Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Transformers/Archive 7

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 1 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7

Contents

Reliable anime sources page

I noticed that the Anime project has a nice page of online anime sources for their articles. Since many Transformers shows (particularly the Japanese ones) would be considered Anime, I'd like to mine these sources for citations that may be useful in improving articles on shows like Beast Wars Neo, Masterforce, etc. Anyone else want to help? Mathewignash (talk) 18:34, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Please help!

I started a draft for a list of Autobots in the G1 cartoon at User:NotARealWord/List of Autobots in The Transformers. It's very lacking in content. Please help me with writing that page. Please also see the talk page. NotARealWord (talk) 19:11, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

I think there should also be faction-specific character lists for the original Marvel comics, (as in one list for Autobots and one list for Decepticons), considering:

This is a list of characters in Marvel's Transformers comics. For the time being, this list deliberately excludes the Transformers themselves, as there are far too many to list.

I think there are more character lists we need, but I'm not quite sure how many. Can somebody please give me a list of all the character lists like I previously requested? NotARealWord (talk) 19:31, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Seriously though, it would be nice if somebody helped geting these things underway. Some characters deserve more coverage than List of Decepticons and the like would give them, but can't get it all due to lacking character lists. NotARealWord (talk) 18:36, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
How are you organizing them? Is this by media they appeared? For instance Transformers in one particular show or comic? I never liked the existing lists because they seem to be a weird mix of all the shows, toy, etc. Not really organized. I'm sure they could be better, but perhaps your method of writing new lists would be easier. Mathewignash (talk) 18:40, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
We need at least two lists for every major continuity. Animated character list is split into "robots" and "organics". Perhaps other lists should be split into "Autobots", "Decepticons" and "Other". I think we're definitely missing character lists for the Marvel comics universe and the live-action film universe. The original cartoon has a list at List of The Transformers characters, but its sections on Autobots and Decepticons don't look very good. If those sections were edited and expanded properly, they'd warrant their own pages. I'd also like ideas for the Bayformers universe. Should we separate the characters who have appeared in films from those who are only in spin-off media? Or should we just have "List of Autobots in the universe of the live-action Transformers films" and so forth, keeping the characters together regardless of whether they're in the movie or just supplemental materials set in the same universe? NotARealWord (talk) 18:46, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
So would you consider shows like Masterforce, Zone, Headmasters, Beast Wars Second and Beast Wars Neo for seperate pages from the US series? Would Marvel, Dreamwave and IDW get seperate pages, or just one all-inclusive comic page?Mathewignash (talk) 19:37, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
The different continuities should get separate pages. This means IDW separate from Marvel, and so on and so forth. The same character has different adventures in the different universes. Plus, they sometimes have different personalities. I think the Japanese shows already have their own character lists. I don't think Zone needs though, since it was only one episode. But yeah, major continuities each should get more than one list, considering that there are a lot of characters to cover. Perhaps split by series (like the Unicron Trilogy lists) or split by faction (like my article draft). This is a lot of work to do, if anybody wants to, they can try ask for help from the Transformers fandom over here. NotARealWord (talk) 00:37, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree with the use of series centric lists. Still, I don't feel keen on the idea of the faction centric lists on the count that there are multiple characters with the same name, and there nothing of any value beyond who's associated with what. The idea behind these list is to give short summaries on who and what individual characters are. Sarujo (talk) 17:49, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm suggesting lists based on both series and faction. I don't think multiple lists are disallowed. Kamen Rider Decade has three separate character lists (although based on which set of universes the characters inhabit). Even though itwas only 31 episodes and a few films. I don't see anything wrong with my suggestion. This way, characters can still get covered without giving them terrible articles. NotARealWord (talk) 17:57, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Anyway, is anybody else gonna work on this? I'm sure this kind of article would have a better chance surviving through AfD. NotARealWord (talk) 07:39, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Articles nominated for deletion

This is a list of Transformers articles been nominated.

Street Action Team,Transformers: Timelines,Ejector (Transformers),Dai Atlas,Treadbolt,Hive (Transformers),List of Transformers terms (Generation One),Transformers: Timelines Dwanyewest (talk) 20:57, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Interestingly...

The Deletion of Transformers: Timelines has been noticed by one of the Fun Publications people. NotARealWord (talk) 21:01, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, Pete was particularly shocked by how little the you were aware of the subject you worked to hard to get deleted. Sad. He also went on the cite sources about how highly ranked the Timelines comic was in 2010 by Diamond Distributors. Mathewignash (talk) 21:25, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
Well, the only thing I got wrong was the availability of the annual comics. Every thing else seems to be correct. NotARealWord (talk) 21:30, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
And since the question here is whether Timelines is notable, doesn't it seem to make a BIG difference that it's a lot wider spread than you figured when you voted to delete it, and then argued about 40 or 50 times that it should be deleted any time anyone said otherwise? It was a among the top 25 small publisher comics in it's last issue. That's sorta important when you seemed to think it was only a comic sold to a few hundred fans at a convention once a year. Mathewignash (talk) 21:41, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
Ahem,

Given how small "small publishers" tend to be, being in the top 25 doesn't necessarily mean anyone other than "a few hardcore Transformers fans are buying it. I strongly dispute this assertion, let alone its relevance.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by NotARealWord (talkcontribs) 22:20, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Checking the list of those 25 top selling small publisher comics in November 2010, I see many of them with Wikipedia atticles, including the several lower on the list then Timelines. Mathewignash (talk) 19:49, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
You of all people should know "other stuff exists" is not a very worthwhile argument. NotARealWord (talk) 20:43, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
Why do you keep telling people "look, the guy from Fun Publications noticed me!" It's like a small child wanting attention. Mathewignash (talk) 20:54, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
Mathew, this kind of personal attack ("you care little about the truth") does not in any way help you, or in any way aid in developing Transformers-related articles. I suggest you delete it. --EEMIV (talk) 20:59, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
I'm trying to see why bragging that his successful deletion got noticed by the company who makes the product is relivant to anything boosting besides NotARealWord's ego. "Everybody look! I pissed off a company! I'm so cool!" I've lost respect for the man as anything but a grandstander. What self-respecting editor posts a victory link about his deletion campaign being noticed by a company?Mathewignash (talk) 22:15, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
Man, you guys are acting like a bunch of douche-bags. You all should just chill the fuck out. Anoton (talk) 06:02, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Mignash,

  • I don't think I actually "pissed of a company", Pete does mention that this isn't really important. PLus, I described that he "noticed", not that he "actually cares about what goes on here". I didn't mean to sound braggy, I just put a link.
  • I already told you, I don't have any "campaign".
  • Wouldn't people here deserve to know that people are discussing stuff going on with this project. The thread's now mostly about WP's notability rule than what I did, by the way.
  • When did you ever have respect for me?

— Preceding unsigned comment added by NotARealWord (talkcontribs) 07:18, 9 January 2011

Do y'all know about this

There is Wikipedia:Notability/Noticeboard, so perhaps issues may be raised there instead of AfD. At least for things that do have a good merge target. NotARealWord (talk) 19:40, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Unmerged content

Since many inclusionists wanted these articles saved I should be like to make everyone aware these articles are still unmerged.Heroes of Cybertron,Transformers: Dinobots, Doctor Arkeville,Lightning Strike Coalition,R.E.V. (Transformers)

Although these articles were never nominated for AFD there are still unmerged Powerlink,Cyber Planet Key. Dwanyewest (talk) 07:50, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Take this issue to the Notability board. Nothing really gets done around here. NotARealWord (talk) 07:56, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
Perhaps the person who nominated the articles should get to merging the articles instead of expecting others to do the work for them? If it's too much work for you don't make the nominations. I see I voted for merge on the Lightning Strike Coalition and REV, so I'll merge those today. I did Transformers: Dinobots, since it was practically already merged anyways. I see the Doctor Arkeville and Cyber Planet Key articles were nominated/suggested by sock puppets, oh well, and I didn't support them, so someone else will have to work on them if they want now. Mathewignash (talk) 13:08, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Bit of input

After forgetting about it for a while, I finally got around to trimming the product list-y content at Star Wars Transformers and replaced it with a nascent Critical reaction section (plus some other small edits). The edit was reverted, and I'd appreciate some more of the eyeballs in this wikiproject to take a gander both at the article and on my most-recent talk-page explanation of why I made the edits. (Useful, too, to look at earlier talk-page comments, including input from WP:TO.) It's a low-traffic, low-priority, low-anyone-cares subject, so just a handful of two or three editors going back and forth doesn't accomplish much. Thank you. --EEMIV (talk) 21:32, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

I'd like outside input too. EEMIV and have have very different styles of writing, and some more voices might help. Mathewignash (talk) 21:35, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

A thought occurred

With what little editor are involved in this project and working on the articles, any assessment of the articles will more than likely be a conflict of interest. As the guidelines states that an assessment must be made by an editor with the work project that is uninvolved with the article. Sarujo (talk) 10:56, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

What the fuck are you talking about? Could you please phrase that a bit more clearly? Pillhead Maddox (talk) 17:23, 15 January 2011 (UTC).
He's saying that because article ratings (start, C, B, etc.) are supposed to be done by folks who can offer an unbiased assessment, and because there are few editors looking at Transformers-related articles, it may be hard to find someone who can unbiasedly make article assessments. I happen to disagree that there's any sort of problem. --EEMIV (talk) 17:46, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
Yeah well right, in a few months there won't be any transformers articles left on Wikipedia to be assessed. Pillhead Maddox (talk) 22:38, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
And you know this how? Sarujo (talk) 10:00, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
Probably because he seems to be one of the sock puppets who votes for deletion. Mathewignash (talk) 22:25, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
I had my suspicions about them too. Do they honestly believe that they will win this little crusade of their's? Sarujo (talk) 00:12, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Articles nominated for deletion

Treadbolt, Siren (Transformers), Squeezeplay (Transformers) Dwanyewest (talk) 07:00, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Knock Out (Transformers), Rapid Run Dwanyewest (talk) 07:20, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

GAN nomination of Transformers: War for Cybertron

Just as a heads up, I've nominated Transformers: War for Cybertron as a Good Article for WikiProject Video games. Since it falls under your WikiProject as well I thought I'd pass it along. --Teancum (talk) 13:40, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

  • It just passed as a Good Article. --Teancum (talk) 20:51, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
My only gripe is with the use of Tformers, as it was classified as borderline. It was my understanding that you couldn't get GA of FA with borderline sources. It was one of the main reasons why the Dragon Ball game articles haven't made it as such. Sarujo (talk) 08:19, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

List of Transformers books

I thought I'd bring this to everyone's attention, in case everybody forgot it. It appears to me that a Brit wrote this article, on the account most of the books covered are from the Ladybird series, which is a British publication. Sarujo (talk) 01:49, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

It was originally started by User:Mathewignash, but I don't know if he's British or not. But I'm not British myself, and I have only heard of the British Ladybird books. Is it possible that few other Transformers books actually exist? Oh, and it looks like the article Kid Stuff is about an entirely unrelated sci-fi story. JIP | Talk 20:14, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
I am not british, but I did collect all the Ladybird stories and have most of the cassettes. A lot of British stories were written. I sure if someone wanted to add all the US made Unicron Trilogy stories to the page they could, but no one has yet. Mathewignash (talk) 20:46, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
Actually it's Kid Stuff Records, and they had quite a few read-alongs for the Transformers. Attack of the Decepticons (no book), Satellite of Doom, When Continents Collide, Storms of Destruction, Jaws of Terror, and Slaves of the Insecticons.
Then there's the Marvel's Big Looker which featured illustrations by Earl Norem, except for one. Battle for Cybertron, The Great Car Rally, Decepticon Hijack, Insecticon Attack!, Car Show Blow Up, The Story of Wheelie, the Wild Boy of Quintesson and The Story of Wheelie, the Wild Boy of Quintesson. Battle for Cybertron and The Great Car Rally were republished as Kid Stuff read-alongs.
Then the Marvel coloring books, The Deadly Fuel Shortage, Bumblebee to the Rescue!, Decepticon Patrol, Search for Treasure Under the Sea, Summertime Coloring Book, Forest Rescue Mission, The Autobot Smasher!, Bumblebee's Dangerous Mission, A Message From Outer Space, The Big Book of Coloring Fun, The Autobot Spy in the Sky, Super-Size Coloring Activity Book, Battle at Oil Valley, The Lost Treasure of Cybertron, Hot Rod's Escape, and The Invasion of the Decepticon Camp. Two G2 coloring books called, Autobots' Advantage and Dinobots vs Constructicons.
The Marvel hard bound books which were only Battle for Earth and The Autobots' Secret Weapon.
Then the Marvel sticker books, Return to Cybertron, Revenge of the Decepticons, Battle on the Junk Planet, and Galvatron Attacks.
Young Corgi Adventure Adventure Game by Corgi Books (now Transworld Publishers Inc.) which is another Find Your Fate collection, Dinobot War, Peril from the Stars, Island of Fear, Highway Clash, Swamp of the Scorpion, and Desert of Danger. There is also the book by Corgi called Battle Beneath the Ice.
There are at least two books by St. Michael (or Purnell Books) called The Deadly Paradise and The Transformers Sticker Book. Sarujo (talk) 22:35, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Scorponok

The article Scorponok is now over 46 kilobytes long. It currently contains information about all four incarnations of Scorponok - the original G1 character, the Beast Wars character, the Energon character and the film continuity character. In my opinion, all of these are notable enough to be mentioned. But is the article getting too long for all of them to be included on the same page? If so, then I think that at least the G1 and BW characters should be moved to their own articles. The G1 Scorponok didn't have much of a role in the TV show, but had a very significant role in the comics. The BW Scorponok had a major role in the TV show throughout its first season. JIP | Talk 19:20, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

I think the TV series of Energon, Beast Wars and the 1984 Sunbow series need pages that have more detail about each episode, like we have for the Prime series here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Transformers:_Prime_episodes Once we have that we can start to trim the majority of plot out of individual character pages, drastically reducing their size. Mathewignash (talk) 10:38, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
We do have a separate article about episodes in the original G1 cartoon: List of The Transformers episodes. We used to have separate articles about notable individual episodes, but now we only have one: The Return of Optimus Prime. I think we do have separate articles about every individual Star Trek episode ever, but then Star Trek is way more notable than Transformers. JIP | Talk 19:51, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
Good start, but looking at the Scorponok article, I see that the ENERGON portion of the page seems to be the longest. Maybe we need something for Energon? Mathewignash (talk) 21:59, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

New AfD

List of Decepticons. NotARealWord (talk) 17:52, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Assess your character articles

You guys need to assess all your character articles and for each one:

A. Find they have real world content, and have reliable sources covering them, so they can keep their article.
B. Find they don't have real world content or reliable sources, but are important characters, so merge them to a group list.
C. Find they don't have real world content or reliable sources, and are minor characters, so redirect them to wherever they are most relevant.

Many of these characters aren't notable, and as you can see by this talk page, get sent to Articles for Deletion. Instead of all this being deleted, save the history and redirect them now. Blake (Talk·Edits) 21:02, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

I couldn't agree more. Sarujo (talk) 00:10, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
Does it make sense to redirect them all now, when the article many of them are being redirected to (List of Decepticons) is up for deletion? Mathewignash (talk) 00:17, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
Sure it does. We still have the series centric lists. Each incarnation can get some kind of proper coverage in those pages. Sarujo (talk) 04:55, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
Well, we don't have enough series-centric lists. "List of The Transformers characters" really needs splitting, and there should be lists covering the live-action film universe. As in, not just the Michael bay films, but every other media in the Bayformers universe (Reign of Starscream, the Sector Seven comic, and so on and so forth.). NotARealWord (talk) 08:25, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

User:DustFormsWords/Systemic bias against Transformers

Thought y'all might get a kick out of this. - DustFormsWords (talk) 04:43, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

G1 section of the Transformers article

The G1 section of the Transformers article is, in total, over twice as long as the supposed "main" article. Even the subsection dealing only with the original G1 and none of the sequels is, by itself, as long as the "main" article. JIP | Talk 15:44, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Stub type

Greetings! A stub template or category which you created has been nominated for renaming or deletion at Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion. The stub type most likely doesn't meet Wikipedia requirements for a stub type, through failure to meet standards relating to the name, scope, current stub hierarchy or likely size, as explained at Wikipedia:Stub. Please feel free to make any comments at WP:SFD regarding this stub type, and in future, please consider proposing new stub types first at Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Proposals! This message is boilerplate, left here as a courtesy, and should not be considered personal in nature.

See discussion for Category:Transformers stubs Dawynn (talk) 15:20, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Merged articles

Cyber Planet Key has been merged into the Transformers: Cybertron article. As suggested some time ago. NotARealWord (talk) 03:40, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Transformers: Masterpiece

Something's got to be done about this article. It relies on fansites for sources and I just removed the word camper from the Rodimus section. The space Winnebago thing is esoteric to Transformer fans. Sarujo (talk) 23:30, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Unlicensed third-party items.

After discussing this with expert Wikipedians on the Wikipedia IRC channel, it would appear that these Fansproject/iGear/whatever unlicensed third-party pieces would have to be removed under WP:NOT and WP:IRS. MathewIgnash obviously disagrees, but this does seem to be a no-brainer. Deadpool fan comics aren't covered by his article, and really fan anything, be it art, fiction or custom toys, don't get covered anywhere else, so... Why should it be here? --Hiryu84 (talk) 00:36, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

I would suggest that Hasbro doesn't control Wikipedia, so who manufactured a toy doesn't matter. I will agree however that notability should be considered. I think there CAN be mention of a legitimate companies' homage to a fictional character if you can provide a source for that information. Perhaps just a one line mention after the "official" toys, and only if cited. Mathewignash (talk) 01:56, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
Third-party unlicensed content are the toy world's equivalent of video game mods -- they're vanity and superfluous. Unless one of these products has received third-party commentary (i.e. not just listed on some web site), it's vanity cruft and doesn't belong here. --EEMIV (talk) 02:02, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
At best I'd support a brief mention of upgrade kits in the relevant toy's paragraph. --Hiryu84 (talk) 02:07, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
I could agree with adding the info to the line about the REAL toy (mention City Commander as one sentence after Classic Magnus). As for the full toys (like say Warbot Defender as a Springer homage), this isn't TFwiki, we are not an advocate for Hasbro, not limited in any way. If another company makes a "homage" toy for a fictional character, and we have a CITATION, not only is it legitimate to mention it, it's actually proof of Springer's notability outside Hasbro's Transformers line, that other companies are making homages to him. When Optimus Prime gets mentioned on a TV show it's proof of his notability. When Springer inspires Warbot Defender, it's proof of his notability too. Mathewignash (talk) 02:16, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
Except his existence, presence in the classic film, etc. are already proof enough of his notability. In fact, his notability is the cause of his bootleg toy, not its effect. It doesn't matter if this is TFWiki or not, fact remains expensive unlicensed third-party (aka bootleg) toys are not notable, and if they were, why doesn't Sky Garry get his own page with each of his ninety million bootleg toys listed? --Hiryu84 (talk) 03:09, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
Why did Mignash call them "Legitimate" companies? Is he law literate enough to know that they won't lose if Hasbro decided to sue? NotARealWord (talk) 07:54, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

(Edit Conflict)I would have to agree. What is making companies like FansProject or iGear stand out? They or their products haven't been in the news for even the likes of infringement and the such. So there not really worth mentioning. Then you have the fact that any such a mention is a blatant advertisement. Sarujo (talk) 02:18, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Most of these aren't actually verifiable as TF characters. Fansproject doesn't admit that Warbot defender is Springer, and so on and so forth. Plus, there's WP:UNDUE, as in "an article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject", as the page says. Bootleg toys, Perfect Effect, whatever don't get as much coverage as actual TFs as far as I can tell. Those "third-party products" (really just a fancy name for intellectual property infringement) are made in much smaller numbers, so they're less well-known. However, verifiability/no original research is the main reason against including them, since the only proof they have anything to do with TFs isn't stated out specifically by reliable sources. One may easily conclude that PE Shadow Warrior is Rumble/Frenzy, but drawing conclusions by comparing two things is not right here. I'd support removing them. If anybody tries to remove them, but keeps gettin' reverted is welcome to report that problem here. NotARealWord (talk) 07:17, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
The word "bootleg" is a biased word. There is no actual bootlegging unless it has a stolen mold (like KOtoys KOLD toys ARE bootlegs). It's an original mold, an original design, from a legitimate company. As for likening Warbot to Springer, that would be up to a reviewer. If we did mention Defender on the Springer page, it would require a citation from some reliable source where he MENTIONS that it's Springer inspired. Could that be aagreed on? The current way most are written, they would be removed, but if there is a reliable source calling the toy what it is, then it's legitimate. I think there is presidence for this... If a film reviewer mentions that the Transmorphers movie is a a mockbuster of the Transformers movie, we can mention that on Wikipedia, right? Mathewignash (talk) 10:33, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
No, a bootleg does not necessarily have to be an original mold. This toy is not made from any existing Superman toy parts but it's still a bootleg Superman toy, since it's not a fully licensed toy. Likewise, bootleg companies are every bit as much legitimate companies as Hasbro is, they're just a lot smaller and based in China most of the time (just like Fansproject, iGear and co., imagine that). Happy Well] is a perfectly legitimate toy company whose toys you can purchase at Big Lots, and for a time even at Wal-Mart, but they still bootleg Transformers and Brave Toys under their "Galaxy Defender" banner. And lastly, Transmorphers is a ridiculous argument, since it's only listed on its own page, because it's a legitimate film that doesn't infringe on any Hasbro-owned properties beyond pulling a pun on the name and featuring robots, just like the rest of Asylum's films. --Hiryu84 (talk) 12:44, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
Mignash, if you're arguing that Warbot defender does not infringe on hasbro copyright of Springer (and so on and so forth) wouldn't that mean that it simply is not Springer. Also, since they're a less significant aspect of a character then the official toys, then they are to be removed without question, without reliable sources. Do not leave them in hoping somebody will find a source. NotARealWord (talk) 12:48, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Work to remove this stuff

I've removed unofficial toy info from Rumble and Springer (also removed original research from the latter). If anybody is interested in getting rid of this stuff, please check that it doesn't get added back, and report here if somebody's stopping you from removing this kind of info. NotARealWord (talk) 12:57, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Why remove it if it's clearly marked as unofficial and third-party, though? We're not a Hasbro/Takara affiliated site, we don't need to pretend that other releases don't exist. We mention bootleg records and the like, so it's not a foreign concept. GRAPPLE X 13:28, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
Why remove it? Three reasons. 1) WP:NOT. 2) WP:IRS. 3) WP:UNDUE. Besides, aren't bootleg recordings only mentionned when the performance by the musician is not available otherwise. And while the recording is not authorized... it's still the person's work. This, on the other hand, is unauthorized and the owners had no hand whatsoever in it. It's not even a question of "pretending it doesn't exist", it's a question of notability. Bootleg toys just aren't notable, regardless of the price tag on them. --Hiryu84 (talk) 13:56, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not a fanboy's magazine. Puttin' up more obscure merchandise along with the more well-know stuff as if they fit in together is like going "oooh! My niche! I get to popularize my niche! My niche my niche mynichemynichemyniche!!!", or something. More importantly, there's also the how the third-party guys don't actually admit that they're toys are directly based on Transformers characters. If it's not explicitly said out somewhere (that counts as WP:RS), we can't put it in the encyclopedia. NotARealWord (talk) 16:43, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Maybe this is also relevant:

But the legal stuff might influence how we present the information. From the Transformers (toyline) article: "The Transformers (トランスフォーマー, Toransufomā) is a line of toys produced by the American toy company Hasbro. The Transformers toyline was originally created and produced by Japanese company Takara Tomy (Formerly Takara) and branded as Diaclone and Microman." Following the definition there it would be inappropriate to mix these fan made toys with the Hasbro/TakaraTomy made toys, because they are BY DEFINITION not part of the toyline. I have seen such things mixed in with Hasbro/TakaraTomy toys on Wikipedia pages before, thereby misleading the reader that these are the same sort of thing as the toys they might find at their local WalMart.
Khajidha, old discussion on this very page

NotARealWord (talk) 17:39, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Others have made the point before, but there is no sign that these are the character in question. There is no way to verify that Warbot Defender is Springer, so how can it be put on Springer's page. The notability and even the legality are interesting points but not relevant to the point. They aren't notable on their own (no blockbuster movies for them) and they are intellectual property infringement (see Wonder Man (Fox Publications) for a similar case). --Khajidha (talk) 17:51, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
I removed unofficial toy info from the Arcee article. (Along with info about the cancelled Titanium Arcee since "people saw this at BotCon" cannot actually be used as a citation.) NotARealWord (talk) 04:48, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
Should I post notices on the article talk pages as well? There's surely gonna be somebody asking about this, and edit summaries will get buried in the page history after a while. NotARealWord (talk) 10:15, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Right actions for the wrong best reasons

I've seen a few comments here along the lines of "these third-party toys aren't notable and don't belong in articles." However, notability is a criterion only for a subject to have its own article; "notability" is not a criterion for reference/mention in an article. "It's a copyright violation" is also not a compelling reason not to include content -- plenty of copyright violations are themselves subjects of their own articles because of e.g. the media coverage they've received.

What is significant for this kind of reference are things like WP:TRIVIA -- see the various discussions about trivia sections for e.g. TV shows and movies, and you'll see that passing references and homages in other works of art rarely warrant inclusion. Or see WP:NOTDIR/WP:IINFO: Just because some exists, that doesn't mean we simply add it to an ever-increasing list; verifiability is necessary but not sufficient for information to warrant inclusion.

The threshold for inclusion of third-party homage (or knockoff) material for the video game wikiproject, for many TV- and movie-related articles, and with many novels is whether the third-party reference has itself received independent coverage and commentary -- not just inclusion on a product list, but actual discussion and input from meaningful sources. There's been some disagreement on this wikiproject about whether certain self-published "expert" sites qualify as WP:RS, so perhaps that's a confounding issue.

Anyhow, I get the impression that most of the editors active here agree at third-party knockoffs/homages warrant extremely limited, if any, coverage. However, in explaining why, let's try to be mindful of the most compelling reasons grounded in policy and guidelines. --EEMIV (talk) 15:36, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

I can't remember where it is listed, maybe someone will point it out, but any mention of the lesser product is a blatant advertisement, and advertisements are a violation. It would be like stating "hey ya'll, there this x toy made in the image of x so you better hurry and get cause I don't know how many more are left". Sarujo (talk) 15:59, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
My "most compelling reason" is that their manufacturers don't claim them to be Transformers. Thus, no verifiability. There are other reasons as stated by other people. (In case anybody doesn't know, this subject of non-official fan-toys has been discussed previously, but it seems that the current discussion provides better reasons for removing these things than the previous, or at least presets the reasons more clearly.) NotARealWord (talk) 16:58, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

My opinion on this is that mentioning these third-party items, homages or knockoffs or whatever, is not inherently wrong simply because they are not official. This is not the Hasbro Official Transformers WikiTM nor is it TFWiki or the Transformers Wikia. Hasbro has no authority over Wikipedia, it's a general-purpose encyclopedia. However, Wikipedia has its own notability criteria, and these third-party items are subject to them just like everything else. Some fan-made kitbash only known to the fan community is pretty obviously non-notable. Homage toys made by third-party companies that are openly sold by retail on Internet stores are more notable, but might still not be notable enough. In any case, the bottom line is notability, not being the "right" or "wrong" toys. JIP | Talk 19:45, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

I completely disagree with the use of "notability" as the label for the criterion, for the reasons above. However, I completely agree that "authorized"/"legit" status, etc., are subjective and are not a reason for inclusion or exclusion. --EEMIV (talk) 20:45, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
I have to agree with the sentiment that it's wrong to exclude third party products from mention based on them not being "official", as there is nothing in Wikipedia that excludes their mention based on legalities. I would agree that most of these items do lack any sources, which would put their mention is question. However, if a case arrises that single legitimate reliably source review can be cited for them, they can be mentioned in the article with the source to back them up. I will keep my eyes open for any such reliable review. Until then the current third party products mentioned on Transformers pages may need to be tagged as needing a source at the very least. Mathewignash (talk) 21:16, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
Well, considering how you (yes, you specifically) seem to have had some trouble finding properly RS reviews of actual Transformers (considering this bit here), it's damn unlikely that anybody's gonna find good sources for these things. So, I'd just remove them, really. Even if somebody does find a source that says "Fansproject Munitioner is Swindle" or whatever, it's still not entirely certain that the thing deserves mentioning. WP:IINFO and whatnot. NotARealWord (talk) 04:43, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

I feel we will never come to an equitable agreement on this subject this topic has been brought before see [1][2][3][4] and the result of a stalemate due to vested interest parties wishing to maintain the status quo. Dwanyewest (talk) 02:36, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Um, those discussions (except the last one) were about how to format sections on official toys. We've come to an agreement on this topic. As in, unofficial/unliensed toys are to be removed for a lack of good sources. NotARealWord (talk) 13:54, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
I support this argument if the reason is for a lack of good sources. I am entirely opposed to the idea of removing mentions about unofficial/unlicensed toys solely because they are unofficial/unlicensed. JIP | Talk 22:03, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Maybe they should create a wiki/wika for documenting knockoff toys. That way there won't be any red tape to deal with in said documentation.

The Rabid Squirrel Production's toy A.R.C. could have met the criteria to be listed if reliable sources and their legalities was still posted on their website. If I'm not mistaken, they actually tried to strike a deal with Hasbro to mainstream it as an official Arcee toy, but Hasbro backed out at the last minute. They had for spell a scan of the application that the filled out posted on their site as proof. Sarujo (talk) 22:18, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Outstanding mergers

I just thought I Should bring to people's attention mergers.Tailgate (Transformers),Trainbots, Sparkabots,Optimus Prime (Unicron Trilogy),Doctor Arkeville Dwanyewest (talk) 02:15, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Why not do the merges yourself? If you have any specific problems with doing them yourself, you should tell us what they are. There seems to have been enough consensus for merges. Also, once the articles have been merged, please remember to place {{WikiProject Transformers|class=redirect}} to show that it's a redirect covered under this project and also use Template:Merged to. NotARealWord (talk) 16:57, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
    • I don't know how to merge and even if I did I am not having the likes User talk:Mathewignash moaning about "vital" information being ignored. Dwanyewest (talk) 02:58, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Many of these articles were nominated for deletion by sock puppets and/or then found to be merged by an admin who is currently under administrator review. I don't have any inclination to carry out the mergers, but if someone else wants to do it I won't stand in their way. Mathewignash (talk) 00:12, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Which admin are you referring to? NotARealWord (talk) 19:44, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
Dwanyewest, learning how to merge is easy - the procedure is set out at WP:MERGETEXT. --Malkinann (talk) 21:26, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Rodimus Prime's alt mode

Okay, at what point has it ever been verified that Rodimus Prime's vehicle mode is a Winnebago or for that matter - any recreational vehicle? As far as I can remember Rodimus Prime's vehicle mode has officially been listed as futuristic truck. The whole space Winnebago thing was suppose to be a fan joke. A bad fan joke, but a joke none the less.

The truth is that isn't anything that really makes a real connection to any real world other than the shape to the trailer/command bay which has a pronounced front end over the canopy/cab, but that is circumstantial. Matter of fact there other vehicles that go by this aesthetic, which only comes to mind panel trucks like the moving trucks that Ryder and U-Haul have or have had - I don't know if they are still operational.

My main complaint regarding this joke is that fans not in the know, can and will take it as the gospel and will insist that this bonafide fact - when it isn't. So unless you unless there is a reliable source that can verify that this is more that just an esoteric joke, then it need to be removed. In short this space Winnebago thing must die. Sarujo (talk) 03:03, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Now that I think of it, I can't remember ever seeing any place where it was specified it was an RV. I've always just assumed it was one, and apparently so have many other people. JIP | Talk 17:30, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure he was meant to be a futuristic tractor trailer. It just came off looking like a space Winnebago. Just like Kup is supposed to be a retro-futuristic pickup truck, but looks like a space El Camino. --Khajidha (talk) 17:36, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
El Camino, how does Kup resemble an El Camino? I see that as being futuristic parody of those old GMC and Plymouth trucks with the flat front end of yore - like this one.
The moving van, like this one, is more feasible to me seeing that theme of leader is having a truck mode. Optimus and Magnus had one, and since Hot Rod wasn't one, the matrix make him one. Keep in mind that I don't have any sources to verify any of these claims I'm making.
Still, if I was working at Hasbro right now I would go and create a transformer that transforms into a Winnebago, just to try and kill the joke. Sarujo (talk) 18:06, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
I agree, I have never thought of Kup looking anywhere near like an El Camino. I think he looks like an industrial truck for moving large machine parts. JIP | Talk 19:21, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
To me, Kup's slanted front end looked like it belonged on a fast sporty car while the rear was pure pickup. Thus, El Camino. But, even though I've heard others say it too, it's just my personal take on it. --Khajidha (talk) 23:12, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
I think our articles should follow the official description for this kind of stuff. Most TFs aren't officially described as any specific vehicle, so describing them as such here would e original research if all you did was compare the toy/character to real life vehicles. NotARealWord (talk) 15:50, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
I agree completely. Wikipedia shouldn't claim a Transformer's alternate mode is, or is similar to, a specific real-life vehicle unless the actual toy was specifically designed based on the vehicle, as was the case with most original G1 characters, but hasn't been so since the original movie characters. JIP | Talk 19:53, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
Actually, even if a Transformer was "specifically designed based on the vehicle", Wikipedia still can't describe it as said vehicle without sources. For example, Energon Starscream and Live-action Starscream were both designed based on the F-22 Raptor, but it's still original research to describe E Starscream as such since the words "F-22 Raptor" aren't used to describe him. Movie Starscream is, however, okay to describe as such since the 2007 film called him one and it's even pointed out on his toys' packaging that Hasbro made him a raptor under license from Lockheed. NotARealWord (talk) 20:04, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
Oh. Is it still acceptable to describe the original G1 Starscream as transforming into a McDonnell Douglas F-15 Eagle even though neither the original toy or the accompanying fiction ever included a specific statement that Starscream transforms into a McDonnell Douglas F-15 Eagle? JIP | Talk 20:07, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
Actually the original Starscream was called an F-15 in fiction see here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:F15s-transformers.jpg Also many Transformers guide books, toy price guides, and other sources say what the alt modes are. It's not original research, you can source those if you like. The original instructions for Rodimus Prime call him simply a "Futuristic Vehicle". http://www.cobraislandtoys.com/tf/1986/rodimusprimeinstructions.jpg Kup was called a "Pickup Truck" http://www.cobraislandtoys.com/tf/1986/kupinstructions.jpg Mathewignash (talk) 21:16, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
OK, but if it wasn't for that one single mention, would it have been entirely unacceptable for Wkipedia to claim Starscream transforms into an F-15 Eagle? Would it have been required for the original instructions to say "Set includes [...] "Starscream" F-15 Eagle jet"? JIP | Talk 21:26, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
Starscream's instructions call him a "Plane", but all the original Diaclone toys were based on known real world vehicles, all are well documented in Transformers guidebooks. I would agree that it's original research to guess what exact model vehicle a Transformer becomes based on the toy and your knowledge of cars and planes, but there are probably dozens of sources you could cite for most of the early toys. If you don't have a source for an exact model you could just say "Sports Car" or "Fighter Jet" safely. The fact is that most of the non-licensed Transformers (the ones that are not specifically made to look like a model of car), are purposely made to not be exact replicas so Hasbro doesn't get sued. That's why the Classic Bumblebee toy isn't any specific model coup, it's just a generic little car. ROTF Springer isn't a licensed V-22 Osprey, and if you notice they turn the tail fins upside down, so it's not accurate to an Osprey. Technically it's just a generic tiltrotor aircraft. Mathewignash (talk) 21:36, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
Does this mean, then, that because pretty much every original 1984/1985 G1 Transformers toy (before the original movie) was apparently designed after a real-life vehicle, we have to go through every single one of the articles and search for references specifically stating that the character was designed after the vehicle, and if we can't find one, remove any mentions of the real-life vehicle? JIP | Talk 21:41, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
(After edit conflict) I see that you mention "[A]ll the original Diaclone toys were based on known real world vehicles, all are well documented in Transformers guidebooks". So we only have to cite these guidebooks as sources. It is both a necessary and a sufficient criterion. JIP | Talk 21:44, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
If someone complains that it needs a source, they can add a tag that it needs one. You can probably open any old toy guide that mentions the alt mode and make up one citation that could be pasted into all the 84-85 cast alt modes. We have lots of cited Transformers jet alt modes at Aircraft in fictionMathewignash (talk) 21:45, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── When I added those pics I was debunking the common certainty of Rodimus and Kup's vehicles. I even stated that I had no sources to verify that they were. As far as I know, the only real way to know for certain is to ask Floro Dery what these vehicles are inspired or based upon. And I don't know if anybody really wants to talk to him anymore.

There's also the deal with Hot Rod's alt mode which was listed as a race car. Yet, I personally don't see anything significant that would suggest a race car. Unlike Smokescreen and Jazz who have racing numbers on their cars. I would stick with just sports car and panel truck, since, as far as I know, sports car and panel truck are generic terms.

Another thing is animated Rodimus, which was verified by designer Derik Wyatt. The problem here is that in the infobox it's listed word-for-word Wyatt's description. In a case like animated Rodimus, it's best that the infobox just list sports car instead of every single model that drew inspiration for this character. This isn't like RID and Alternators who had namebrands and logos placed all over toy and packaging. Sarujo (talk) 22:35, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Often times toy collector books will list alt modes in varying degrees of detail for Transformers. http://books.google.com/books?ei=8Zx-TZW1F4TorAHA4sSfCQ&ct=result&id=GXKFR1S1OJsC&dq=silverbolt Mathewignash (talk) 22:59, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
Funny thing about that talking to Dery thing. Last moth, somebody on the Allspark thought they were talking to the actual Floro Dery. But it turned out that it wasn't really him. NotARealWord (talk) 16:42, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
I am amazed that someone had the nerve to name his account after the name of an actual real-life living person. That flat-out strikes me as a violation of basic privacy rights. I wouldn't go around calling myself SimonFurman or MaunoKoivisto on any Internet forum even though I admire both of them. The only way I could ever name an Internet forum account after a real-life person would be that said person was so long-time dead that there was no way of confusing me with the real person, such as Napoleon I of France. JIP | Talk 19:45, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
Hmmm, reminds me of that guy that impersonated Rom Emanuel on Twitter. Sarujo (talk) 21:06, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
Well, seems that the "Floro Dery" account has been renamed. NotARealWord (talk) 18:26, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

tl;dr for the above issue

Since a majority of Transformers don't get officially described as any specific model of vehicle, describing them as such here might be original research, and thus, wrong. However, there are good sources that can be used to show that they are based on specific real-world vehicles. These sources must be used if characters' vehicle modes are to be given specific descriptions. NotARealWord (talk) 16:22, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

I'd say the best way to start is to use whatever they are called in their instructions (in the case of G1 Starscream a "plane"), then if there is a source for something more specific go to that (either being called an F-15 in the comics and in the collectors books is sufficient). Sadly a lot of instructions simply say "Vehicle", but maybe we can be more specific without it being called "original research", but car, or even sports car... it's a slippery slope.Mathewignash (talk) 20:56, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
I went ahead and removed instances where a real world vehicle was used in the infobox for Rodimus and replaced them with generic terms. Including the Dome Zero and that list of models Derik Wyatt named.
Plane? Why not fighter jet or Fighter aircraft? Sarujo (talk) 21:06, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
Be careful that you know what you are doing before you remove information. I put the Ford GT back in the Rodimus alt modes, since the Alternators Rodimus toy was a LICENSED Ford GT. It says so on the box. Do we need a citation when the box says so? http://www.seibertron.com/transformers/toys/alternators/rodimus/1351/1/2/ Mathewignash (talk) 09:22, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
In a word - Yes. As time goes by, such information becomes dated and you run the chance of people contesting any information. You always source information regardless of how obvious it may be to you. Sarujo (talk) 09:37, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
Okay, what it a proper citation for the toy box? How is that any different from, for instance, the bio, the quote, the "Function", all taken from the toy box. Mathewignash (talk) 09:39, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
What? Could you rephrase that? Sarujo (talk) 10:49, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
We have established that Rodimus was a Ford GT because the box said so. I wish to have the article say he was a Ford GT, and you want it to be sourced, right? So what do I do? Do I have to link to the Hasbro web site? They remove those pictures after a few years. Do I provide a link to some fan site's picture of the box? Those sites are not considered reliable by Wikipedia. How do I put a note on the Rodimus wikipedia page saying that the box said it was a Ford GT... and in a way that in the future someone doesn't do the EXACT same thing you just did and remove the Ford GT, thinking it's original research. Also, how does this effect all the other information in the infobox that's taken staight from the package. Do I need to cite all that too? Mathewignash (talk) 16:49, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
"Rodimus was a Ford GT". Which Rodimus? That's the trouble in having a single Wikipedia article about multiple incarnations of a character, or even worse, multiple independent characters that just happen to share a name. The original Rodimus Prime most certainly was not a Ford GT. This reminds me of the time I removed the claim that Countdown was a BTR-80, because the original G1 Countdown was nowhere near like one, only have you remind me that it was supposed to be about a later incarnation. 88.114.95.29 (talk) 20:30, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, the above comment was made by me, Wikipedia accidentally logged me out without notifying me. JIP | Talk 20:32, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
I wouldn't put that sort of information in the infobox. That should go in the toys section. Something along the lines of "The Alternators toyline licensed the Ford GT for Rodimus' altmode." If there is no actual source for what a character's altmode is DON'T LIST IT. As far as the 1984 and 1985 toys are concerned, we know what many of them are because the original Japanese Diaclone toys had names like "Onebox Cherry Vanette" or "Lancia Stratos" or "F-15 Robo". --Khajidha (talk) 20:51, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Surely there were some news site that covered this toy? Wouldn't there be an issue of ToyFare that mentioned him? Hey here's an idea, since the instructions for Masterpiece Rodimus Convoy is a big colorful book, we use that using the citebook template. It gives a history of the previous Rodimus toys up to that point - including Kiss Players/Altenators Rodimus. Sarujo (talk) 21:15, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Ahem

I put up the above section as a tl;dr to simplify things. If you people wanted to continue discussion, couldn't you have used/started a new section? You all ruined the purpose of my original post. NotARealWord (talk) 18:26, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

${amount_of_money} says people will still keep continuing the discussion, but now in this section, rather than the "tl;dr" section. =) JIP | Talk 21:24, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Non-free content review

See here. NotARealWord (talk) 18:18, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Overhaul

I have always intended to get involved in this WikiProject, and when i went to copy-edit Motormaster as part of the Guild of Copy-Editors, copy-edit drive for this month, i stumbled upon a hornets nest - the issue of article layouts. As well as that i've come across several other things that appears to be common in TF articles and TF articles as a whole:

  • Poor cohesion in article layout.
  • Poor copy-editing.
  • Lack of sourcing to verify what is there.
  • A somewhat lack of tagging of TF articles to show they are part of this WikiProject.
  • The high rate of proposed deletions of TF articles, more than likely due to several of the above points.
  • The use of character-infoboxes for different characters of the same name that contain very little, i.e. WFC Motormaster.

Whilst most of them can be done without any problems, the one that can cause the most problem it appears is article layouts. I recently restructered Motormaster to a more coherant layout, which an admin agreed was better. However there was a problem with it due to it describing several "different" characters of the same name, despite the fact they do not all need their own section which consists of next to nothing other than 2 or 3 lines. Over-sectioning such as in regards to toys is also an issue.

First proposal

Firstly i'd like to propose a minor change to the structure in regards to Generation 1 in all articles. Instead of having the cartoon stuck in same sub-sectioning as the comics - it should be seperated which is more reasonable and appropriate. Here is the current way it stands in regards to Motormaster which i'm told is the agreed way:

1 Transformers: Generation 1
  • 1.1 Marvel Comics
  • 1.2 Animated series
  • 1.3 Dreamwave Productions
  • 1.4 IDW Publishing
  • 1.5 Devil's Due
  • 1.6 Fun Publications
  • 1.7 Toys

This can be far better organised by putting all the comics into their own sub-section, like thus:

1 Transformers: Generation 1
  • 1.1 Animated series
  • 1.2 Comics
  • 2.1 Marvel Comics
  • 2.2 Dreamwave Productions
  • 2.3 IDW Publishing
  • 2.4 Devil's Due
  • 2.5 Fun Publications
  • 1.3 Toys

Whilst i get having it laid out by their first appearance or whichever way it is, this proposed way looks far better and keeps the relevant things together.

I am in favor of organizing by order of release of a media. Marvel Comics cam before the TV series, so it would get listed first. After all, why would you NOT list things in the order they existed? The only reason I can think of is you like the TV show more, and want it listed first, and that's not a very good reason. Can you suggest a better reason? Mathewignash (talk) 22:01, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
Honestly, i don't really get the reason for grouping all the comics sections together. The only way that the comics are more connected to each other than the TV series is that Simon Furman worke on many of them. (Maybe that's the reason Mignash is looking for?) NotARealWord (talk) 16:41, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
Its appropriate topic categorising Mathewignash. The comics are of the same category, whereas toys and the cartoon aren't. We can put the comics first if you wish it makes no difference to me - however its pretty poor formatting and sub-sectioning to just lump all the different media formats into one generic list based solely on first appearance. Mabuska (talk) 23:21, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Second proposal

Secondly there is no need for sub-sections that consist of a single small paragraph, when they can be combined. The current way looks like this. Very small sub-sections which don't have much in them. Here is how they can be merged. This is a standard procedure in many articles, however i have realised that the down-sizing of redundant superfluous sub-sections is an issue in regards to TF articles.

As no article is ever completed I see no reason to have bias against a section with only one paragraph. Another paragraph might be added at any time. I'm not familiar with a rule saying a section had a minimum size either. Are you? Mathewignash (talk) 22:03, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
It looks better and is easier to find information and sort through it in the original method. The size of a section isn't relevant. People who actually want to find and read the information will surely prefer the current method. Dream Focus 22:34, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
It just looks Goddamn terrible when you have an entire section with nothing but "Murdertron made an insignificant cameo in Dreamwave issue 11" and the like. Articles should be written based on what information already available. It's not right to leave a really tiny section and hope that new information comes along to fill it up. NotARealWord (talk) 16:38, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
That sound like a lot of personal opinion, but I say what looks terrible is putting info on one character in with another because you don't know the difference between the two. Mathewignash (talk) 21:22, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
Mathewignash it is hardly bias against a section with only one paragraph. Information that can be easily put into a single section should be. Such small sub-sections also don't look good and don't pass well for copy-editing purposes. We shouldn't work on the principle that it'll hopefully get beefed up in the future. If a time comes when its beefed up and deserves its own section, then it could get one - not get one regardless and hope for the beefing which may never come. Mabuska (talk) 23:27, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
I think my analogy to Marvel's Captain Marvels works here. Marvel has many characters called Captain Marvel. If you have an article about ONE Captain Marvel, and another Captain Marvel appears in the video game, you don't put into the video game section of ANOTHER Captain Marvel. He has his own section seperate for himself. The problem is that, in the instance of Captain Marvel the comic book fan boys actually made a half dozen articles for the half dozen character, none of which have any reliable third party sources! AT least we here in the Transformers Wikipedia project put them together into one article sinc we admit three articles for three Morotmasters would be a bit too much. Mathewignash (talk) 23:35, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
Who said anything about creating seperate articles for each one? Also who said this section was on about different characters in different formats such as comics and games? Its about merging very small sub-sections on different comic appearances into one section. Seeing as this will apply more for G1 characters due to the fact they have been in that many different continuities and publishers, we aren't talking about merging appearance of other characters into them. Mabuska (talk) 23:42, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
Merging the ANimated Motormaster into the G1 character is merging two different characters into one. Mathewignash (talk) 00:03, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
Who said anything about merging them two together? I'm on about the different comics of the G1 character. Mabuska (talk) 00:11, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
Right, Animated Motormaster is a different character from G1 Motormaster, just like how All-Star Batman totally doesn't go with frank Miller's other versions of Batman, and how Dead Universe Galvatron is the same character as the 1986 movie Galvatron. NotARealWord (talk) 06:50, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
One MIGHT make the arguement that Galvatron who is Megatron is a different character from Galvatron who was not Megatron. Mathewignash (talk) 09:31, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
I personally doubt G1 Motormaster and Animated Motormater are any different to a large degree other than cartoon continuity. In fact i propose closing this part of the discussion as i've just decided to provide a working example below, which should allay Mathewignash's concerns. Mabuska (talk) 15:57, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Thoughts

Thoughts on these two proposals? They should be pretty straight forward as they follow Wiki policies to a greater degree which will work well for the articles in the long-term. They really do need dragged into a better form of conformity and cohesion for their own sake.

Mabuska (talk) 15:07, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Just to add, a lack of any kind of response can be taken after a certain amount of time to equal no opposition and thus agreement. Though usually at an admins discretion. Mabuska (talk) 15:33, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
Well, I suggested an Overhaul last year. Didn't get feedback for that either. Honestly, I think we'll only know the best way to format a character article once somebody writes a really good one with appropriate sources. As in, not messageboards on websites that simply copy the back-of-the-box text. NotARealWord (talk) 18:37, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
Honestly, I really don't like the way the articles have been organised for the past few years. I think the format came about because of some fanboy editors who eventually left to form their own site when they realized that Wikipedia isn't really suitable for what the were doing/trying to make. (see here). NotARealWord (talk) 16:55, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
Both proposals are acceptable. GoodDay (talk) 19:45, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
Unfortunately NotARealWord, if one was written or even re-written to show how maybe we could best format a characters article, that it would be altered to match the current format no matter how flawed it is. The real problem here is some editors may wish for every character to have their own article and every appearance given its own section when its unneeded.
Whilst we should wait for more response, it would appear that there is no concensus to maintain the current formatting of articles meaning that we need to work on an agreed more appropriate formatting for TF articles.
The main thing that an editor may or may not realise, is that not all TF articles have to match the exact same format. Its not a requirement. Though i've seen nothing on the WikiProject that states they have to anyways. Mabuska (talk) 23:36, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Example of restructed multiple character article

Seeing as it looks like most of these issues will all be interconnected, i've decided to just go ahead and create an example of a reformatted TF article. More specifically, a multiple character of same name one.

I restructured the Motormaster article on a sub-page of my talk page. See here for it. This i feel is a far more appropriate way to structure an article on multiple characters especially when there is very little information on those other characters to merit their own sections.

A whole section dedicated to toys are worthy in the case of the G1 Motormaster character as he had several. For the case of characters with a single toy, such as Timelines Motormaster, there is only one toy, and not much else information on it, and even then it can simply be put into the same paragraph as the description of the Timelines character as i have done so here.

It also incorporates a reduction in the infoboxes which has been raised below. Why should minor, possibly non-notable characters get infoboxes that are largely empty? It works well with the main character of a name - and there is nothing wrong in just having one for the main character themself.

It also has reformatted any lists into a proper Wiki standard way. The current way also looked a bit too much like the format used in other TF websites.

Thoughts on this compared to the current version? An admin, Cuchullain has already preferred a previous restructuring of the article, however this latest version, tends to the valid concerns of Mathewignash on multiple characters. Also whilst it may not be perfect for every TF article - they don't all have to match each other and any minor changes that may be needed can be done on a per article basis. Mabuska (talk) 01:34, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

I find this better than your previous attempt. The section at the bottom is a good idea, it keeps the items seperate from the main article. What would be the limit on a character before he gets a full section to himself though? I'm still not seeing the logic in putting the TV show first though. What is your reasoning there? The reason we picked the way it is now is we listed wach media in the order it came out. Marvel Comics made a Transformers comic before Sunbow made the TV series. So I don't see the point in putting them out of order. The plots of the Marvel comics, Dreamwave comics, and IDW comics are in no way connected, or more similar to each other than the TV series. Are you just saying television is more important that print? Mathewignash (talk) 20:24, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
It's all a work in progress. Nobody ever gets it perfect in the first attempt :-)
The reasoning for the placing of the comics together is as i stated above - it keeps media of the same type together. If someone wants to read about the cartoon they go to the cartoon section. If they want to look at the comics they go to the comic section. Its simple topic categorisation - it has nothing to do with appearances. Though i hope you did notice at the start of the G1 section i did deliberately state that Motormaster first appeared in the Marvel comic before the cartoon. The reason i put the cartoon first is as it has no sub-sections, though you can have it below the comics if you wish. Its only about proper categorising. Nowhere in the current format makes it clear to a reader that its in order of first appearance anyways. Though if its about first appearance - did Motormaster actually appear in the comic or cartoon first? The Marvel comic may have come before the Sunboe cartoon, but if Motormaster appeared in the cartoon first then the comic would it not take precedence in the current format?
The limit on a character before their own section or sub-section depends on how much information there is for them. If there is enough for several paragraphs then they could have their own sub-section within "Other incarnations". If there is a lot of extra information meriting several sub-sections, then it could get its own section alongisde "Generation 1" and "Other incarnations". It would for practicality be an article by article thing. Mabuska (talk) 23:36, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
I have to wonder though, some characters are more famous for incarnations other than the G1. Look at Skids, Barricade or Blackout. They were minor G1 characters, but most famous for the movie. Yes, Motormaster did appear in the episode "The Key To Vector Sigma Part 1" before the issue "Heavy Traffic", but is it really practical to reorder every TF article by the actual date of the first appearance of that character in that media? It makes more sense for consistancy to have them all the same, and that's by release of the first issue of that media. Mathewignash (talk) 00:21, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
We can order characters either by first appearance such as G1 before Movie, which would maintain general article cohesion or if you wish by prominence such as Movie before G1 if a character is really minor in the original incarnation. Not all articles have to have the exact same format - there is no rule. As said, article by article basis depending on what content there is there for it.
I didn't suggest we should actually put the appearances of a character in actual order of first appearance, i was just querying the logic of the system in use. Two editors agree and two disagree with the re-organising idea, with some apparent misunderstandings about its purpose. I'll willing to let more editors join in and give an opinion on that part of the layout. What do you say about the rest then other than this one bit? Mabuska (talk) 01:14, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
I still don't see any logic of listing things outside chronological order. Even if Barricade was more notable in the 1987 2007 movie, there were G1 and Energon characters with the same name first. Mathewignash (talk) 01:20, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
1987 movie? Is that not G1. Can you please comment on the rest of the proposal rather than just one section that can be sorted on an article by article basis? Mabuska (talk) 11:39, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
I like the idea of ordering by type of media first, then chronologically within each medium. Hierarchically, it makes more sense to me in a general use encyclopedia. Focusing on the exact chronology of the different media is fine for a specialist site, but is really more than most people who would come here are worried about. --Khajidha (talk) 12:28, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
Exactly. Mabuska (talk) 19:55, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
Is there a standard format on Wikipedia for fictional characters? or for comic book characters? Mathewignash (talk) 20:40, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
I previously looked at a few articles for inspiration for the proposal above, but there appears to be no conformity in overall design. I did notice that most of them did however use only one infobox even when different versions of a character existed and where detailed in those articles. Mabuska (talk) 22:03, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
Any more comments on the example i provided above of what a typical overhaul would look like? The only issue appears to be the sub-cat'ing of the comics to set them aside from the cartoon, which a couple don't prefer whilst a few do. It can be sorted afterwards, as long as we get the rest of the shebang sorted to help drag these articles to a more Wiki standard level. Mabuska (talk) 21:36, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Mabuska asked me to weigh in here on this issue. I think Mabuska's versions are a great improvement over what the article previously looked like, and will be a useful boilerplate to use in cleaning up other articles. As someone not terribly knowledgeable about Transformers, the previous version is confusing to the point of being very difficult to read. There is no need for major sections with only a sentance or two in them, especially in cases where they are unlikely to ever be filled out with anything besides plot details, rather than material on real-world significance. Across the board Transformers articles tend to have major problems with sourcing and weight, but I think Mabuska's changes are a good first step in getting them in order.Cúchullain t/c 15:43, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

A week from my last comment (in a few days) unless someone objects then can it be assumed that the changes can be adopted, and specific character problems be dealt with on a per article basis? Mabuska (talk) 20:56, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
Can I ask if and how you would attempt to impliment this change on articles that do not fit the bill of having a section with "only a sentance or two in them"? Do you only plan on making this change to those? Also, I don't see any concensus on changing to have the TV series first. That's really a seperate issue from removing the infoboxes from the minor incarnations. Mathewignash (talk) 21:54, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
In regards to "what comes first", did you even read anything i said above? I said we can resolve that aspect later as long as we get the overall thing sorted.
I also said we can work on an article per article basis, which means when we come across an article that wouldn't fit the general outline or might have an issue, we can work on how to achieve a solution for it. Its called flexibility. Nothing has to match perfectly or exactly.
I personally don't care what comes first which i've already stated. Why is it such a concern? No-one knows that they are in chronoglogical order and we shouldn't assume readers will know. More general people (which is what this Wikipedia is for, not just fanboys) will also probably connect to and remember the cartoon character more than the various comic versions (if indeed they have seen any of them). Anyone i know who remembers Transformers as a kid remembers the cartoon and none know of the comics, except for me as i had a few of them.
If you wish i could ask the Neutral PoV board for other editors opinions on what looks better and makes more sense. Mabuska (talk) 13:10, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
I'm not really interested in which one "looks better", as looks are not relivant to an accurate article. I will accept which is standard for fictional characters though. I'd guess that when writing a (fictional) biogrpahy you give it in chronological order. Mathewignash (talk) 18:24, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
But are we writing a fictional biography? That's what tfwiki does. We are describing a character and its influence on the larger culture (outside of TF fandom). --Khajidha (talk) 18:02, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
Exactly this isn't a fan website. This is suppossed to be an encyclopedia. Its more encyclopedic sorting it by media, and then within that chronologically. If you want to cater for the fans then provide them the external link to TF Wikia and TF Wiki, though both are technically the same anyways. Mabuska (talk) 21:00, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
Actually, they aren't. They were at the point that tfwiki left the wikia site, but both have changed since then. Admittedly the wikia site hasn't changed much. --Khajidha (talk) 14:50, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
Most articles i've ever read are the same, but ah well. We can link both. Mabuska (talk) 14:57, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
Most of the sections dealing with material released prior to the split were complete at the time of the split and so would not have changed much on either site. The differences show up mostly with materials released after 2008 (and a few of the more obscure older things). --Khajidha (talk) 16:04, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

I'll go ahead and implement these changes to a few article, see how they pan out. The only bone of contention appears to be the insistence of keeping a chronological listing of media appearances without sorting the media into a more encylopedic and reader-friendly way. Mabuska (talk) 13:48, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Just took a look at Spider-Man as an example of a character who has appeared in other media. Each medium is given its own section, often linked to a more in depth article for each medium. --Khajidha (talk) 14:57, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
You can't use Spider-Man as a reference for smaller scale characters. Spider-Man has had much coverage, and needs the extra space to explain his role in the different media. I like the example shown in the previous section. Each individual appearance should not get its own section. One problem I have though is the "Generation 1" header. Is this really relevant? If he appeared in more then one generation would it be(in no particular order or anything, I know barely anything of the series)
  • 1. Generation 1.
    • 1a. Animated series
    • 1b. Comic appearances
    • 1c. Toys
  • 2. Generation 2.
    • 2a. Animated series
    • 2b. Comic appearances
    • 2c. Toys
I think this is wrong. The "Animated series", "Comic appearances", and "Toys" should be the main headers, and the appearances in subsequent generations can be shown in those sections. This just creates more small sections instead of fewer large sections, and makes the article look incomplete and not well written. Blake (Talk·Edits) 15:19, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
Look at the why i proposed it be restructred here: User talk:Mabuska/Test/Motormaster. The whole point is reducing the small sections etc. "Generation 1" is the name tag that a character can have, it grew up after the creation of the tag "Generation 2", and is used to refer to any incarnation of a character that is based on the original as oppossed to those with the same name that are brand new and not based on the original. Mabuska (talk) 15:49, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
Yes, I saw that. I think it's a big step up from the actual article that was reconstructed from. I just don't know if the average reader (not fans) will know what the generations mean. I certainly don't. But if you think having the generations split up like that is important, then maybe it is. I am just commenting as an outside observer who has very little experience in the transformers universe. Blake (Talk·Edits) 15:55, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
I don't propose to split them up like that. Generation 1 is just a descriptor thats used to differentiate from altogether different characters of the same name from the Transformers live-action movie, Transformers Beast Wars, or Transformers Armada/Energon etc. etc. "Generation 2" however is simply a toyline (with short-lived comic) within it that represented a make-over of the original characters toys, though character wise they are the exact same carrying on in continuity (comic-wise) from the original character. A link should always be provided to G2 anyways to help clarify the problem. Generation 1 is now the official tag for those characters, and Generation 2 just happens to be a sub-tag within it.
Away from that i think we should rename the "Transformers" section (in those article that have it) that is referring to the new movies to "Transformers (live-action movie)" to help distinguish it from everything else - just calling it "Transformers" i think is confusing. Mabuska (talk) 16:25, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Media franchises is up for deletion

I have nominated Wikipedia:WikiProject Media franchises for deletion at WP:MFD. Please comment here for any concerns. Thank for your time. Regards, JJ98 (Talk) 19:57, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Final resoultion of what are reliable Transformer sources

The argument of what is reliable third person sources has been raging for months its even been taken to MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist see [5] without any satisfactory conclusion. I think a debate needs to had what fansites are "reliable". Dwanyewest (talk) 20:07, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Fansites are not reliable. By putting the word "fan" with "site", it becomes unreliable. It has to be a mainstream site with strict editorial overlook. Blake (Talk·Edits) 20:26, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
Note: Some might can be used to simply source content, but for notability sake, they can't be used. Blake (Talk·Edits) 20:28, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
Well, that's not entirely true. For example, Tiny Cartridge is a DS fan site, but both editors have good experience within the industry. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 20:35, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

I have often argued ad nauseum that websites such as these [6][7][8][9][10] aren't reliable hence why I nominate some Transformers articles for deletion. But people like User talk:Mathewignash seem to take a different view. Dwanyewest (talk) 20:58, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

I would agree that most of those aren't reliable, they deal too often in unsubstantiated rumors and illegally acquired information. I would argue, however, that tfwiki is not "unreliable" but is rather quite differently focused than wikipedia. Tfwiki makes every effort not to utilize rumors and leaks, but as it is focused "in universe" it can use sources that may be unusable here. Sources for wikipedia should show notability outside of the fictional universe and its fandom. --Khajidha (talk) 01:23, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
Any wiki is not reliable if it is open to edit. Anybody can change the article, so what you sourced a year ago would be completely different now. No matter how strict a wiki is, if anybody can edit it, it isn't reliable for Wikipedia. Blake (Talk·Edits) 01:29, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
I admit I did forget that. Point taken. --Khajidha (talk) 02:03, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Since we are in agreement that certain fansites aren't reliable should we blacklist them as it seems the only reliable way to stop them being used. Dwanyewest (talk) 04:32, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Sorry Dwanyewest, but I think you are not paying much attention. I'm not the one adding those "fan sites" as sources. Please check your facts before making accusations. I did add some tformers.com sites, after getting the okay from the reliable source noticeboard. I have worked hard to get legitimate sources in the Transformers articles. BTW - I believe that one of the people adding the TFwiki links to Wikipedia is the owner of the TFwiki, which is a no-no for him. Check his edit history. Special:Contributions/ItsWalky Mathewignash (talk) 09:37, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
I am not sure if you have to go through such extreme measures to blacklist them, but you should just try and keep an eye on the articles, and tell people who add them that the sites are not reliable for Wikipedia.(which I admit is more work, but is the better option. And most of the articles are being merged anyways, which means less pages to watch) Blake (Talk·Edits) 14:34, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

I think we do have to blacklist websites because I don't feel that websites such as this [11][12] aren't independent or reliable if they are used for tranformers articles. Dwanyewest (talk) 06:12, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Warpath page

A while back a sock puppet nominated the page Warpath (Transformers) for deletion as part of his harassment of the Transformers project. While people voiced support for Warpath, the moderator ended it with a deletion of the page based on it's lack of third party sources. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Warpath (Transformers) So I've been working on the page in my userspace for a while now. At this point I'd like to know if anyone else has anything that could add or improve the page before I try to get it undeleted. Thanks! Mathewignash (talk) 21:17, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Toys section of character pages

The editor Mabuska has proposed a change of the existing toy sections of Transformers pages into a table, as seen on his Inferno example page. Other options include the current format (see on most Transformer pages), or a shortened format of a paragraph implimented on the Starscream page (for instance). Things to consider might include: Do any other Wikipedia pages about fictional character impliment toy charts? Does this chart have all the necessary information space? Should it just be charts at the bottom of the page or should it be broken up into character version sections.... Opinions are welcome on which is the best. Mathewignash (talk) 19:42, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

One thing to keep in mind when comparing to "other Wikipedia pages about fictional characters", Transformers is a toyline first and fiction second. Someone like Spider-Man is a fictional character first and a toy property second. --Khajidha (talk) 19:53, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment I don't think a lot of character articles have toy listings. They simply aren't that notable, and it somewhat violates WP:NOTGUIDE. If they have significant coverage in reliable sources, then they may be notable, but a simple page on Amazon or something similar won't suffice. You have to think. If these were just toys, and they hadn't appeared in comics or tv, would they be notable then? Blake (Talk·Edits) 20:02, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
I don't think that's a valid reasoning though for 2 reasons. Many fictional character articles DO have sections on "merchandise" (look at Homer Simpson), and you can't fully seperate the notability of a fictional character from the notability of his toy. Would anyone care about the original Optimus Prime toy if he wasn't famous? No, but he is, so they do. Mathewignash (talk) 20:50, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
I am not saying don't have any mention of toys at all. I am just don't think every single toy should be listed, as we aren't a guidebook of some sort. Yes, Homer's article has content about merchandise, but it is in prose, not list format, and is reliably sourced. Blake (Talk·Edits) 20:57, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
That's why I brought this up. The user Mabuska has proposed that we expand the toy section into a big chart, but only recently there was movement to eliminate the toy section or cut it down to almost nothing by another user. I'd prefer some sort of standard at least, instead of that other user cutting toy sections from articles he likes, and Mabuska making them into charts on the articles he likes. Mathewignash (talk) 21:02, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
Its not a big chart, its seperate tables that clearly define the toys of different characters. And its not articles i like, its an idea i think that should be implemented throughout all the articles - but depends on user opinion. Mabuska (talk) 22:18, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
Well, try making a "old vs new" page showing the different versions. It is still debatable whether or not they should even be listed though. If some are notable, they should be in prose, not list format. But if you decide that they are all notable, I am not sure whether the table or the list would be better. Try showing some examples. Blake (Talk·Edits) 23:25, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
I too doubt the need for them but their removal would no doubt rub some editors up the wrong way. The table idea actually arose out of the inability to organise the different toys in prose from each other yet ensure that each one could be easily distinguished from another - a table i think helps achieve this. I would rather use tables than lists, and i was just being flexible in insisting we just go with what the situation needs - but tables allow for better presentation of the toys. Selecting what toy is more notable could be aproblem though. Mabuska (talk) 23:34, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, the entire fiction is based on toys. It's the toys that came first, the fiction was built around them. With most other fictions, such as The Simpsons, the fiction came first and then there were toys based on that, but with Transformers it's the complete opposite. So I feel that mentioning the toys is essential in articles about Transformers characters - except for those that were invented later within the fiction only. JIP | Talk 19:10, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. I'm not saying that the toys have to be catalogued in totally obsessive detail, but it is appropriate for pages about fictional characters that were first developed as toys to spend more time on the toys than would a page about a character from fiction that was later made into a toy. --Khajidha (talk) 20:29, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

I have been quite vocal in the past in regards of toy sections, as they are mostly cruft. The suggestions that they have dictated the entire franchise is absurd. This maybe true for the original 1984 line but not for every show and comic to date. As I've stated the only real toys worth mentioning on any character article is the one that got the ball rolling, like Battle and Powered Convoys. Then you have consider toys like Laser Prime, and GoBot Prime which have no "real" continuity, they have no real place. Plus toys like Classics, Movie, Animated, War for Cybertron, and now the upcoming Prime which have been produced after said medium.

If you're talking about toys in a toy heavy franchise, then it's development material. Sarujo (talk) 22:32, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Then how about instead of having a "Toys" section listing each appearance, have the information summarized in "Development and characteristics"(or whatever you decide to call it)? I think this would make the article look MUCH more professional if you did this. Say something along the lines of:
"X first appeared in the y toy line. It was designed like this, and did this stuff, and looked like this. It later continued to appear in future toy lines foo, bar, and blah with these slight changes in its design."
What do you think? Blake (Talk·Edits) 19:53, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
I could go along with that. In the case of someone like Optimus Prime say something like:
Optimus Prime began as a figure in the Diaclone toyline in Japan called Battle Convoy created by Hiroyuki Obara and Shōji Kawamori. A series where humans piloted mecha warriors that could disguise themselves as various vehicles. During the original design phase, the toy look much different than the final product. He had an opposite color scheme, visor shaped eyes, and his body split in two when transformed. When Hasbro acquired the rights to the Diaclone line to create the Transformers franchise, he was renamed, and given a back story as a sentient extraterrestrial robot from another planet. When adapting him for comics and television, Takara artist Shōhei Kohara produced a dynamic character design to make the character look more anamorphic. This design was later edited by character designer Floro Dery to look more simplistic. Primarily removing his wheels and enlarging his head. Subsequent incarnations have followed this standard for the character, with only a few instances. Sarujo (talk) 21:33, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
That looks like a good idea, it describes how the fiction was based on a toyline, and fiction-only characters only came afterwards. JIP | Talk 07:16, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
Looks pretty good. --Khajidha (talk) 14:59, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
Would it be possible to get such details for the minor characters? Mabuska (talk) 19:20, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
It is just describing their design in the media in a general way, and some of their actual real-world history. If they are minor enough where they don't have any of that information, then they probably don't deserve an article. Articles should not be plot-only descriptions. They need real world information. Blake (Talk·Edits) 22:03, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
True, though thorough copy-editing should cut down on the plot-only descriptions. Mabuska (talk) 14:27, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
No, plot is fine, but the article shouldn't be ONLY plot. If you cut down a "plot-only" article, it will still be "plot-only". Like if you have 10 apples, and you take away 6 of them, they are still apples. They didn't magically turn into oranges. Blake (Talk·Edits) 15:15, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Lead

It appears that the lead section on a lot of articles fail lead. Some, like Megatron, only have one or two sentences. While others rely heavily on the lead as the article's keystone. The lead section should only be a short summary, at least two paragraphs, describing what the article's content. If somebody was researching on Wikipedia for say Optimus Prime, the lead would give an idea of what the article has in store for the reader.

Like the infobox, it needs no sourcing since the full information has it's sources within the article body. Sarujo (talk) 19:40, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

That'll be part of the overall article revamps that we're discussing above. As well as layout, they will be edited to make them meet Wiki guidelines better. Mabuska (talk) 19:45, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Progressing on....

As the above has branched off into who knows where, i've decided to start this in a new section from the clunk above. Almost all respondants above appear to agree that we need to shake these articles up, and prefer the example i provided of a renovation.

If as much effort was put into copy-editing and removing copyright-violations from these articles as there is in trying to save them from deletion and enforcing formats that aren't enshrined in law, then these articles would be far better and avoid the hassle they appear to come with.

I've rejigged the renovation i proposed for Motormaster. I'm also providing another example of a renovated article that is different from the Motormaster one in that it has more expanded sections on different characters of the same name and so many many toys. In fact the way i've done the toys in the Inferno article might be the best way to go in regards to them depending on quantity of them etc.

In regards to the Inferno renovation, the Marvel comics hasn't been copy-edited yet as its a complete mess, and the Beast Wars and Energon lines could be given their own paragraph with links to main article if someone wanted to. These two renovation examples show how these articles can be improved and streamlined without needing to have the exact same format - notice the differences in several sections - i.e. the comics, otehr incarnations and toy sections. Situations dictate what style or format to use - however contrary to one editor - they do not all need the exact same layout as those examples show. For Motormaster i've merged the comics into one section as really in some cases there is no need to give several different comics their own sub-cat. Inferno due to the size of the Marvel bit still merits its own for now.

Essentially all this is for one editor Mathewignash, however as no-one owns a Wikipedia article, if everyone else agrees with the above principles that not all articles have to have the same layout and that there is no enshrined layout for TF articles, and that these are better than the current formats used then one editors objections and strict enforcement of the current format shouldn't be allowed to derail any chance of progress that would improve these articles and avoid the many deletion or merging discussions and other problems TF articles are embroiled in. Mabuska (talk) 12:21, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Please remember that "no one owns Wikipedia" also applies to YOU as much as it does to me. Also, please don't add links to fan wikis. They are not realiable sources, and not even good external links. Mathewignash (talk) 13:45, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
I know i don't, however i am not the one trying to enforce a rigid but flawed format on all TF articles as you are preventing any improvements to the articles. And i am not the only one who thinks they are flawed and can be greatly improved if you read the above comments. Though good call on the TFWiki links. However would you care to declare your opinion on the above instead of avoiding or ignoring it only raising an objection when i put forward we implement anything? And anytime i respond to your questions you focus on something else rather than say the answer is good enough or not.
In fact as you have shown no proof of any agreed fixed rigid format, and the fact several editors have said that the above examples are better than what is there, what justification do you have to prevent these articles being updated without needing a prior agreement for their improvement? This can be classified as disruptive behaviour. Mabuska (talk) 13:54, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
According to the external links guidelines "links to open wikis, except those with a substantial history of stability and a substantial number of editors" are to be avoided. Mathewignash, I want to know if you think tfwiki is unstable or has too small a number of editors to qualify? Or is there another reason you don't want to link to them? It would seem that they are at least as good an external link as Wookieepedia, Memory Alpha and Marvel Universe wiki - all of which are fairly common on articles relating to Star Wars, Star Trek and Marvel Comics respectively. --Khajidha (talk) 15:09, 6 April 2011 (UTC) (In the interest of full disclosure, yes I do edit at tfwiki.net)
If you want to add tfwiki links to Wikipedia then I think we need to have it checked over by moderator. If you are an editor of tfwiki however, it would seem that it would exclude you from adding those links, as you are promoting your own web pages on Wikipedia, as are any other regular tfwiki editors. Mathewignash (talk) 19:07, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for totally ignoring my question. I have no intention of adding links to there, because I am aware of the conflict. I was asking why you think that tfwiki is not a good external link. You seem to be against anyone adding them. Again I ask, how are tfwiki links not good for providing information beyond the scope of wikipedia (one of the functions of external links)? --Khajidha (talk) 19:23, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
I was against adding them as I thought it was against Wikipedia policy to add them. If it's not against policy, then I have nothing against adding them. I just started a topic asking if they are a legitimate external link on the sources noticeboard. Mathewignash (talk) 19:35, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
Mabuska, you are the one coming in and making bold changes to entire pages. Please expect some resistance by extablished editors unless you propose those changes first. If you could list each of the format changes you want to make in a different section of this page I'd love to debate each one. We have had long tiring talks here before about the "Toys" section for instance. Opinions ranged from those who wanted it deleted entirely, to a smaller section written as a paragraph, to the way they are now. The current format is agreed on, but it can be changed, preferable by concensus, not by bold editing. Mathewignash (talk) 19:10, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
There is no evidence of resistance by established editors, there seems to be only resistance by you. --Khajidha (talk) 19:25, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
Good then, if we start open topics on whether the format should change then, we should get a concensus quickly. Mathewignash (talk) 19:33, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
This is an open topic about whether the format should change. Blake (Talk·Edits) 19:34, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
As I asked for, thanks. Now if we could list all the INDIVIDUAL different changes he wants over the established format. If they get implimented, we should change the project front page to reflect his changes. Mathewignash (talk) 19:37, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
Mabuska, your proposed changes should be implemented. GoodDay (talk) 15:33, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
Which changes though, as both his example pages are in different formats. Did you even read them GoodDay? Mathewignash (talk) 19:05, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
I think they both work. The list format in Motormaster's comic section is not good though. Prose should not generally be in lists. Blake (Talk·Edits) 19:16, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
  • I agree that the transformer articles need a major overhaul in their design. The first section needs to be about their development(if any), design, and characteristics.(which is currently lacking due to different designs in different media) Then, the sections about their role in various media follow. Lastly, a "Cultral Impact", "Reception", or something similar. Finally, the lead of the article needs to accurately summarize the content of the article, and explain why it is notable enough for an article. Right now, the articles are more designed as a fictional biography, and they need real world information other then plot summaries. If they don't have real world information, then maybe that is a clue that they aren't notable enough for an article. Blake (Talk·Edits) 20:00, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Blake's assessment above - though copy-editing each article as any changes are made will fix that problem. The lists i used for Motormaster's comics was simply to keep each comic seperate, but if prose is desired then prose can be used. I'm flexible - what suits the situation best should be used. However on some of his suggestions, whilst good ideas, would be hard to do for many characters - and might be better for the actual toyline or continuity articles.

TF Wiki does appear to be stable, so if it can be allowed on those grounds then thats good enough. Though no harm in having the Reliable Sources forum say whether it is or not.

In response to Mathe - i am an established editor on Wikipedia, and i have created well over 100 articles and rewritten several more and not a single one has ever been flagged for any problems of anykind whatsoever which i take great pride in - even though some are small stubbish like. By contrast TF articles seem dogged to death with problems. Bold changes are needed to drag their standards up and being bold is part of WP:BRD. There is clearly no consensus for maintaining the current format - and only you have provided any resistance to it.

In response to your toys comment - it looks like a rip-off of TF Wiki, and possibly fails Wiki guidelines as far as i am aware in regards to lists. Lists in the style i used in Motormaster (due to the few toys it had), and the table i used for Inferno (due to the large amount it has with different characters) are better ways to depict them. Mabuska (talk) 23:27, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

What the proposal actually is

As it appears that maybe i didn't make it clear enough for everyone, i will restate my proposal in a more clearly way:

  1. There shouldn't be a single rigid format for all TF articles as imposed by Mathewignash as each article will be different and the exact same rigid format doesn't work for all articles. There is also no Wiki guideline that says you have to have all articles the exact same format.
  2. That we should be allowed to be flexible and alter articles in their best interests to improve their quality, flow, etc. etc. - is this not a part of what Wikipedia is all about?
  3. That the general layouts i provided examples of here (yet another newer version edited by Blake and me here) and here, are just that - examples of general layouts that we can implement that are flexible and meet the needs of the article and better adhere to Wikipedia guidelines and conventions - but can be different yet still consistent enough to be coherent with each other. Though obviously some articles will be more different than others.
  4. That we implement general layouts based along the examples i provided - but allow other editors to be bold and improve them if they can, and allow flexibility that not all articles will have the same needs and may be markedly different from the general layout. One editor appears to be against this.

Thats it, pure and simple. By stating in point 4 - "general layouts based along the examples i provided" - i'm stating that if there is something that might not meet Wiki standards or look right to an editor such as Motormasters comic section in my proposal is to Blake, then it can altered to something more appropriate such a prose, which i think it should be now anyways. Instant reverts by one editor on any changes shouldn't be how we go about Wikipedia. We should be flexible.

Almost all editors so far seem to agree that the examples are better, but its essentially the principles above i'm proposing we adopt. Its quite amazing that the overall points i'm outlining above and asking us to adopt are essentially core foundation stones of Wikipedia that we shouldn't have to propose adoption of especially when no fixed format consensus has been produced so far despite continued asking for evidence of such - but the insistence on one editor to impose themselves on all Transformers articles and prevent such improvement has resulted in the need for this.

Mabuska (talk) 23:27, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Agree - as proposer this may be obvious, but better making it clear. Mabuska (talk) 11:14, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. It won't be the exact same layout, but the basic shell of the article should be the same. For instance, if there isn't enough content in one section, it can be merged to the "in other media". Generally, things might not even need a separate section header. This is my go at reformatting it.Blake (Talk·Edits) 23:52, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
That looks quite good. I like the prose used for the comics section, though i think the other incarnations should be kept as seperate paragraphs as they deal with altogether different characters. In the Inferno example the two main other incarnations have their own sub-section as they have enough content for such but it all depends on whats there at the time. I've updated the example with your changes and also rejigged the toys into a table. Mabuska (talk) 10:41, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment - Just for the record i'm going to message every editor who has voiced an opinion on my proposals from the start, so they can say if they agree or disagree as no doubt most have gotten lost in the all the blathering above or aren't up to speed. Mabuska (talk) 19:33, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Agreed, as having every 'Transformer' article structure the same is difficult. PS: Things were much easier when there were only the Generation 1 characters. GoodDay (talk) 20:20, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Agreed, I dont' own the article. I never claimed to own the article, I've only been accused of it by Mabuska, who oddly enough practices exactly what he accuses me of. He boldly re-writes an article, the cries when someone else re-writes it. Somehow when he re-writes an article he thinks he's improving it, yet when I re-write it I'm "claiming ownership". I've been the one pushing for talks on the re-writes on talk pages while he makes accusations of people for disagreeing with him. So the question is, will Mabuska be the only one allowed to make bold edits, while anyone else will be accused of "ownership", or will everyone be allowed to edit? Mathewignash (talk) 21:37, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Did you even read the proposals? If not, then reread point 4. If the edit improves the article and it conforms to Wiki standards and conventions then who am i revert an editor? Its all about helping improve these articles from the dire state most of the are in. I'm open and flexible. I also assume by agreeing, you have agreed to implementing the overall general formats i've proposed as well (point 4)? Mabuska (talk) 13:39, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
Comment - Also just for the record you never rewrote any article i rewrote beforehand - you plain and simply reverted any and all changes i made, reverting any of the essential copy-editing and anything else. Even when an admin said that there were a major improvement you wouldn't let it be changed, citing a suppossed consensus that i've never been shown and that it'd have to be discussed and when it is you avoid answering the questions. Thats acting like you have ownership. If i'm wrong i sincerely apologise and mean no offense, but it does comes across that way. Mabuska (talk) 12:21, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Agreed Articles don't have to be the exact same. Whichever format gives the most useful information in an easy to process way, is the best to use. Dream Focus 10:43, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
  • In response to a request by Mabuska, I agree with the proposal. These measures will go a long way in cleaning up articles on Transformers. The next step is making sure they are all cited to reliable sources and not just fan sites, and are genuinely notable.Cúchullain t/c 13:55, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
Comment. That's gonna be hard, but it should be possible to find sources somewhere. Mabuska (talk) 19:30, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Can i safely assume we have a consensus here and that we can start editing the articles to help improve their layout and viability along the guidelines and examples above? Mabuska (talk) 18:50, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

I'll take that as a confirmed consensus then, meaning no reverts of attempts to improve the articles. Mabuska (talk) 00:10, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
I agree to IMPROVEMENT over revert, but that also applies to you. I can IMPROVE an article, if I don't just revert. You will do the same for me of course? Mathewignash (talk) 00:55, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
Why must you always ask questions that are essentially answered above? You can edit how you want, and if its an improvement that conforms to wiki standards and conventions then as i said before... who am i to revert? If an improvement can be improved further to meet the wiki conventions etc. etc. then take no offense - its all for the betterment of these articles. Mabuska (talk) 11:13, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Improving the quality of sources and prose

I think feel many Transformers need more improvement in terms of the quality of writing as I feel to many are written in an in universe style or are poor sourced. What would anyone propose we do about it I like what one user is trying to do as demostrated with a Soundwave article. User:Kung Fu Man/Soundwave Dwanyewest (talk) 03:56, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

There was a discussion up above about the TF articles and their format/standards etc. etc. Recent work has included Turbomasters, but it is a lot of articles and a lot of work that needs done. And whilst Inferno (Transformers) and Motormaster have also been done recently but aren't perfect and require more work - it is important we streamline them as best we can so that future improvements can be easier to do. Mabuska (talk) 13:01, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
Note that KfM's page was not trying to be a full article, but was compiling sources for only the "real-world" sections, which should be in every article to show its notability. In-universe information is fine too. This real world development and reception is very important though. Wikipedia articles differ from Wikia articles in this way. Wikipedia has real world information that can not be known simply by "being a fan". Blake (Talk·Edits) 20:14, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
I don't see a problem with him adding those sections to the Soundwave article, and we could maybe use his work as an example on how to add these sections to other Transformers character articles. Mathewignash (talk) 20:49, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Assessment

I'm letting you know that I have finished adding the WP:Transformers, WP:Toys, and WP:Fictional characters banners to almost all of the articles for Transformers characters. I did not add the Toys banner to every character article, including those for which I could not verify whether a toy had ever been produced, but I probably did add that banner in some cases where it does not belong. Regardless, the other two banners do belong on all of them.

This is a big job, so no one person should be expected to do it alone, but right now WP:Transformers has 456 unassessed articles, and WP: Toys has 543 unassessed articles and WP:Fictional characters has 632 unassessed articles, in and in both cases an inordinately large number of these articles are TF-related. Anyone who can get in there and help assess these would be helping out in a big way. 129.33.19.254 (talk) 18:42, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

TF's being a big burden then? Yes too big a job for one person, though i think this project lacks the people required for such a task - and it wouldn't be the best practice for those of us who write the articles to grade them ourselves as it leaves it open to conflict of interest - but if it helps we can try to be as harsh as possible. Most of the articles could be rated as stubs or start class so i'll get on judging as many as i can right now. Mabuska (talk) 20:27, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
You can assess articles just fine. Stub, Start, and C-class are pretty lax. B-class usually requires a lot of work, and the article to ALMOST be GA-worthy, and usually requires some overview from an uninvolved editor. So as long as you aren't assessing things as B-class or over, you are fine. Stub is barely anything, Start is a good start at making an article, and C is pretty much complete, but requires cleanup and sources, with maybe a few additions needed. Blake (Talk·Edits) 20:35, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
Going by the criteria guideline, most appear to meet start class. The above proposed changes should help drag them to C or even B status. Turbomasters i think merits B class and graded it as such, though i did edit the article. However check it out and alter it if you think i was too generous, though i think it may meet B criteria. Any others i think may meet B rating i'll post here. Mabuska (talk) 20:51, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

I wasn't trying to sound threatening or anything, just trying to let you know the extent of the problem.  :) It can be done, I mean Wikiproject G.I. Joe last month assessed something like 100 articles with just one or two people. Just wanted to let you know before someone from another wikiproject starts freaking out about how many unassessed articles you have, like they did with Wikiproject G.I. Joe! 129.33.19.254 (talk) 17:40, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

I was one of the editors who helped assess all the articles in WikiProject G.I. Joe, and I am still very much involved in that project, but I will do my best to help out here as well. I've already started alphabetically with the unassessed-class articles, and most of them do appear to be start-class, but I also re-assessed most of the C-class articles, because a lot of them were actually stubs! Feel free to let me know, if you think that I've assessed an article incorrectly, but you really have to be picky about which articles are C-class, let alone which ones are ready to be checked against the criteria for B-Class status. Also, be prepared for the articles to receive increased examination, from members of other wikiprojects, once the articles have all been assessed. Fortdj33 (talk) 19:40, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
I jumped straight into the unassessed ones, though might be better to check those that are already assessed so that we don't have to find them amongst the newly assessed ones. All the help the better! Mabuska (talk) 20:04, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
At this point, I think that all the B and C class articles are accurate. Some of the Start-class articles are probably actual stubs, but the unassessed articles should probably take priority right now. Also, be sure to include additional wikiprojects, such as {{WikiProject Toys}}, {{WikiProject Animation}}, {{WikiProject Comics}}, {{WikiProject Anime and manga}} and {{WikiProject Fictional characters}}. Not every article falls into all of those categories, but each article should be examined, as to which projects it should belong to. Fortdj33 (talk) 20:23, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

So which is better and an improvement?

Trivial matter really, but which is better and less verbose when dealing with sections on different characters of the same name:

  1. Other incarnations
  2. Other Transformers named Inferno

Whilst both do the job of naming the section, Mathewignash is intent on implementing option 2 despite the fact he previously said option 1 was good and agreed that articles should "better adhere to Wikipedia conventions". And despite the fact there is disagreement on it he has implemented it elsewhere from the original dispute article rather than do the proper thing and discuss it properly, ignoring almost all questions as usual. He feels its an improvement, whereas i don't and that is where the problem lies.

Option 1 is backed up by the Wiki guidelines Wikipedia:SECTIONS#Section_headings: "Headings should not explicitly refer to the subject of the article, or to higher-level headings, unless doing so is shorter or clearer (Early life is preferable to His early life when his refers to the subject of the article; headings can be assumed to be about the subject unless otherwise indicated". - As option 2 includes the article title and the articles lede makes it clear that the article is on about different characters (incarnations) of the same name - option 2 thus fails the Wiki guidelines so how can it be an improvement?

I'd prefer we use option 1 that doesn't fail Wiki conventions. The articles have enough going against them as it is. I'd also prefer straight answers from Mathewignash rather than the typical ignoring or deflective answers that don't even have relevance to the question asked most of the time. Mabuska (talk) 23:46, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Feel free to phrase your proposals in a more neutral manner instead of making this a "you vs me" arguement. Thanks! If however you are going to call the second section "Other incarnations", then shouldn't the first section be called "Generation 1 incarnation" so they oppose one another? To simplify though you could go with sections called "Generation 1" and "Others". Mathewignash (talk) 23:56, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
Its a Wikipedia convention versus you arguement to be precise. "Others" is too vague and we don't need to explicitly state "incarnation" alongside "Generation 1" as its pretty obvious that "Generation 1" is an incarnation going by the fact the section after it is named "Other incarnations". You did previously say you liked that.
Also its debatable whether we need to have a parent section called "Generation 1" anyways. If most of the articles content is about the G1 character then its sub-sections don't need a parent, and "Other incarnations" fits in even better as we don't have a "G1" header above it. Motormaster is a prime contender for the removal of the "G1" header, though a suitable lede re-write need to be done first.
Though for articles that may need a "Generation 1" section header. "Other incarnations" is precise and to the point - it is on about other incarnations of that name. Mabuska (talk) 00:13, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
Might also help your case Mathewignash if you can outline why "Other incarnations" isn't appropriate or good enough? It does have a slight ambiguity to it, however its context is made clear by the opening statement of the section. Mabuska (talk) 10:51, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
It is both ambiguous and inaccurate in this case. Is the Armada Mini-Con Inferno another incarnation the the G1 Inferno Character at all? One's a heroic firetruck with a southern accent, the other a tiny Mini-Con villain sidekick missile truck who turns invisible. They are two Transformers characters NAMED Inferno. Mathewignash (talk) 19:56, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
I like option A. The whole situation with some of the articles seems fishy to me. They make it seem like they are completely different characters all under one name. If that is so, then they probably should not be in the same article. They are just vast redesigns I think.(although as stated before, I know nothing of the series. I am just helping cleanup) Blake (Talk·Edits) 21:20, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
A lot of these other incarnations are different distinct characters of the same name, however i feel they probably already had there own articles but were merged into a single one for not being notable enough on their own. Lack of notability or substantial content it appears has resulted in many TF article of different characters of the same name to be merged into one.
Mathewignash as i already stated there is a slight ambiguity about the term "Other incarnations" however as already stated in my last sentence before your response - the context of it is plainly dealt with in the opening statement of the section. As long as we settle the context there is no chance of it being mistaken. Mabuska (talk) 21:40, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Heres an idea... i technically don't think we should be putting different characters of the same name together in one article. Whilst i don't see the exact harm in it, it might be better to rather put lesser known/notable characters from the same continuity into a single specific article such as List of Transformers in Fun Publications etc. where they can each be detailed. The main article can always include a "See also" link at the top of the article to link straight to it as a form of disambiguation. Only an idea. Mabuska (talk) 21:33, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Do you have any response in regards to my statements on the opening sentence clarifying the section header Mathewignash? If not then i'll revert the titles to "Other incarnations", which everyone including you never raised an issue about when i proposed those examples.
A comment on my last proposal actually would be useful too as it would also solve the above issue by removing the need for it. Mabuska (talk) 10:53, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Infoboxes

Now that I'm thinking about it, why do we even need multiple infoboxes for for each incarnation? If I'm not mistaken the guidelines stipulate one infobox per article. Sarujo (talk) 20:32, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Can you link me to that guideline? Mathewignash (talk) 21:59, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
I was going to bring this up once the above was resolved, but i kinda agree with Sarujo's statement on is there a need? Mabuska (talk) 23:16, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
I would say there is a need in cases where the infoboxes are different. It becomes confusing if you mix characters simply because they share a name. For instance Marvel Comics can have more than one character named Captain Marvel, but you wouldn't make them share one infobox. Mathewignash (talk) 23:24, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
Whilst it does state on the WikiProject page that a character should be given an infobox. Should minor characters of the same name have one when it appears it takes up more vertical space than some of the prose content for that character? Maybe they do, maybe they don't. Mabuska (talk) 23:38, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
I have another problem with the infoboxes, namely that too much is trying to be squeezed into them. An infobox should be a short overview, not a complete inventory. The things that are listed in an infobox should apply to that character at all times. Things that can and do vary all over the place really don't belong in them. Look at Optimus Prime (Transformers). For "partners" NINE different individuals are listed. And Optimus isn't even a character that generally has a partner. In "alternate modes" there are thirteen listed, but those aren't even half of his different forms. And "cybertronian truck" could describe multiple different altmodes that he has had that are nothing like each other. "Subgroups" mixes marketing terms like "Voyagers" with in-fiction subgroups like "Powermasters". And "Primes" aren't so much a group as a lineage or dynasty. I mean, do you really think of things like Presidents of the United States, Kings of England or Popes as "groups"? Those are parallel to Primes. Generally Transformers articles on Wikipedia are too detailed and convoluted for the general reader and nowhere near detailed enough for the dedicated fanbase. They fall between two stools, are neither fish nor fowl and are basically of no use to anyone. --Khajidha (talk) 12:40, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
Actually, Powermasters are both a marketing term and an in-fiction subgroup. But I agree with your basic point, groups that also make an in-fiction difference shouldn't be mixed with pure marketing terms like size classes (which didn't even exist in G1's time). JIP | Talk 18:50, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
A more important problem is that such an infobox generally describes multiple incarnations of a character at once, but there is no way to tell which subgroups, partners, alternate modes, etc., belong to which incarnation. How is the reader supposed to make any sense of that? Another reason why I dislike squeezing every incarnation of the same character into the same infobox. JIP | Talk 18:52, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
Partners (in Transformers articles) is usually limited to allied character whose toys were packaged together with the character in question. We had to set up a standard or people just start adding every character duo they like as "partners". Mathewignash (talk) 18:32, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
I understand the definition, I'm questioning its usefulness. At least for a character like Optimus Prime for whom his releases as a Powermaster or such are only a small percentage of his releases. For a character like Hardhead who was originally released as a Headmaster and who did not receive a non-HM release for over two decades such a listing makes sense, it is a major part of what the character is. For Optimus Prime, such partners are relatively unimportant to understanding the core of the character. --Khajidha (talk) 14:38, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Ugh. I have been a active member for WikiProject Comics for a long time but I am still not sure of the multiple infoboxes thing. But I do agree it really depends. I personally just like the infobox only being in top and being a good navigation for the particular article and other articles. Anyways see WP:IBX and Help:Infobox for guidelines on infobox. Jhenderson 777 19:41, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

One infobox is more than sufficient i believe. The infobox i think should ideally include the most prominent incarnation of a Transformer. If its G1 then have it G1, if its the movie version then have it movie. Mabuska (talk) 21:41, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
I don't see the harm in multiple infoboxes, nor is there any rule againt it, but I do agree that we could limit it to only major versions of the characters, not every single version with a one sentence description. For intance there are 3 major Transformers named Scourge, who are completely different. They have nothing to do with each other, and in fact all have different Japanese names (Scourge, Black Convoy and Flame Convoy), they are not in any way the same character, and all three are major characters from their series. The only thing they have in common besides being Decepticons, is that Hasbro renamed them Scourge when they imported the characters, years apart, probably because Hasbro had a trademark on the name and wanted to keep it active. Mathewignash (talk) 17:21, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
No rule against it but theres also no rule for it :-) The content of the infoboxes should also be cleaned up. Partners should be purely for an actual parnter such as Stunticon team-mates or Targetmaster partners etc. In the example of Scourge, that would mean just stating Fracas, no need for Galvatron or Cyclonus.
The series bit, using Scourge again, is also terrible. What series is it on about? Is there a need for all of it different toylines to be mentioned? The article is about the character not the toy the character represents. This bit should simply state the series this character has appeared in, i.e. "G1 Transformers Series 3" or something similar. Mabuska (talk) 15:47, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

To quote: Partners (in Transformers articles) is usually limited to allied character whose toys were packaged together with the character in question. We had to set up a standard or people just start adding every character duo they like as "partners". Mathewignash (talk) 18:32, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

From what i've seen it looks like there is no standard as look at Scourge_(Transformers). How on Earth is Cyclonus and Galvatron his partners? Yes Cyclonus and Scourge where like inseperable twins in the fiction, however they aren't partners in the sense that they were packaged together. Fracas is Scourge'e partner G1 wise. The entire infobox is a complete mess and needs a total revamp as it mixed up comics, toys, and cartoon altogether into one without a clear distinction between them! Mabuska (talk) 21:51, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Probably because right now in Japan they are selling a "3 pack" of Cyclonus (with Nightstick), Scourge and Galvatron for the Transformers: United toy line. Thus making all FOUR characters partners. See here: http://plasticcrack.net/archives/2011/04/e-hobby-tf-united-cyclonus-galvatron-and-scourge-decepticon-set Mathewignash (talk) 21:53, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
So? Infoboxes are meant to give concise overviews of what is most relevant to the subject (see Help:Infobox). Is the fact that Scourge was sold in this particular three-pack of such importance that it should be separated into a highly visible section people use for basic understanding of the character? I don't think so. --Khajidha (talk) 19:07, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
I had actually been thinking about the infoboxes for some time. They are a holdover in design from long before I started working on the articles, and probably from before anyone who regularly edits the Transformers articles any more started as well. As a comparison I looked at the current standard fictional character infobox for inspiration, and decided to give the article Crasher a test spin with it. Since Crasher is a Gobot, she didn't fall within Transformers, but is a VERY similar character. The infobox is split into two sections, the top is "real world" information (voice actor, first appoearance, etc.), while the bottom seems to be "fictional world" information (species, gender, powers). That might be a good way of revamping the Transformers template, or heck, we could just throw the template out and use the Fictional Character template with additions like I did for Crasher. I was curous what other people thought. Mathewignash (talk) 21:47, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the link, but i am quite up-to-date on Transformers affairs. Whether he was released in a Japanese 3-pack doesn't automatically mean they are partners in all senses of the word. If you think "Other incarnations" is ambiguous, "Partners" is even more so as it makes you think its on about the characters actual partner in crime, not what toy they where packaged with. There is no clarity. And even then its flawed as the original Scourge wasn't released alongside them. A greater diffinition and clarification needs to be created that seperates the fiction from the toys - and i don't think the fictioinal characters infobox is the exact best one to use as does it properly cater for something that was essentially created to sell toys? Maybe we should leave the toy information out of it and in the "Toys" section and just concentrate on the character itself in the infobox, which would allow for the fictional characters one to be useful. Mabuska (talk) 10:49, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
I'm open to new ideas. That's part of why I was pointing out the newer style infoboxes, which seperate "real world" information from "fictional world" information. People were putting any thing they wanted in the Partners section. Any time two characters worked together they were partners in someone's eyes. So making standards about being packed together was limiting those long lists. So do we want Partners to be "real world" (toys packed together) or "fictional world" (guys who worked together on the show)? Mathewignash (talk) 13:13, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
The entire infobox needs overhauled to be more clear and specific. I really think keeping the toys information to the toy section might help the issue massively, though we could still make reference to the year of the first ever toy release of that character and then the total number of toys released specifically for that character, maybe even a year range (1986-2011 etc.) - TFU.info is a great source thats not a Wiki site for such information. It would cut down on the information but still provide a basic overview of its toy history. Mabuska (talk) 13:25, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
I agree. If "Partners" is strictly toy based pack-ins, then it would make sense to move it out of the infobox and just mention pack-in in the toys section. What would a Transformers write-up look like if we used the standard fictional character infobox? Mathewignash (talk) 13:43, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
Let me get back to you on this, will need some thinking. Mabuska (talk) 21:14, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Proposed merger of Boss (Transformers) into Turbomasters

The Boss (Transformers) article doesn't contain very much information specifically about this character to merit its own article, and as its fiction is already now covered in his sub-groups article (Turbomasters), i think this article should be merged with whatever good information moved over. If i tried to copy-edit this article, i'd be left with a non-notable stub. Mabuska (talk) 21:06, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

WP:BEBOLD. TheSanTropezMirage (talk) 12:37, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
As the one who started the Boss article, I don't really see any problem with merging it to the Turbomasters until such a time that it has more notability. Would it be possible to put one group picture of the members, and individual infoboxes on the Turbomaster page for all the Turbomasters, or would that be excessive? Mathewignash (talk) 19:53, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
Yes i know i could be bold about it, but there is no harm in raising the issue to see if there are opinions on it. A group shot would be best Mathewignash (if we can get one) so that we can show all of them in one go, with a caption stating who is who from left to right etc. Though an infobox for each character would be overkill. Does it even need an infobox? If so, i think we should try to get a good revamp of the infobox done first as there are many issues about them that have been raised above that really do needed sorted. Until then maybe add the Turbomasters article to a list of articles that could possibly do with an infobox? Mabuska (talk) 21:32, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
Can we make a "Team" infobox? Mathewignash (talk) 18:49, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
That would be best discussed above. Though i see no reason why it can't be made a part of the TF infobox if programmed right. Mabuska (talk) 21:12, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Unicron officially Decepticon now?

Just to let people know there is currently a debate on the Unicron talk page about whether to list Decepticon as the faction for Unicron. While I know it's not popular with the fans (who consider GODS to be above mortal factions), Hasbro has released the last two Unicron toys as Decepticons, and the official Transformers Collectors Club magazine has labeled Unicron as a Decepticon in his full page Biography, see here http://s65.photobucket.com/albums/h214/Scaleface/Fun%20Publications/?action=view&current=mtmte-unicron.jpg so I figure it's official by the guys who own the character, whether we like it or not. The flipside of the arguement is that Unicron isn't depicted as being a Decepticon specificially in ficion, and fiction is all that should count, not boxes and biographies from toys. I fall on including the Decepticon faction, while clearly saying WHY. Other opinions are welcome though, let me know what you think. Thanks Mathewignash (talk) 21:38, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

In my opinion, Hasbro releasing Unicron as a Decepticon seems like an afterthought or a retcon, or more probably simply a marketing reason: all Transformers toys have to belong to some established faction, even if the characters they represent don't. I would restrict the mention of Unicron being a Decepticon to the toys section only, with the main part of the article making it clear the actual character was never intended to be a Decepticon (or of any other faction) in the first place. Really, seeing the very start of the Unicron article claiming "...neither Autobot or Decepticon..." and having a Decepticon infobox is just silly. JIP | Talk 18:37, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
While I agree it's a retrocon by Hasbro, they are the owners of the character, so that makes it official. Also, it's NOT limited to the toy line, as the biograpgy and story printed in the Transformers Collectors Club Magazine says he is a Decepticon too. That's a comic book story, and an official one. I agree we should explain that it's a new development that he's considered a Decepticon, but it is the current truth by the creator of the character, whether we like it or not. Perhaps one day, like Spider-Man being a clone or Reed Richards being dead, they will decide that fan backlack will reverse the official position on this, but this is not that day. Mathewignash (talk) 18:42, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
However, we are not the official Hasbro Transformers Wiki, or even any other Transformers wiki, but a general-purpose wiki encyclopedia. Therefore we are free to set our own rules about how things should be labelled. The fact that the majority of Transformers fans, and almost all of the fiction, view Unicron as a dark god not belonging to any faction, must be considered alongside Hasbro's official view. There are many other cases on Wikipedia where Wikipedia uses commonly established names or terms instead of official ones. JIP | Talk 18:49, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
I would argue the EXACT OPPOSITE. Unless you can site reliable (non-fan) source saying he doesn't have a faction, I can site three reliable sources saying he does have one. Fictional characters are the product of their creator. If the writer of the Harry Potter novels says in a last book that Harry is a girl or a monkey or something, then it's true, and we can only note fan disagreement IF we have a reliable source. Now it is true that the Armada and Energon Unicron toys had no faction (actually being sold as a Mini-Con faction!), that's just as much citing toys as the later Titanium, Cybertron and Universe toys who were Decepticon (perhaps a faction of "None/Decepticon" is more approriate, we have had that once). Fan feelings are not for us to determine and enter into an encyclopedia. As for it being a retrocon, that's nothing new. Remember originally Unicron was just a planet sized robot that ate planets and was made by an evil space monkey (TF the movie and season 3 of the TV series). It was years later that the Marvel comic book writers decided he was a chaos god, and brother to Primus (who was a retrocon of Cybertron). Mathewignash (talk) 20:43, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
The Sharkticons aren't Decepticons in the cartoon but sport the Decepticon symbols. I think this issue can be easily resolved by using a note ref in the faction bit which states at the bottom of the infobox that his "Decepticon" affiliation depends on toy etc. Mabuska (talk) 20:45, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
Generic Sharkticons never had a toys. Gnaw had a toy. Gnaw never appeared in the TV series. Gnaw is called a Decepticon in the Dreamwave comics, and never even called a "Sharkticon". I'd say include any and all factions a character ever was in any fiction or toy, then explain it in the bio text. Mathewignash (talk) 20:51, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
I never mentioned the toys or Dreamwave. Mabuska (talk) 12:34, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
No, I mentioned them, Dreamwave as it's the only place Gnaw (as an individual) appeared in fiction, and he was a Decepticon. In the TV series the Decepticon logo is the Qintesson brand given to their military hardware, and the Decepticons and Sharkticons are all Quintesson military hardware. Depending on what story you follow the Decepticons are military products of the Quintessons, a rebel force of gladiators on Cybertron lead by Megatron, A group of Cybertrnians who want to restore Unicron lead by Razorclaw, or those come under the influence of The Fallen, aka Megatronus Prime, who is an agent of the Fallen. All are different but official origins. Mathewignash (talk) 13:00, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I'm about to go way off-topic here...

No offense but you appear to be inventing things up or performing conjecture and original research in regards to this statement: "In the TV series the Decepticon logo is the Qintesson brand given to their military hardware, and the Decepticons and Sharkticons are all Quintesson military hardware. Depending on what story you follow the Decepticons are military products of the Quintessons". I suggest you watch that episode with the flashback in the Matrix where we learn about the origins your somewhat reinventing (Five Faces of Darkness part 4).

Only in two scenes does a faction symbol (Autobot or Decepticon) appear in it, and both are long after the Quints have fled. Nowhere does it state or imply that the two faction symbols represented Quintesson branding. The consumer goods and military hardware are described as the "linear ancestors" of the Autobots and Decepticons, so how you can simply state that the Decepticons are Quintesson military hardware is curious. The consumer goods called themselves Autobots, whilst no mention is made of Decepticons at all. How you can also state that the Sharkticons are Quintesson military hardware when they never appear in the flashback (which kinda implies they mightn't of existed then) and no origin is given for them at all in the series, and the fact nowhere is it stated that the Quint's created the Decepticon symbol to use as a brand for their military hardware, leaves me doubting the accuracy of any other arguements you have made elsewhere ingards to the fiction. Mabuska (talk) 00:29, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

The episode "Forever is a Long Time Coming" established the Autobot symbol as a slave brand used by the Quintessons. However, no such explicit statement was given for the Decepticon symbol. --Khajidha (talk) 13:15, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for that, i couldn't exactly remember whether it was in the cartoon or some fan fiction that the Autobot symbol was suppossedly their slave brand - even though it contradicts with this ancient Autobots symbol but then again its an 80's cartoon - continuity isn't exactly the law (i.e. Constructicons origins). But there is very little ention of where the Decepticons themselves came from other than being descendants of Quintesson military hardware. Mabuska (talk) 10:38, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Blackarachnia deletion review

There is a Transformers related deletion review under way here Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2011 May 18, which you may want to add your input on. Thanks! Mathewignash (talk) 00:22, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Assessment

FYI...the assessment of all the Transformers articles is pretty much done. There are a few that I left alone, because they still need to be merged, as the result of a deletion discussion. Please let me know if you feel that I've assessed an article incorrectly.

In the meantime, you can see all the articles broken down by quality status here, or by clicking on the quality status of any Transformers article's talk page, and see all the status categories in the table of contents at the top of the page. In addition, the statistics table has been updated with all of the necessary importance categories, and you can see all of the articles broken down by importance here, or again by clicking on the importance status of any Transformers article's talk page, and see all the importance categories in the table of contents at the top of the page.

Also, all of the stub-class Transformers articles have been tagged with the template {{Transformers-stub}}. If you remove the tag because you are expanding an article, please be sure to update the classification on the article's talk page as well. There is a log of everything that has been updated here, which is maintained by the WP 1.0 bot. The articles of WikiProject Transformers are now fully part of Wikipedia:Version 1.0, and I hope that the quality and importance guides will help you to improve the coverage of Transformers articles on Wikipedia. Fortdj33 (talk) 17:11, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Mirage article talk

There is a bit fo a disagreement currently on the fomatting of the page Mirage (Transformers). I wish to treat all versions of Bay movie Mirage as one character, while another editor wishes to make seperate entires for the one seen in Dark of the Moon and the one who appeared in the Transformers movie card game. My reasoning for merging them was because they are both movieverse Mirage, just with different artist takes on his appearance. We have split a few movieverse characters like Mudflap and Crankcase where they are depicted as seperate characters IN FICTION, but since the card game Mirage is just different in the art, I don't think that's enough to spawn it's own section. You may notice that movie card characters like Cliffjumper (and others) have card art that don't match their toys precisely, but we don't split them apart into different entires. Any other opinions on this? Mathewignash (talk) 16:51, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Two different movie-based sections really is just cruft, especially given how trivial one of them really is. GRAPPLE X 16:53, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
Yes, but what if your opinion on the article formatting? I tried to just have the card game Mirage be mentioned in the article section on Dark of the Moon Mirage. The other editor wants the card game Mirage to have his own section on the page. I think it's making an assumption to make a character-less card into a seperate character. Seemingly based solely on thr fact that the card is a BLUE CAR and DOTM Mirage is red. An Autobot can change his colors you know! Mathewignash (talk) 16:56, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
Have both mentioned (in chronological order) in a "Live-action films" heading. GRAPPLE X 17:04, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Transformers film TFA

Please take a look at today's featured article. Transformers (film) is on our main page. JJ98 (Talk / Contributions) 06:04, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Infobox update?

I was wanting to update the layout of the Transformers character infobox. I was considering making it more like the fictional character infobox. I wanted to add the title "Transformers character" to the top, seperate the real world from fictional data, maybe add lines for gender and for the Takara number of the toy. Anyone object? Mathewignash (talk) 02:05, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Gender seems needless, and why only the Takara information—doesn't Hasblow give their stuff ID numbers too? GRAPPLE X 02:10, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
Some Transfomers are male, and others are female, and Takara assigns every toy a number, Hasbro does not... still that might be better listed in the toy section. Mathewignash (talk) 02:12, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
I know some are female, but the number that are and have articles is minuscule, and even att hat, it's mostly just an aesthetic thing. It just seems like cruft to me. GRAPPLE X 13:11, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
I agree with Grapple X that female Transformers are so much of a minority that the whole gender issue isn't worth even mentioning in the infobox. JIP | Talk 19:38, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
Currently 19 Transformers article are about female Transformers. Anyways, I wanted to add it because we already mention being female in the sub-group and category, it would be more moving it to it's own section than adding it. Also, what does anyone think of the OTHER items I suggested? No objections? Mathewignash (talk) 19:59, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
My only objection is with the gender. It's so minor that it isn't worth mentioning. The other ideas are OK, as long as the Takara number is only even mentioned for toys that actually do have a Takara number, and even that only in the toys section. JIP | Talk 20:11, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
I want to restate my position that only information that is relevant to the character as a whole should go in the infobox. Takara ID numbers are relevant only to the specific toy, a character could have multiple toys each with its own ID number. Do we really want to list EVERY number that Takara has ever assigned to Convoy (aka Optimus Prime)? Same thing goes for the subgroups and partners. What is the relevant, core information about each character (not each toy). That, and only that, should be in the infobox. As far as gender goes, there are very few TFs that are female, fewer still that have articles, and some of those might not deserve articles here. It simply isn't worth adding. --Khajidha (talk) 13:50, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
I already conceeded that the Takara number should go in the toy section, not the infobox. As for gender... Male Transformers have gender too. Fact is: 1 We already mention gender in the "Subgroup" line, and 2 Gender is a common thing in infoboxes for fictional characters. If we add a section for it in the infobox, you can leave it blank. Mathewignash (talk) 21:32, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
I don't quite agree with your sentiment that "male Transformers have gender too". Transformers were originally created as wholly asexual and genderless, it was only later that the TV show started introducing a small token number of female Transformers as an afterthought. This is definitely a case where "male" is taken for granted and only "female" has actual status. If we were talking about real-life people, then of course male people have gender too, but we are talking about fictional robots, where the whole notion of "male" and "female" only exists because the TV show designers wanted to attract girls to the toys too. JIP | Talk 17:32, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
Not arguing the gender in the infobox, that's not important, but to be fair the guy who imagined the whole series, Bob Budanski(sp?), wanted female Transformers from the beginning, Ratchet was to be female. They didn't make them genderless, they made them MALE. As for the percentage, you could honestly say GI Joes are over 90%+ male by watching that series, doesn't mean you don't have female GI Joes. I don't see the fact that someone is an alien species has anything to do with it. It's still a fictional person with a gender. More importantly though with the infobox, does anyone have any objections to arranging them to have "real world" info first, then fictional world info second, and adding a "first appearance" line? Mathewignash (talk) 23:30, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
My primary argument was not to list gender in the infobox. If you agree, then that's that settled. However, in your comparison to GI Joes, you have to take into account that GI Joes are humans, but Transformers are aliens, and robots for that matter. How many other fictions are there that even have male and female robots? Coming back to the infobox issue, I feel it's important to mention toy information about those characters who have toys. But this should be limited to the most important toys. Listing every one of the about thirty or forty toys that Optimus Prime has in the infobox would create so much clutter that it would make the infobox useless. The same goes for possible groups and partners. There are cases where there are so many variations of a character that it's impossible to make sense which variation has which group or partner. The "first appearance" thing is a bit complicated, because Transformers is essentially three things in one fiction: toys, a TV show, and a comic series. It was the toys that started the whole franchise, but it was the TV show and comic series that started the fiction around it. How are you going to handle the "first appearance" information based on this? Lastly, it's spelled "Budiansky". JIP | Talk 18:46, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
I would have the "first appearance" data consist of the year of original release and the toyline name at the time for those characters that originated as toys. For those that originated in the fiction, more standard issue or episode listings would be appropriate. --Khajidha (talk) 15:38, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of the article on Maximals

There is currently a nomination for deletion on the article on Maximals here Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Maximal (Transformers). I thought this would be of interest to those who edit Transformers articles, since there are only 4 main factions in Transformers, Autobots, Decepticons, Maximals and Predacons. Deleting this article would delete an article on about one fourth of the Transformers faction mythos. If anyone wants to add opinions to the debate, or add sources to the article, I'd appreciate it. Thanks Mathewignash (talk) 20:46, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Um, I'm pretty sure there are more than four main factions, considering the BM vehicons, and how Unicron's not necessarily Decepticon-affiliated. NotARealWord (talk) 06:49, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Deletion sorting

How come nobody's updated that page? There's nothing wrong with using this page to report AfDs, but the deletion sorting should be used too. Also, new AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Omnicon (2nd nomination). NotARealWord (talk) 06:49, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Fuzors and Slugslinger

There are still deletion nominations for Fuzors and Slugslinger going on. Additional Opinions welcome. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fuzors Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Slugslinger Mathewignash (talk) 09:16, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Fun Publications article

A bit of an issue, please see Talk:Fun_Publications#Reception. NotARealWord (talk) 09:40, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Wikiproject maintenance

Now that all of the Transformers articles have been assessed for quality and importance, and all of the images have been added to the wikiproject, I would like to impress again the significance of maintaining the status of Transformers articles on Wikipedia with Wikipedia:Version 1.0.

  • When creating new articles, please remember to add it to WikiProject Transformers, by adding the template {{WikiProject Transformers|class=|importance=}} to the talk page of the article. The quality class for most articles with very little information should equal "Stub" (pretty much any article 4000 bytes or less). If an article has an infobox with an image, and at least a couple paragraphs of information, it can be considered "Start" class. The importance class for new articles should almost always equal "Low", since most articles need further development over time, in order to increase in importance.
  • If an article is merged or deleted, please updated the quality class on the corresponding talk page to equal "Redirect".

You can see all of the articles broken down by quality and importance on the statistics table, and there is a log of everything that has been updated here, which is maintained by the WP 1.0 bot. I hope that you will see the significance of these quality and importance guides, and how they help to improve the coverage of Transformers articles on Wikipedia. Thank you for your time and cooperation. Fortdj33 (talk) 13:40, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

B-Class checklist for WikiProject Animation

Greeting, I am a coordinator for WikiProject Animation. A B-Class checklist has been added to the project banner, along with the work group text, including the importance function. The B-Class checklist will include 6 point parameters to assess against the criteria. If you have any questions, please discuss at our talk page. Thank for your time. JJ98 (Talk / Contributions) 21:55, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

IDW Transformers

I would like to say that I have been following and updating the page Transformers (IDW Publishing) for the last year or so. And, although I have done much to update the article, it lacks one major thing. A large part of the plot/storyline of the comic. So I am requesting that someone, who is familiar with the IDW storyline, write/update the plot for the article, because the editor who did that before seems to have left Wikipedia. He stopped at issue 11 of All Hail Megatron. Plastelin (talk) 23:42, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Dinobots

Hi, all. Now that I've copy edited Dinobots, I'm bugged about a couple of things. There's little to no real-world context in that article, it's made up almost entirely of unsourced plot descriptions. Of what few citations exist, a good number are unreliable sources like Wikis. I get the impression that, even in the context of the Transformers universe, the Dinobots might not be such a big part of it, so is the topic notable enough to have its own article? Maybe some editors here could give the page some attention and improve its sourcing. Otherwise, it might be better off merged into another article. Dementia13 (talk) 02:46, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Requested move or redirect of Recon Team article

See Talk:Recon Team#Requested move. Knowledgeable help sought. Andrewa (talk) 08:45, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

The page was a cut and past job vandalism. I restored it to at least it's non-vandalized content. I don't know if someone wants to restore the redirect. Mathewignash (talk) 12:38, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Can you be a bit more specific... what was the nature of this cut and past job vandalism? See also Talk:Recon Team#Discussion. Andrewa (talk) 22:15, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
Someone pasted in the material from other pages seemingly at random, making nonsense of the page.Mathewignash (talk) 00:10, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Beast Wars (toyline) - Years?

The article on the Transformers: Beast Wars toyline doesn't even contain the year in which the toyline began, much less any other years; aside from a year under the Japanese Beast Wars section; a section which is marked as lacking sources. This article should be much longer and actually cover every year of the line and the toys released during those years; in my humble opinion. But just the year when the line began would be a nice start. beautypersoni (talk) 20:04, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

IDW Transformers

I would like to say that I have been following and updating the page Transformers (IDW Publishing) for the last two years or so. And, although I have done much to update the article, it lacks one major thing. A large part of the plot/storyline of the comic. So I am requesting that someone, who is familiar with the IDW storyline, write/update the plot for the article, because the editor who did that before seems to have left Wikipedia. He stopped at issue 11 of All Hail Megatron. I have tagged the sections of the storyline of the article that have not been updated. The article is of Mid-importance Good criteria class. An administrator pointed out on the talk page that, due to the large number of un-updated sections to the storyline, the article may go through a new review and be downgraded. Let us try and stop this please and improve it again. Thank you. Plastelin (talk) 04:42, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Guess I'm not getting any help on this issue... Plastelin (talk) 02:28, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Hasbro, Claster, Sunbow, 80s

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Animation#Hasbro, Claster, Sunbow, 80s. JSH-alive/talk/cont/mail 12:46, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Category:Transformers locations

Category:Transformers locations, which is within the scope of this WikiProject, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Liz Read! Talk! 17:05, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

How is "Generation 1" defined?

I've been working on the article Transformers: Generation 1, but am not actually all that familiar with the Transformers franchise. Could someone with a knowledge of this topic explain whether the term "Generation 1" refers only to the toy line that was released during this time or if it also encompasses the animated series, Marvel comic series, and anything else that may have been released as a part of the franchise at the time? The current version of the article indicates the former, but an earlier version of the article (and the tfwiki entry for the term) indicates the latter. Although a reference is provided in the article for this information, it's a dead link, so if anyone could provide a reliable reference that clarifies this, that would be especially helpful. --Jpcase (talk) 17:45, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm not an expert, but it appears that the term "Generation 1" applies to the The Transformers (TV series) and The Transformers (Marvel Comics), as both of those articles contain the same information about how the term includes "everything before the 1992 franchise-wide relaunch under the name Transformers: Generation 2". Fortdj33 (talk) 18:13, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for the reply. I think that you're probably right, but it would still be good to have a source that explains this clearly. The book Transformers: Identification and Price Guide defines the term as "the period encapsulating the initial years of toy production 1984-1990", which could probably be interpreted either way, but seems to be referring to everything from this period that was associated with the franchise. --Jpcase (talk) 19:13, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
Trust the tfwiki.net entry. Tfwiki.net is where the people actually working on Transformers fiction go to get their questions answered. Some parts of tfwiki have been directly used in official releases. And some people who write official Transformers fiction are among the major contributors to tfwiki. --Khajidha (talk) 17:45, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
I've been using tfwiki as sort of a guide on how to interpret information, and have little doubt that most of what I find there is trustworthy. However, even if people associated with Transformers have contributed to the website, and even if it's been used as a source in official releases, it still doesn't meet Wikipedia's reliability criteria. So I can't use it as a source. Luckily though, I just found another book, called Transformers: The Vault, which clears the matter up. Although it doesn't explicitly explain what Generation 1 means, it does refer to the 1984-1987 television series as the G1 television series, which seems sufficient enough to me to prove that the term refers to more than just the toy line.
Thank you both for your help. --Jpcase (talk) 18:22, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Are Transformers characters Marvel Comics characters?

Please consider joining the discussion as to whether certain Transformers characters should be included in Category:Marvel Comics characters. The discussion can be found here. Fortdj33 (talk) 15:49, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Transformers 4

Hello all. I just wanted this project to know that I've (probably foolishly) took on the task of helping out at Transformers: Age of Extinction. The page was filled with sources to TFW2005.com, which from looking over is not a reliable source (please tell me if I'm wrong, but it's a fan forum). Anyways, I could just find single sources that cover a bunch of content, but that would not help in the long run. If anyone who has been following the development of this film, more than me, would like to help provide RELIABLE sources, I would greatly appreciate it. Even if you dump them on the talk page, that would be fine. Thank you very much. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 05:29, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Talk:List of Transformers TV series#NPOV statement in lead

We need some sourcing for the statement Although the comic outlived the animated series by a number of years, it was the animated series that truly captured the hearts and minds of children worldwide more so than any other piece of Transformers media from its twenty-five year history. or else it should probably be taken out.-- Brainy J ~~ (talk) 18:47, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Off site backup for deleted articles

Just for the information of the editors of this project, I started to backup a lot of the deleted articles from the Transformers wikiproject on a web site called http://www.wikialpha.org/ - A site where they don't have strict requirements for notability, but otherwise is edited just like wikipedia. Feel free to edit the articles there so we can continue to develop them and maybe get enough citations collected on each article that we can resubmit it here. I also started a lot of articles there on minor characters and third party Transformer toys that would not be notable enough for this site. You can work on those too. Thanks! Mathewignash (talk)

List of multimedia franchises

I have decided to tackle the creation of a single comprehensive List of multimedia franchises. If you feel that Transformers is an appropriate addition to this list, please add it, with links to the supporting media. Cheers!

Leaflet for Wikiproject Transformers at Wikimania 2014

Project Leaflet WikiProject Medicine back and front v1.png

Hi all,

My name is Adi Khajuria and I am helping out with Wikimania 2014 in London.

One of our initiatives is to create leaflets to increase the discoverability of various wikimedia projects, and showcase the breadth of activity within wikimedia. Any kind of project can have a physical paper leaflet designed - for free - as a tool to help recruit new contributors. These leaflets will be printed at Wikimania 2014, and the designs can be re-used in the future at other events and locations.

This is particularly aimed at highlighting less discoverable but successful projects, e.g:

• Active Wikiprojects: Wikiproject Medicine, WikiProject Video Games, Wikiproject Film

• Tech projects/Tools, which may be looking for either users or developers.

• Less known major projects: Wikinews, Wikidata, Wikivoyage, etc.

• Wiki Loves Parliaments, Wiki Loves Monuments, Wiki Loves ____

• Wikimedia thematic organisations, Wikiwomen’s Collaborative, The Signpost

The deadline for submissions is 1st July 2014

For more information or to sign up for one for your project, go to:

Project leaflets
Adikhajuria (talk) 12:07, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Major cleanup and copyedit of Starscream

I found that the article was mostly un-sourced, had extreme amount of detail that would not interest a wiki reader, and there are lot of references to blogs. Some of the content might have been copyvio too. After cleanup and copy edit I have put citation needed tags and also tagged the article for citations. I have searched for references and completed them also. This has been done evenly across past 13 days and ~60 edits with intervening edits by few other editors. I may do a little more restructuring. I would appreciate if someone can review them. Thank you. (This message is copied on article talk page also).--AmritasyaPutraT 15:35, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

I have removed GOCEinuse and marking it complete. Cumulative diff of 80 edits over past 16 days: link. Few intermediate edits towards the cleanup/copy-edit by two other editors too. Thank you. --AmritasyaPutraT 02:55, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Comment on the WikiProject X proposal

Hello there! As you may already know, most WikiProjects here on Wikipedia struggle to stay active after they've been founded. I believe there is a lot of potential for WikiProjects to facilitate collaboration across subject areas, so I have submitted a grant proposal with the Wikimedia Foundation for the "WikiProject X" project. WikiProject X will study what makes WikiProjects succeed in retaining editors and then design a prototype WikiProject system that will recruit contributors to WikiProjects and help them run effectively. Please review the proposal here and leave feedback. If you have any questions, you can ask on the proposal page or leave a message on my talk page. Thank you for your time! (Also, sorry about the posting mistake earlier. If someone already moved my message to the talk page, feel free to remove this posting.) Harej (talk) 22:48, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

WikiProject X is live!

WikiProject X icon.svg

Hello everyone!

You may have received a message from me earlier asking you to comment on my WikiProject X proposal. The good news is that WikiProject X is now live! In our first phase, we are focusing on research. At this time, we are looking for people to share their experiences with WikiProjects: good, bad, or neutral. We are also looking for WikiProjects that may be interested in trying out new tools and layouts that will make participating easier and projects easier to maintain. If you or your WikiProject are interested, check us out! Note that this is an opt-in program; no WikiProject will be required to change anything against its wishes. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you!

Note: To receive additional notifications about WikiProject X on this talk page, please add this page to Wikipedia:WikiProject X/Newsletter. Otherwise, this will be the last notification sent about WikiProject X.

Harej (talk) 16:57, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Transformers in (PR) China

  1. I found a post in Chinese about TV broadcasts of Transformers series and films in China: http://www.tfg2.com/simple/?t49730.html . We're not going to cite it because it's much like a blog post, but I think it's worth a reading. I think that post explains the history of Transformers on Chinese television, and its long standing (?) relationship with CCTV and China Movie Channel (a SARFT agency that provides programming to CCTV-6, and is also one of the production partners of Transformers: Age of Extinction). Now, I want those fluent in Chinese to explain what does the post says, as well as do some fact-checking.
  2. I think I found a reliable source about an online streaming of RID 2015 from December 31, 2014 on 1905.com: http://www.1905.com/news/20141231/841017.shtml . I want to cite that page, but I'm not that fluent in Chinese. Also, I want to cite any reliable source other than this promotional video about RID 2015's availability on other streaming services in mainland China from January 16, 2015. Can anyone help me?

JSH-alive/talk/cont/mail 15:37, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Citations and sources are needed

A very large amount of the material in the few Transformer-related articles I've looked at appears to be original research, and nearly totally devoid of citations and sources.

I have begun to challenge a small subsection of this material, as part of improving the quality of Wikipedia. In some cases, I've added a comment to the Talk page as well. Something like this:

Please be sure that all additions to the article are verifiable. Any new items added to the article should have inline citations for each claim made. As a courtesy to editors who may have added claims previously, before Wikipedia citation policy is what it is today, some of the existing unsourced claims have been tagged {{citation needed}} to allow some time for sources to be added. N2e (talk) 04:43, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

In any event, those of you working on this Wikiproject may want to get involved in improving this aspect of Transformer-related articles. Over the long term, unsourced information will tend to be removed from the encyclopedia, leaving only that which meets Wikipedia policy to remain. N2e (talk) 04:43, 30 June 2015 (UTC)