Talk:The Transformers (IDW Publishing)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Former good articleThe Transformers (IDW Publishing) was one of the Language and literature good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
April 11, 2007Good article nomineeListed
July 3, 2009Good article reassessmentKept
March 28, 2018Good article reassessmentDelisted
Current status: Delisted good article

Citations for use[edit]

Alientraveller 12:21, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All in the article now. Alientraveller 17:14, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GA review[edit]

Okay let's see what we got here.

  • It is well written. - Yes, easily passes this one. Very wel written, and excellent for an article about a work of fiction.
  • It is factually accurate and verifiable. - No problems, all references in proper format, and all fine.
  • It is broad in its coverage. - My first reaction was no, but that was the first reaction. When I fully read the article I changed my mind. The publication section is very informative, and comprehensive and includes the pre-order sale figures as well which is good.
  • It follows the neutral point of view policy. - Yep.
  • It is stable - Yessem
  • It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic. - Yep, and its properly tagged and FUsed, very good.

Overall the article is very detailed, comprehensive and informative to someone like me who "only vaugely knows who Optimus Prime and Megatron are", nice work. I have made one minor, minor change, that doesn't merit putting it on hold. "although he find it difficult in terms of having to rationalize gender in giant robots" needed to be "although he found it difficult in terms of having to rationalize gender in giant robots."

Okay so the verdict. I'm glad to say that I am going to pass this article, and you have the privilege of knowing that this is the first article I have ever passed as a GA. Good job. Gran2 21:43, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Too bold?[edit]

I don't think that the boldness of the Transformers titles beyond the main subject is necessary, per special uses at WP:MOSBOLD. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 22:03, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think it gives a polish to the article, considering these are the titles the comic changes to every few months or so. Alientraveller 08:56, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

New Avengers/Transformers[edit]

Just curious, but as NA/TF has been indicated in a few places to not really take place in the continuity, but not contradict it either, how much of a mention, if at all, do we give it in the text?SMegatron 08:33, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking a while ago to place it inside, but I have a feeling the crossover may mutate into its own universe. However, this could allow space to mention other IDW Transformers titles, like Beast Wars, Evolutions and the Movie Prequel. Alientraveller 09:40, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Correction for Shockwave - Spotlight[edit]

Shockwave and the Dinobots have not been in stasis lock for "millions of years." No specific time is ever given. However, when they appear the dinosaurs are extinct (the dinobots assume their forms by detecting the fossils). Also, the ice age is ending and mastodons are dying out before Shockwave's eyes (he makes a comment that they are unable to adapt). According to the Wiki page Mastodon's existed in North America until 10,000 years ago, which is also around the time the ice age ended. Thus the story's context puts it at roughly 10,000 years ago. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.91.123.164 (talk) 06:13, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GA Reassessment[edit]

This discussion is transcluded from Talk:The Transformers (IDW Publishing)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.

Starting GA Sweeps reassessment. Jezhotwells (talk) 15:39, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Checking against GA criteria[edit]

  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose):
    b (MoS):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references):
    • There are several dead links found using this tool [1]  Done
    b (citations to reliable sources):
    c (OR):
  3. It is broad in its scope.
    a (major aspects):
    b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):
    b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:
    • OK, I am going to put this on hold for seven days so that these issues can be fixed. Jezhotwells (talk) 15:55, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    On the sources you say "newsarama {http://forum.newsarama.com/} likewise" but that is actually fine as a source (it is one of the leading comics news, reviews and interviews site and received numerous awards and is used as a source on hundreds of comic book articles, including GA and above) - at the time Newsarama was using forum software as their publication medium, they have since moved to a bespoke system but either way is fine when the reference is to the main post, the comments are clearly another issue (although there are occasionally posts by creators explaining a point, but these would have to be judged on a case-by-case basis). (Emperor (talk) 18:05, 29 June 2009 (UTC))[reply]
    OK, I take your point on re-examining that citation as it it is by one of the publication's editors. I have retrieved an archive version of citation #6. All OK, keep GA status. Jezhotwells (talk) 16:50, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Chronological comic order[edit]

Liste WesleyDodds, I have been watching this article for the past month and before that user SMegatron and the anonymous user you reverted were also watching and editing it. And me, SMegatron and the anonymous user have had no problem with that section being there. You said, The in-story chronology is not notable unless you have a secondary source discussing it. Now please listen, you are new to this article and since you made this statement it is obvious you have not read the comic. The comic itself has one big story, but the story is not told in the comic from A to B to C, from issue 1 to issue 2 to issue 3, from one comic to the next. No, the story jumps from point 1 in time with issue A, to point 5 in time with issue B, than back to point 3 in time with issue C and so on. You said You can read from number 1 to whatever, that's the thing, no you can not read from number 1 to whatever. The section is needed so the Wikipedia readers who come to this article would know in which order to read the comic, that's the purpose of Wikipedia, being informative for it's readers. In any case, us three have had no problem with the section and have been keeping it up-to-date, since we are reading the comic, and it's three against one. I would urge you to reconsider this since a majority of editors have not had a problem with this.LiquidOcelot24 (talk) 01:07, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It violates Wikipedia:Original research. You need a secondary source (that is, something aside from the comics themselves) to back this information up and establish its notability, or else it can be removed per Wikipedia:Be bold. Consensus does not excuse poorly sourced information. WesleyDodds (talk) 01:22, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Concensus does not excuse poorly sourced information? You saying than that the opinion of three editors against only one deosn't matter? Also, you reverted again without waiting for the result of the discussion. Wikipedia may promote the Be bold rule, but they also state that discussion is needed before large changes are made to an article, which of the rules do you think has more relevance? Again, please wait while the other editors say their peace before reverting again. I will not revert you for a day or so because you have put me in such a position that I will be blocked because of the 3 revert rule if I reverted you again, however I will revert you in a couple of days. After that I am asking you nicely to hold of on your edit until there is a discussion on the structure of the article. Please don't do such large edits all on your own and ignoring the opinion of other editors.LiquidOcelot24 (talk) 01:49, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why is the BotCon story "Wings of Honor" listed in this timeline? It is not an IDW continuity story. --ItsWalky! (talk) 02:32, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hehehe, actualy, you just said it yourself. You want a source? The comics are the source, many articles are sourced not with url links, but with the names of books from which the information was taken, and so if somebody wants to confirm the information they just go and read the specified book, so we will resolve this problem just by citing all of the information with names of the specific issues, if you got a problem with that too then you have got a big job of removing a bunch of content from thousands of Wikipedia articles that are purely cited with the names of books from which the information was taken.LiquidOcelot24 (talk) 01:55, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've just added in the AHM codas and moved Wheelie. I hope you agree with their placement, but they're based on observation of any timeline clues, or failing that, general story flow. I've been considering another, slightly more major edit, but I don't know how much you other editors think it would aid clarity, so I'll open it to discussion. The idea is breaking down the list into chronological 'era'. For example, WAR ON CYBERTRON (Megatron Origin, Blurr, Shockwave, Jazz); WAR ACROSS SPACE (Sixshot, Ultra Magnus, Hot Rod, Soundwave); INFILTRATION (Infiltration, Stormbringer); etc etc. Opinions? -ED

The Drift Miniseries occurring AFTER AHM??? Oversight? By definition it has to occur BEFORE Spotlight:Drift, since he's still a Decepticon in the miniseries. 62.31.197.53 (talk) 12:35, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually no, the story of him still being a Desepticon in the past is in fact told by Drift himself in the present when he is already an Autobot. Plastelin (talk) 23:53, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I come to read the transformers in the Chronological as on the page and i want to highlight the Thundercracker spotlight. Yes i know that in the comic it does state (following the events of Autocracy) so in theory it should logically be the next. The plot of the story is covering the Decepticons are looking for metroplex the story states how he was the base for the autobots and then the next he disappeared. However in Monstrosity metroplex is still on Cyberton acting as the base of Autobots. So this story i would suggest needs to be moved to after Monstrosity or where it logical fits where both Autobots and Decepticons are hunting for him as i believe happens later on. From reading user comments on amazon.uk that sell the Hardback books that this list is sourced from. Users there have commented about the odd order the story's run. So do we go by the official book or by as a reader by what we know has happen so far, personally i say via what the reader knows so far. The thundercracker placement is confusing and also a possible spoiler for future events. Dawnofsteel (talk) 21:32, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reading more of the comics in order of the Chronological list its come clear the list needs to be corrected. The Spotlight of Soundwave refs back to events that happen in stormbringer there even a note in the comic itself to see stormbringer this should be moved and placed after stormbringer and not before as once again it is spoiling future events in the series. Dawnofsteel (talk) 10:25, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the late reply, first in regards to Thundercracker. You are right. That issue fits chronologically after the events of Primacy considering Metroplex was still on Cybertron in that mini-series and had not yet vanished (he's missing in Thundercracker). This has been corrected. As for Soundwave, the events in that story take place in 1984. The events in the Stormbringer mini-series take place in 2007. The events that Soundwave refers back to are not the events from the Stormbringer mini-series, but that of Thunderwing's rampage eons before, which are once again referenced in retrospective in the Stormbringer series. Hope that all clears it up. Plastelin (talk) 07:29, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Now that Hearts of Steel has been brought into the main IDW TF Continuity, if it would be added in its correct place to the Chronological Comic Order it would be appreciated. Thank You — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.21.44.1 (talk) 16:24, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Added. Plastelin (talk) 01:00, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

GA status[edit]

Quite a few tags on this article. I am hoping someone more familiar with the subject may ve able to deal with them, otherwise this will probably have to go through a WP:GAR. AIRcorn (talk) 09:40, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pages for more series.[edit]

FINALLY, after the longest wait someone added a whole lot of information missing with the timeline. But, honestly, I think there need to be more pages on some of these series. Unfortunately, I could not humanly find the time to make all of these (Though I am working on a page for More Than Meets The Eye). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ig44165 (talk • contribs) 02:47, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (January 2018)[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on The Transformers (IDW Publishing). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:23, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

GA Reassessment[edit]

This discussion is transcluded from Talk:The Transformers (IDW Publishing)/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.

I commented a number of years ago about the number of tags on this article and that they might effect the GA status. Not a lot has changed in that regard. A bigger issue is the plot heavy nature. There is no real third party critical commentary that is required in an article like this. AIRcorn (talk) 01:55, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Bleeding Cool Magazine had several articles and interviews about this series. Comicbookroundup.com could be used to locate reviews of individual issues from reliable sources that (probably) contain critical commentary about the series as a whole. I think sources exist to keep this GA status. That said, the current article is far from meeting GA requirements. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:24, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the comment and sources. I agree this is far from GA standard. I would have probably instant failed it if it was a Good Article nomination. Will wait a week in case someone is super keen.AIRcorn (talk) 18:35, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I found this article that discusses the full length of the series. It might be useful for a future editor. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:10, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Splitting 2005 and 2019 comics continuity into separated pages[edit]

Someone proposed to split this article in two: one for 2005 and one for the 2019 comics continuity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.145.254.9 (talk) 02:15, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Plastelin (talk) 15:42, 16 March 2019 (UTC) Too soon - The article should be improved first. If the plot was trimmed of excess, there probably wouldn't be a need to split. Argento Surfer (talk) 20:39, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_Transformers_(IDW_Publishing)&oldid=1198361400"