for page protection are made here - Mlpearc (open channel) 20:43, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Returning Transformers

I would like to know why exactly editors keep deleting my edit on the returning Transformers. Why is it such a bad thing to add? I'm confused. Spider-Man2017 (talk) 09:19, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Speaking for myself, because you were Bold, were Reverted but then, instead of coming here to Discuss, you kept adding (see WP:BRD). The lack of edit summaries didn't help either.
Looking at the current Lead, which is plenty big enough (although I couldn't see anything that I'd cut), I personally don't think the information is required. The Lead is a summary, and anyone reading Autobots and Decepticons will likely already have enough of an idea of which characters are in it. There's then a whole section on it under Cast. Works for me, but I've not spent much time on this article, so others' opinions will carry more weight. Bromley86 (talk) 09:34, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Well, I'm sorry. I probably should've come here to discuss this more. I just think that this is necessary since the "Revenge of the Fallen" and "Age of Extinction" pages. Plus, I think it's important for people to know who came back and who didn't. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kaw0512 (talk • contribs) 07:19, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

It's not important.Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 00:46, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

May I please edit the page and add the returning Transformers from the previous film on here? I'm sorry I didn't come here to discuss this first. I understand that there are rules here and I promise to follow them. Spider-Man2017 (talk) 13:56, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 11 external links on Transformers: Dark of the Moon. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:09, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Transformers:_Dark_of_the_Moon/Archive_3&oldid=1027482508"