Talk:Transformers (film)

Transformers (film characters)
In an effort to reduce the length of the article I propose breaking off the complete descriptions of the Autobots and Decepticons into a new "Characters from" type page. I've seen this done with other franchises. The Red Queen (talk) 20:08, 11 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Already done. Why wasn't this archived? --uKER (talk) 05:50, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Barricade surviving
I'd like to add an addendum to that: Barricade (decepticon) survives does he not? He doesn't even participate in the final battle! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.247.19.65 (talk) 04:56, 20 May 2010 (UTC)


 * With him being completely missing from the sequel, I'd say that the reappearance of Barricade, in the two scenes he appears in car mode after Bumblebee beats him down, is just another continuity error in the film. --uKER (talk) 05:46, 20 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Think of it this way, I believe he was damaged and can't get back out of vehicle mode (it's happened in the cartoons). As for the "No return in 2" think about it, the Autobots are systematically hunting the Decepticons 1 by 1, he probably was one of the 1st to be taken out, and if he makes a return in "3" then I'm wrong, but like the story of how "Bee" lost his voice, there's a story that was written somewhere or not that really explains it all... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.54.5.61 (talk) 02:55, February 13, 2011
 * Bumblebee could talk just fine in all the IDW comics set after the movie, then when the comic writers learned he wouldn't be talking in the Revenge of the Fallen film, they quickly wrote him a second accident that made him loose his voice AGAIN, so he would be that way in the 2009 film. Barricade appears constantly in the toy bios, comic books and novels set after the 2007 movie. He just doesn't make any appearances in the later films, but he lived. It's official in the fiction. He just wasn't in the later movies (except maybe as a cameo in fight scenes) Mathewignash (talk) 18:46, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

For the record: barricade is in the third movie. so he survived. you might want to check your resources before posting information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.245.213.53 (talk) 02:37, August 18, 2011

Edit request from Camilopc123, 13 May 2010
cordial saludo creador(es/as) de la enciclopedia libre "Wikipedia"

que dios los bendiga

pido el favor y premiso de mi cuenta camilopc123 para editar la pagina transformers (film) y cualquier otra pagina a que me proponga solo es para hacerle mejoras de hecho yo soy que modifico y mejoro con mas detalles el argumento de transformers la venganza de los caídos y los "véase también" de casi todas las paginas de transformers en wikipedia excepto a la que solicito para editar por eso pido el permiso para editar y ponerle algunos detalles esta pagina y a otras

Camilopc123 (talk) 22:36, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
 * ¡Hola Camilopc123, bienvenido a Wikipedia! Si bien todos los esfuerzos por mejorar la Wikipedia son bien recibidos, las contribuciones a la Wikipedia en Inglés Wikipedia debe ser escrito en Inglés. ¿Sabía que existe una Wikipedia en Español? Quizás prefiera contribuir ahí. De cualquier forma reciba la más cordial bienvenida a Wikipedia y nuestro agradecimiento por esforzarse. Si necesita ayuda, puede notificármelo en mi página de discusión. Esta página se puede encontrar en español aquí. Intelligent  sium  23:00, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

“science fiction”?
Not sure that this movie is categorizable as science fiction. Fantasy, perhaps. Action (as it is already), certainly. The AllSpark isn’t a technology, it’s basically a god concept. In sci-fi, technological advances are typically either somewhat plausible, or explained, or projections of current trends (e.g. AI), or speculation on alien advances. This is none of those. No serious scientist — or science fiction writer — would consider the “AllSpark” plausible, or explained, or forseeable, or even *technology* in any sense. --X883 (talk) 06:15, 9 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree. The term "science fiction" has become distorted to a point where it's applied to works in which there's no "science" component. --uKER (talk) 14:27, 7 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Verifiability, not truth, is the gold standard at Wikipedia. Every reliable third-party review and listing of the film categorises it as science fiction, so that's how it'll appear here for now. GeeJo (t)⁄(c) &bull; 02:10, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

That would mean that Star Wars isn't a science fiction franchise. It incorporates science and mysticism. Science still has it's place in Transformers. All-Spark is a God figure, but the Transformers themselves can replicate technology with scanners (a theorhetical technology that is very scifi). Transformers still is scifi, just really, really, REALLY light science fiction. My vote is keep it scifi 174.1.136.145 (talk) 02:16, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Adding Recycled CGI Details
Transformers uses recycled CGI scenes from previous films. As shown here http://i.imgur.com/UKzKT.jpg. 124.169.47.217 (talk) 04:13, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Also known as stock footage. It's a *very* common thing in the industry. (Oceanic Airlines being a particularly famous example) Unless there's been specific comment on overuse of such footage in third-party sources, it's not worth a mention here. GeeJo (t)⁄(c) &bull; 04:51, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
 * More than stock footage, I know for fact that Transformers 1 used footage from Bay's Pearl Harbor (just like DotM included footage from Bay's The Island). And yes, I'm all in for the inclusion of that. --uKER (talk) 19:59, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Citation Needed issue
How is this article on "Today's Featured Article" page if it has a Citation needed tag in the lead? Where is the logic behind this? I'd appreciate feedback. Thanks. ATC. Talk 19:13, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Sure! Firstly, it wasn't there before today. Secondly, per WP:LEAD, the lede section of an article doesn't need references if the information appears further down, so the tag was misplaced regardless. GeeJo (t)⁄(c) &bull; 23:28, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Okay thanks for clarifying. If there was no need for the citation in the first place (because it was mentioned and sourced further in the article) than it should've been removed, especially the day it was featured. ATC . Talk 16:28, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

relation to other movies, sequels?
Why is there no links to the sequels here? Is this something new WikiPedia is doing? Breaking up related information so as to make it more difficult for the users? This seems anti-* ~AeSix 173.171.150.184 (talk) 03:52, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
 * The above comment didn't even make sense in the version of the article from September 2011 when the article include several mentions of the sequel films right there in the article intro and also a great big Navbox at the end of the page linking to the sequels and all the related information in the franchise. Even so a "Sequels and spin-offs" subsection was later added to the article. It is strange that the archive bots still haven't cleared out these years old comments from the talk page. -- 109.77.194.149 (talk) 15:58, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

gammar error
All of the dead Transformer bodies are dumped into the Mariana Trench at Atlantic Ocean to be hidden

"At" Should be replace by "in the". --174.71.78.172 (talk) 12:39, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

It's funny because the Mariana Trench is in the Pacific. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.146.156.158 (talk) 01:19, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Mark Ryan is NOT the Voice of Bumblebee
Mark Ryan as Bumblebee the young scout of the Autobots and best friend of Sam

[Source] According the the actual Credits of the film ... (Please watch the film and you will be able to verify this visually for yourself)

Mark Ryan is the Voice of JetFire NOT Bumblebee

Infact .. Bumblebee has NO Voice .. as his "vocal processors were damaged in battle" [Ratchet Transformers film #1]

MuwTent (talk) 23:36, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

[EDIT} I was wrong .. Mark Ryan IS the voice of Bumblebee .. even though bumblebee has no voice of his own ?

However, Mark Ryan IS the Voice of Jetfire in the second Film and NOBODY is credited with the Voice of Bumblebee.

I wonder if the production staff made an error on the credits of the first film ? MuwTent (talk) 22:59, 17 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Bumblebee speaks at the end of the film, when he asks for permission to stay with Sam. --uKER (talk) 00:28, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 9 July 2012
chris 15:06, 9 July 2012 (UTC) i would like to edit tranformers because of speling mistakes
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: this is not the right page to request additional user rights. You may reopen this request with the specific changes to be made and someone will add them for you, or if you have an account, you can wait until you are autoconfirmed and edit the page yourself. Ryan Vesey Review me!  15:28, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Um.
"Transformers ended its theatrical run in the United States and Canada with a gross $319.2 million, making it the third highest-grossing film of 2007 in these regions behind Spider-Man 3 and Shrek the Third."

Of Should be between gross and $319.2. 75.111.63.85 (talk) 17:45, 6 May 2013 (UTC)


 * ✅ I'm actually impressed this went unnoticed for so long. I just got here. Anyhow, thank you for pointing that out.  Corvoe  (speak to me)  00:22, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 December 2013
Joshua Starnes is listed in the critical response, I'd like to link this reference to his Wikipedia page Joshua Starnes

167.206.189.6 (talk) 22:32, 16 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Yes check.svg Done -- El Hef  ( Meep? ) 23:15, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 August 2014
"processing the events of the second movie."

probably should be

"presaging the events of the second movie."

108.17.69.14 (talk) 05:44, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

✅ Thanks for the suggestion - Arjayay (talk) 10:01, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 September 2014
I want to edit Transformers (film) so stop BLOCKING!!!!!!!!

Transformersprimefan (talk) 13:01, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

❌ This is not the right page to request additional user rights. If you want to suggest a change, please request this in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ". Please also cite reliable sources to back up your request. - Arjayay (talk) 15:00, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Transformers (film). 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:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.transformerscon.com/videos.php

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

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 20:17, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 June 2016
Remove navbox Transformers film series template.

--186.84.46.227 (talk) 01:58, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done — Andy W. ( talk  · ctb) 02:03, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Edit request on June 18 2016
Within the "Sequels"-section, one of the "Main articles" is Transformers 5 which, at least when I click on it, redirects to Transformers: The Last Knight. If Transformers 5 and Transformers: The Last Knight is the same movie, shouldn't the "Main articles"-section within the "Sequels"-section link directly to "Transformers: The Last Knight" rather than to "Transformers 5"? Furthermore, the "Sequels"-section also says "And the fifth as of now titled Transformers 5 is scheduled for a summer 2017 release". Shouldn't that read "And the fifth as of now titled Transformers: The Last Knight is scheduled for a summer 2017 release" or "And the fifth film, Transformers: The Last Knight, is scheduled for a summer 2017 release" or something like that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.167.173.189 (talk) 20:06, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 August 2016
Please change “A lengthy battle occurs in Los Angeles, with most of the Decepticons being killed, but Megatron murders Jazz.” to “A lengthy battle occurs in Mission City, (but clearly filmed in Los Angeles,) with most of the Decepticons being killed, but Megatron murders Jazz.” because that is the accurate title of the city in the movie storyline. The source is the actual published movie at 1 hour 45 minutes 30 seconds in spoken by character Lennox (Josh Duhamel). Details can also be verified in text at

72.208.19.35 (talk) 18:57, 1 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Yes check.svg Done -- MorbidEntree - (Talk to me! (っ◕‿◕)っ♥) (please reply using &#x7B;&#x7B;ping&#x7D;&#x7D;) 04:12, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Transformers (film). 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091012224415/http://www.latinoreview.com/news/on-set-interview-producer-don-murphy-on-transformers-1502 to http://www.latinoreview.com/news/on-set-interview-producer-don-murphy-on-transformers-1502
 * Added tag to https://m.cinemascore.com/
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.calendarlive.com/movies/reviews/la-et-transformers2jul02%2C0%2C445321.story
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131012045551/http://www.oscars.org/awards/academyawards/oscarlegacy/2000-present/2008/winners.html to http://www.oscars.org/awards/academyawards/oscarlegacy/2000-present/2008/winners.html

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 02:45, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Transformers (film). 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090616234421/http://boards.transformersmovie.com/showthread.php?t=12054 to http://boards.transformersmovie.com/showthread.php?t=12054
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070809202842/http://www.fxguide.com/article441.html to http://www.fxguide.com/article441.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070706203941/http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/industry/4218826.html?series=6 to http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/industry/4218826.html?series=6
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071011122722/http://news.awn.com/index.php?ltype=top to http://news.awn.com/index.php?ltype=top&newsitem_no=22404
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071013113248/http://comicnewsi.com/article.php?catid=208&itemid=10370 to http://comicnewsi.com/article.php?catid=208&itemid=10370

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 22:48, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Transformers (film). 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090629020219/http://uk.movies.ign.com/articles/588/588884p1.html to http://uk.movies.ign.com/articles/588/588884p1.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070621173208/http://www.iesb.net/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=2718&Itemid=99 to http://www.iesb.net/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=2718&Itemid=99
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080601225500/http://www.jamesclyne.com/projects.php?gallery_id=297 to http://www.jamesclyne.com/projects.php?gallery_id=297

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 21:33, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Transformers (film). 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:
 * Added tag to http://boards.transformersmovie.com/showpost.php?p=366827&postcount=47
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070917001231/http://enewsi.com/news.php?catid=190&itemid=11213 to http://enewsi.com/news.php?catid=190&itemid=11213
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120513024717/http://enewsi.com/news.php?catid=261&itemid=11481 to http://enewsi.com/news.php?catid=261&itemid=11481

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 06:59, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

plot section
The first paragraph is really off. Optimums Prime doesn't even mention Megatron and the civil war in the beginning. Its just a voice over of what the Allspark can do. We don't know about Sam's great grandfather discovering megatron until he tells us in his presentation after the base attack. It leaves out sam's car escaping and him getting arrested. Then scoponok attacks the survivors — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lawrence 282 (talk • contribs) 00:50, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 October 2018
Add "superhero film" to lead and add Category:2000s superhero films 200.158.246.200 (talk) 12:49, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done for now: These kind of changes should first be discussed on the talk page first. JC7V -talk  18:25, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 June 2020
Please note MOS:SLASH.

In the article intro please change the text
 * X "as well as a spin-off/prequel titled Bumblebee in 2018" to
 * Y "as well as a spin-off and prequel titled Bumblebee in 2018"
 * (or alternatively at the editors discretion Z omit "/prequel" entirely, "as well as a spin-off titled Bumblebee in 2018")

In any case slash should not be included in the text, like that. -- 109.76.153.121 (talk) 13:32, 27 June 2020 (UTC)


 * While I'm checking the article I notice MOS:SLASH also needs to be applied to the subsection "Sequels and spin-offs" (and also WP:RELTIME)

Please also change the text
 * X "A spin-off/prequel titled Bumblebee was released on December 21, 2018 to universal critical acclaim. It is currently the highest-rated film in the Transformers series." to
 * Y "A spin-off titled Bumblebee was released on December 21, 2018 to universal critical acclaim. It is the highest-rated film in the Transformers series."
 * kthx -- 109.76.153.121 (talk) 13:38, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done &#8209;&#8209; El Hef  ( Meep? ) 14:41, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Protection
I requested removal of the semi-protection of the article since it had been in place since 2010. For now, there is not protection applied to it, but if needed, pending-changes protection can be applied (see WP:PCPP). Thanks, Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 19:45, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Budget
For the longest time the budget of this film was listed as $150 million based on statements from producers Lorenzo di Bonaventura and Ian Bryce, to Reuters. Also Box Office Mojo puts the budget at $150 million and The-Numbers puts the budget at $151 million

Yet without discussion or explanation someone decided to add a budget range to the Infobox, claiming the budget could be as high as $200 million. There was no talk page discussion, and there was no effort made to expand the article text to explain why this higher budget figure might be credible. Template:Infobox film does warn against "cherry picking" budget figures but this almost the opposite, including a outlying contradictory source is the other end of the scale. This is supposed to be a high quality Featured Article, this should be properly explained and put in some context in the article, not shoehorned in to the Infobox. I'm disappointed to see editors yet again sloppily adding strange numbers to the Infobox but failing to make any effort to properly improve the main article, or even starting a talk page discussion to let other editors know that such improvements might be necessary.

Why might this other source be more credible than the producers of the film and the usual sources of budget information? What might have been the point of including it?

The source, is an interview from NPR from 2007 where the host and the entertainment expert for NPR Kim Masters, discuss why Spider-Man 3 was so expensive. Sony claim the budget was $270 and denies that the cost of the film passed the $350 million, the point being that studios don't want to admit how much they really spent on a film. Later in the article Masters says:

"Somebody said to me recently, I know definitively that 'Transformers' - which is coming out over the July 4th weekend - 'Transformers' has passed 200 million."

So this is a rumor from NPR's Hollywood correspondent. If this source is credible and should stay in the article, then it should be properly explained somewhere in the article body, such as in the Production section for example. I suggest something along the following lines:

Producers Lorenzo di Bonaventura and Ian Bryce, say the film cost only $150 million, and they reckon it was a bargain compared to the other tentpole films that summer which cost as much as $300 million. [Note: Could specify Spider-Man 3 and Pirates 3 with their $300 million budgets but that extra context may not be necessary.] According to Kim Masters of NPR studios did not want to admit to their real budget and risk further cost inflation, and her anonymous Hollywood source put the budget for Transformers at over $200 million.

TLDR: Is this claimed higher budget figure credible? Yes or no? If yes then how should the article be improved to properly explain the figure. -- 109.77.194.149 (talk) 16:48, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
 * The infobox is supposed to summarize the article see MOS:INFOBOX. It is not supposed to circumvent the article with new information not explained elsewhere. Based on my earlier comment above I have added information about the budget to the production section. I'm still sceptical that the higher figures should be mentioned in the Infobox at all, as it is a little too close to WP:RUMOR. Also the production budget of the film may have been $150 million but distribution and marketing costs would easily be expected to be millions mores more than that. The Marketing section is focussed on Merchandising and tie-ins, it emphasizes the potential revenue but does not mention anything about the cost of advertising. Despite being a Featured Article this article is not up to the highest standards. -- 109.79.81.227 (talk) 15:36, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Fansites are not reliable sources
Please note WP:FANSITE. Wikipedia articles are not supposed to use fansites as references (eg TFW2005.com should be replaced with better sources). It seems particularly inappropriate for this to not be reliably sourced. Perhaps it was good enough at the time but I do not think this meets the current standards of Featured articles and may need review. -- 109.78.201.203 (talk) 16:50, 5 June 2022 (UTC)


 * If someone does not address your concerns shortly, you can list the article at WP:FARGIVEN. Then after a period of two or three weeks, you can nominate it at WP:FAR; please see the instructions there. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  01:05, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

$145 million budget
Here's ths source; youtu.be/NmboiE5kxy4?si=n2La1f9aWBaVQ3RY&t=3849 DougheGojiraMan (talk) 04:01, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks for providing a reference here on the Talk page but this encyclopedia article needs a reference that can actually used directly in the article, and that Youtube video would seem to be a WP:COPYVIO. (I don't for a second believe the final cost was $145 million but may well have been the budget it was greenlit or started at, and DiBonaventura simply rounded it to $150 million.) Now that we know Bay said it cost $145 million maybe we can find another source elsewhere. -- 109.78.196.145 (talk) 16:59, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
 * He did an interview with Collider that might do a press conference where he said he the budget was $145 million that I cannot believe was overlooked all this time (although the press conference has been referenced twice in the article already). -- 109.78.196.145 (talk) 18:01, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

Requested move 17 May 2024

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: no consensus. The discussion has run its course, and it's obvious no one can agree on a solution. Running the discussion one more week wouldn't make a difference. (closed by non-admin page mover)  Liliana UwU  (talk / contributions) 22:00, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

Transformers (film) → Transformers (2007 film) – See WT:NCF Does anyone make any sense? Similar to Star Trek (2009 film). 71.95.108.35 (talk) 06:01, 17 May 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. BilledMammal (talk) 11:24, 28 May 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. BilledMammal (talk) 07:55, 6 June 2024 (UTC)  — Relisting. BilledMammal (talk) 21:06, 16 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Support. This could easily be confused with the 1986 film. BD2412  T 19:08, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose since both films have always properly disambiguated from each other, and hatnotes complement the guidance of readers. This has not been a problem for years and years, and this behavior is just rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 00:55, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Support because it could be confused with upcoming films such as Transformers One, or other media. Denoting its date is helpful, and it is known as the 2007 movie of TF2007 in the fanbase anyways. Cronchconch (talk) 07:55, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Support, while the other film is properly disambiguated, "Transformers (film)" could reasonably apply to either, or even to Transformers One as mentioned above, so a better disambiguation is needed. Chaotic Enby   (talk · contribs) 13:57, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Comment: Remember that the other film is called The Transformers: The Movie, so that's different enough for WP:SMALLDETAILS to apply. And to assume confusion about Transformers One being just Transformers is a bit ridiculous. The "ONE" is huge in all advertising materials. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 14:21, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose. I'm not even sure what the nomination is trying to say. But even outside of that, I'm skeptical there is much chance for confusion. It would be awkward for the cartoon adaptation to be plausibly called "Transformers"/"The Transformers", as that's the name of the show, and it has a prominent subtitle. By contrast, the 2007 film was heavily marketed as Transformers. There are hatnotes on both anyway, so if there is any confusion it's not the end of the world. Nohomersryan (talk) 15:41, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Support the 2007 one has 59,949 views but the 1986 one has 20,311[|The_Transformers:_The_Movie] which isn't enough for a PDAB even if this one isn't known as much without the subtitle.  Crouch, Swale  ( talk ) 17:01, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

Star_Trek_(2009_film) points to the JJAbrams movie and Star_Trek_(film) is a redirect to List of Star Trek films. Does this proposal intend to make Transformers_(film) into a redirect to the Michael Bay film franchise page at Transformers (film series)? -- 109.79.70.49 (talk) 14:35, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose. agreeing with some of the other guys, the 1986 film, the 2007 film, and One have different subtitles and titles. Also, one's animated. They're distinct enough. AndrewGarfieldIsTheBestSpiderMan (talk) 01:42, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose. This just seems unnecessary, there is no ambiguity with The Transformers: The Movie. Transformers One is different enough. Not clear that substantial actual confusion exists.
 * No. This is intend to redirect to Transformers (disambiguation).
 * Oppose: Redirecting a featured article's title to a disambiguation page is bad for readers. It means readers have to make more clicks to get to the information that they're looking for. Toughpigs (talk) 20:17, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Support there's the 80s film, there's the film series, there's this film. The subtitles do nothing to disambiguate this film, sincec this film is not carrying a subtitle, therefore this pagename is not unambiguous. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS on the other topic titles, which isn't relevant to the name of this article. They can be called "Transformers", thus this title is not unambiguous, as it can refer to the other topics. -- 65.92.244.143 (talk) 23:16, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Relisting comment: Relist for additional participation; discussion of whether this is the primary topic for this title may be helpful BilledMammal (talk) 07:55, 6 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Rename per nom. I'm concerned less with The Transformers: The Movie, and more with other entries in Category:Transformers (film series) titled Transformers: Something * Pppery * it has begun... 14:11, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Which specifically? Because that's just not how this _encyclopedia_ is supposed work. The guidelines are not as enthusiastic about adding redirects as most editors are. Readers should be directed to the most likely answer where possible, the principal of least astonishment applies. It is not helpful to redirect or dump people on a list page and it adds unnecessary extra steps for the majority or readers because of vague feelings that a tiny minority of readers potentially suffering brief confusion over non-specified "other entries". Until there is an actual specific problem to be solved this unnecessary rename should not happen. Just because it is easy to add redirects or rename pages doesn't mean it should be done. -- 109.79.164.239 (talk) 12:39, 8 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Oppose. I can see absolutely no need for this. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:32, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose per 's reasoning and follow-up comment. The hatnotes handle any potential issues already and the "(film series)" disambiguation exists for a reason. Sock   ( tock talk)  19:50, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Relisting comment: Final relist BilledMammal (talk) 21:06, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
 * has relisted this three times even though there is obvious no consensus across thirteen editors. I've never seen this many before. I don't think this editor is capable of properly calling a "no consensus", which is a valid outcome per WP:RMCIDC. There was a similar problem with Fashion Model (film) where they listed that twice even after nine editors' involvement (also suspect due to multiple editors supporting the application of policy). It looks like after that second relisting, they counted an IP editor's !vote twice: one early on, and one after the second relisting, which was apparently enough for BilledMammal to close it:
 * We need a different closing editor. The lack of a user page does not give anyone any indication of a background in requested-move management, much less editing in general. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 21:57, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
 * We need a different closing editor. The lack of a user page does not give anyone any indication of a background in requested-move management, much less editing in general. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 21:57, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
 * We need a different closing editor. The lack of a user page does not give anyone any indication of a background in requested-move management, much less editing in general. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 21:57, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

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