Talk:Constructicons

WALL OF TEXT
This article has 1 picture. That is not sufficient.

The constructicons created the gestalt technology, and six of the constructicons were chosen (or volunteered) to test the unproven technology.

I think this is disputable. in the cartoon there are multiple mutually contradictory origins for the Constructicons. In the comic, they were built by Shockwave and given life using the Creation Matrix while Optimus Prime was a captive of the decepticons. --Plicease 18:29, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I do believe (in the cartoon series), Devastator's first words were "PREPARE TO MEET YOUR DOOM! NOTHING CAN WITHSTAND THE MIGHT OF DEVASTATOR". GoodDay 02:15, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Moved
Moved the "Devastator" page to "Constructicons" - all the other sub-group pages are titled after the group's name, rather than the combined 'bot, so I'm bringing this one in-line with that.

== WALL OF TEXT == This article has 1 picture. That is not sufficient.

Wiki En
This is wiki en why all the french and italian names for every bot, should be removed imo (Gnevin 20:24, 20 August 2006 (UTC))
 * Should information about toylines that were not released in North America also be removed? Heaven forbid Wikipedia might actually contain information about the world outside the boundaries of the USA.--80.141.83.119 22:20, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Incorrect Information
I just recently saw Transformers (2007), and neither Brawl nor Devestator's name was mentioned in the credits. I believe some Wiki information needs to be deleted.
 * The toys are all named Brawl. In the movie, however, he announces his own name as Devastator. --  JediLofty User ¦ Talk 08:32, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism
Some idiot replaced several names with garbage. "Scrapper" with "Payload", "Gravedigger" with "Crushernut", "Glen" with "Glark" and so on. And instead of just undiong his nonsense, someone else simply changed back one single instance of the renaming nonsense and kept the rest like it was.--80.141.83.119 22:22, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Is it Wikipedia appropriate?
In the Conflicting Origins section, there are arguments to explain away origin contradictions with no citations of any kind. That clearly may as well be ruled OR, correct? Especially if these aren't documented theories and conclusions from a reliable source.Kuahmel (talk) 07:40, 30 August 2009 (UTC)