Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Transformers/Archive 3

Wikipedia:Notability (serial works)
There is a proposal to split WP:EPISODE into a more general notability guideline, Notability (serial works), and make the rest of WP:EPISODE just a MOS guideline. Please join in at WT:EPISODE and/or Wikipedia talk:Notability (serial works). -- Ned Scott 22:01, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Contributing Toy Photos
I gave away my toy robot collection some time ago. But before I did, I took pictures of all the the toys and posted them on my blog: http://multimedia.cx/eggs/category/robots-of-the-80s/

Anyway, I thought it would be nice to preserve some of these photos for posterity at Wikipedia. Can anyone lay out some general guidelines for contributing photos? What size they should be? Where they should live on a page? How I should go about writing the licensing documentation (looks complicated)?

Oh, and most of all, I will need help ID'ing many of the 'bots. Thanks --Multimedia Mike (talk) 04:33, 24 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Short answer: You can upload them to Wikipedia. Licensing is simple; select the option of "self-made, released under GFDL" (or GDFL, I always forget). Note that this means you are giving anyone anytime the permission to do anything anytime forever with the photos.
 * Then you can post links here - use  Image:Transfomerimagename.png  to make a link rather than place the image... note the leading COLON (:). Then we can go look and ID, placing the ID information on the image page.
 * I personally would love to help on a project like this, and you can leave me a note directly on my talk page if you'd like and I'll go take a look. As for image size, generally larger is better... some images are in the 4000x6000 pixel size or even larger. Wiki will automatically resize them for pages and previews.
 * Best of luck; glad to help!   • VigilancePrime   •    •    •  18:40 (UTC)  24 Feb '08


 * Thanks for the tips. I am fine with using the GFDL for my contributed images. It's just that I remember seeing some other toy photos that had some legalese along the lines of "this is a photo of a copyrighted toy and is posted using the assumption that it's okay under fair use guidelines." I still have the original 2272-pixel width digital images so I will be sure to spare no quality in the uploads. And thanks to those who have visited my blog to help identify the robots. Invaluable! --Multimedia Mike (talk) 06:56, 27 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I have been reading some guidelines over on Wikimedia Commons (I thought it would be a better idea to upload them over there). I can't find the document now, but it was clear that toy pictures are covered as works of art and are often not okay to upload. --Multimedia Mike (talk) 05:54, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

This merely means you need a proper non-free picture rational for "3D art" attached to the picture. if you need an example of one I can provide it. Mathewignash (talk) 09:06, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Help protect Transformers articles
The article Oil Slick (Transformers) has been nominated for deletion. Feel free to go add to the article or voice your opinion on it's proposed deletion. Mathewignash (talk) 14:28, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

The article Santon (Transformers) is also up for deletion. Feel free to go vote to keep it. Mathewignash (talk) 09:23, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Infoboxes
Hey there, hopefully someone will get this message, I'm not sure how active this project is. I was checking out a couple of the Transformers articles and noticed that the infoboxes are in the first section instead of at the top of the page. Was there a particular reason? I changed a few (Optimus Prime, etc), but if there are a lot like this, it should probably be changed. Infoboxes are usually at the top of the article for organizational and aesthetic reasons. Thanks! Glass  Cobra  17:30, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Often times articles are for several differentr characters who share the same name They each need a seperate infobox, so you wouldn't put one at the top of the page, you'd put it at the top of each character's section. For instance, your editing the Shockwave or Elita One pages... there are multiple characters who share that name, and multiple infoboxes. Each infobox appears at the beginnning of the section for each character, not at the top of the page. Mathewignash (talk) 18:34, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Hmm, okay, I understand. I should have checked more thoroughly, my fault. However, if I do run across some articles that have the infoboxes in the incorrect spot, I'll go ahead and change them. Thanks! Glass  Cobra  18:47, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Your welcome. Thanks for asking. Help on these articles in appreciated. Mathewignash (talk) 19:56, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Beast Wars characters
I have been browsing through some Beast Wars related articles of lately, and noticed that many of the articles based on characters do not meet Wikipedia's standards for Notability, WP:Verify|Verifiability]], or fictional summaries. Specifically, subjects like “Air Hammer”, “Airraptor, or “Noctorro”, were only toys, who only never appeared on the series. Most of Beast Wars related articles offer little real-world information, and only offer in-universe plot summaries. I attempted to to re-write the Dinobot (Beast Wars) article several months ago, but was unable to find any reliable third-party references. I fear this may be the case for several other articles as well.

I posted my concerns Fiction/Noticeboard, and was told to hold a discussion (somewhere) to determine which articles should be left alone or merged into List of Beast Wars characters. In general, I agree with their suggestions, but I feel that some main characters, such as “Optimus Primal” may be able to warrant their own article given their popularity, and thus increased likelihood of relevant third-party reliable sources--  StarScream1007  ►Talk  18:00, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I have also posted this disc on "List of Beast Wars characters" --  StarScream1007  ►Talk  21:26, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Powerdasher up for deletion
Sound off to save the article on powerdashers from deletion - Articles for deletion/Powerdasher Mathewignash (talk) 09:00, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Articles flagged for cleanup
Currently, 553 articles are assigned to this project, of which 164, or 29.7%, are flagged for cleanup of some sort. (Data as of 2008-07-14.) Are you interested in finding out more? I am offering to generate cleanup to-do lists on a project or work group level. See User:B. Wolterding/Cleanup listings for details. More than 150 projects and work groups have already subscribed, and adding a subscription for yours is easy - just place a template on your project page.

If you want to respond to this canned message, please do so at my user talk page; I'm not watching this page. --B. Wolterding (talk) 18:16, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Media franchises
Dear WikiProject Transformers participants...WikiProject Media franchises needs some help from other projects which are similar. Media franchises' scope deals primarily with the coordination of articles within the hundreds if not thousands of media franchises which exist. Sometimes a franchise might just need color coordination of the various templates used; it could mean creating an article for the franchise as a jump off point for the children of it; or the creation of a new templating system for media franchise articles. The project primarily focuses on multimedia franchises. It would be great if some of this project's participants would come over and help the project get back on solid footing. Also, if you know of similar projects which have not received this, let know. Please come and take a look at the project and see if you wish to lend a hand. You can sign up here if you wish. Thank you. LA @ 21:44, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

VF-1 Valkyrie
The VF-1 Valkyrie article was prodded, I deprodded it because it's the basis of the Transformers character and toy Skyfire and so is somewhat notable. 70.51.11.210 (talk) 07:52, 15 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Its acutally Jetfire, not Skyfire. SherminatorPrime My Talk Page! 22:21, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Franchise naming convention discussion at WikiProject Media franchises
Dear WikiProject Transformers participants...WikiProject Media franchises is currently discussing a naming convention for franchise articles. Since this may affect one or more articles in your project, we would like to get the opinions of all related projects before implimenting any sweeping changes. Please come and help us decide. Thanks! LA (T) @ 23:04, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Since Transformers is a franchise from the Hasbro/Takara world, I see this as a good thing, and am all for doing this. Yes, it will take some time, but if you look at it though in a larger perspective, this will make it easier to link everything together; no arguing about where one thing goes and where one thing doesn't go. SherminatorPrime My Talk Page 22:18, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Optimus Prime needs to be consolidated
Not only does the main article Optimus Prime needs to be greatly trimmed and rewritten from scratch, but there are three other articles about Optimus prime, and there should be only one. There is no reason these four articles cant be trimmed down to a good article. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 04:29, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Character article clean up
All Transformer character articles need serious clean up and rewrites. As I stated in mine and the Megatron talk pages all the current articles feature nothing but one long life story and fan cruft which are Wikipedia violations. This is an encyclopedia, not a biography or a character shine. This article and some of the G1 characters are the only notable characters within the franchise. Characters like Thunderblast are not notable and are not entitled to their own article. The important aspect that help the foundation of an article are real world content. Which is development and reception or their cultural impact. These are the section that are needed for this and other character articles: These are all the thing that are needed with development and reception sections. They are a must before it can be called an article. Otherwise, they should be merged or redirected into some kind of character list. At the moment I am currently in the progress of rewriting the Megatron article as he is clearly the most iconic Decepticon within the series. Hopefully other editors will follow my lead and make the same kind of changes to other Transformer character articles. Any thoughts? Sarujo (talk) 09:11, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * A good intro paragraph
 * A development section discussing the creation of the character
 * A personality section discussing the characters attitudes and feelings
 * A abilities section discussing the characters powers and attributes or in this case what item the character transforms into.
 * A "very brief" history of the character, no more than a paragraph at the most
 * A other media section, discussing official and some unofficial appearances the character has made.
 * A reception section discussing the character's cultural impact and fan reception.
 * A reference section to list all the reference tags.

Saeujo, can you be more careful when splitting articles? I had to go fix Cliffjumper. You ended up making one article have no Categories, the other one had wrong ones, and the pictures had non-free tags which pointed at the wrong articles. If you need help let me know. Mathewignash (talk) 22:46, 1 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I was in a hurry.


 * I would like point out that I'm still working on my rework on the Megatron article. I have done alot of work on it and have removed all fan cruft that was holding it back. Such as the toy list and details in comics. But I fear that this may cause some controversy. Any thoughts? Sarujo (talk) 17:09, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of Defensor page
The page Defensor (Transformers) is up for deletion, feel free to go voice your opinion on it and save the page. Mathewignash (talk) 09:19, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Assessment?
Hey there. Just wondering, but has this project ever thought about adding an assessment scheme? Without it, articles from this project won't be featured in Wikipedia releases, such as the upcoming 0.7 and eventual 1.0. BOZ (talk) 04:49, 27 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I added assessent capability for Wikiproject Toys, so if you want to add WP Toys with a class and importance rating to anything in this project, you can now feel free to assess them for potential inclusion in future WP releases. :) BOZ (talk) 17:22, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Format of character heading for Unicron Trilogy characters.
This may be a bit hard to understand at first, but I'll do my best. I noticed that when a new section is inserted to correspond to a character of the same name for a new continuity, the heading is that of the show the first character appeared in. For example, heading #2 for Jetfire (I'll be using that page for example through most of this proposal) is listed as "Transformers: Armada". However, said section covers not only Armada, but also Energon and Cybertron as well. Consequently, the heading as it reads (Transformers: Armada) is not adequate to cover this incarnation of the character. I propose that we amend formatting details so that instead of Jetfire's page reading as "2 Transformers: Armada", we retitle it as "2 Unicron Trilogy", as that is the name proper that encompasses the Armada/Energon/Cybertron Universe.

This is not to say we edit all pages to read as such. For instance, Wheeljack, as he appeared in the UT, only appeared in Armada, so leaving his heading as "Armada" is sufficient. The previous paragraph would only apply to characters that appeared in two or all three installments of the trilogy (Red Alert, Hot Shot, Tidal Wave/Mirage, Landmine, etc...)

Your thoughts? Or still confused?

Flytrap (talk) 03:47, 8 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I vote we leave the heading as the first series that a character appeared in. We have many characters who share one name, and are in the Unicron Trilogy, like Downshift or Crumplezone. We call the Mini-Con Downshift "Armada" and the Autobot "Energon" - even if they appeared in multiple series, we know them by where they started. Mathewignash (talk) 00:13, 15 December 2008 (UTC)


 * In those two examples, I agree. However, with prominent characters like Jetfire and Hot Shot (in which it is the same character in multiple series), I think it more appropriate to label by continuity as it is a more all-encompassing term.Flytrap (talk) 08:32, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Proposed Deletions
The pages Override (Transformers), Motormaster, Terranotron and Airraptor are all up for Deletion. Feel free to try to add material to them or vote to save them. Mathewignash (talk) 00:14, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Vok has also been nominated. 76.66.195.159 (talk) 08:13, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

"the name of"
Could people please stop introducing Transformers characters as "the name of" a fictional character? The articles are supposed to be describing the actual character, not just his name! How would you feel if the article about Optimus Prime consisted of the following?

Optimus Prime
"Optimus Prime" is a name consisting of two words. The first word, "Optimus", is Latin for "the best". The second word, "Prime", is an English word with multiple meanings. It usually means "the first", but in the context of mathematics, it relates to a prime number, a number divisible only by itself and 1. This mixture of languages is uncommon in proper names.

In popular culture

 * "Optimus Prime" was used as the name of the leader of the Autobots in the Transformers toyline.

The one place, the only place, where I can see "the name of" being even remotely acceptable, is where several, entirely unrelated, Transformers characters share the same name. And by "entirely unrelated", I mean just that, i.e. no character has been named after, or in the honour, of any other, instead the only reason for the same name is sheer coincidence, or because Hasbro needed to preserve their trademark. J I P | Talk 21:01, 15 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I am guilty of that. I didn't know it was a problem. If that's what the proper Wikipeida style calls for, I'll do it this way. Mathewignash (talk) 22:27, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks. J I P  | Talk 20:32, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Leo Prime/Lio Convoy
Leo Prime and Lio Convoy should once again be merged. The new Classics Universe Leo Prime figure is a Maximal and sports a bio that makes him the same character as Lio Convoy:

''LEO PRIME is a career soldier, commander of an elite MAXIMAL black ops unit designated The Pack. So secret is his unit, even most of those in the MAXIMAL Command structure are aware of it only as a rumor. LEO PRIME and his comrades The Pack travel wherever trouble is thickest, often working undercover to deal crippling blows to PREDACON plots.''

The box even contains a time line placing the character from the Beast Wars. Clearly this biography connects the figure to the character from the Beast Wars Gathering and Ascending comics. Clearly, they are in fact the same characters. You can read the bio and the time line here: .--TriPredRavage (talk) 21:26, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Yep, it's official. Thanks for the work. Mathewignash (talk) 14:31, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Beast Wars
I'm not a member of this project, but probably will be one day. I wanted to start a discussion on Beast Wars. If anyone has a problem with creating the episodes for the television series and trying to get them to GA or maybe FA, just like similar projects do with South Park and the Simpsons. I'll be glad to do them. That is one thing I would like to do if I join the project. I'm sure there are plenty of sources and each episode is notable.-- Will C --- ( What the F*** have you done lately???!! ) 22:04, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

English vs Japanese
I'm fully in support of using original names whenever possible, so I am not promoting the idea of renaming the Optimus Prime into Convoy. However, when a character was originally conceived for the Japanese media, such as most of the cast of Masterforce and Victory, the Japanese names should be used. Takeshi357 (talk) 21:26, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

That's alright and good in some cases, but then you consider situations such the Unicron Trilogy. Refering to Optimus Prime as either Convoy, Grand Convoy, or Galaxy Convoy is rather ridiculous because he has an English name. That's why when there is a character from a series such as Victory, or Masterforce that doesn't have an English name, that's the way we roll, Japanese all the way, but when there is an English name available, that's what we go with. Certain exceptions exist, obviously, like Overlord/Gigatron as the figure has been marketed as both names, but that's not because one's the Japanese name and ones the English name, they're both the English names. But like I said, we go all the way with the Japanese names provided there is no English name to speak of. Such as Signal Lancer. Despite that he still appeared in the English dub of Galaxy Force, Cybertron, he went unnamed, so we all just call him Signal Lancer.--TriPredRavage (talk) 21:53, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Well Unicron trilogy is more of an exception due to the three shows being US/JP co-productions, in which case both English and Japanese names stand on pretty much equal grounds. In the other hand, Overlord was released in Europe under that name as well thus making that name just as "official" english name as Gigatron. I think suddenly renaming every instance of "Overlord" to "Gigatron" because of a single toy as opposed to a whole cartoon series and years under the old name would be like changing "Hi Q" to "Ginrai" because the reissue had the Powermaster figure under that name instead. Or claiming that Unicron is a decepticon because the Cybertron toy was released in a Decepticon-themed box... Takeshi357 (talk) 13:56, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm all for listing under the ENGLISH name if it exists, and the Japanese if it it's the only name. These pages are written in English. All proper notes and redirects are listed for non-english names though. Mathewignash (talk) 00:17, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Trying to avoid an edit war on alt mode models
There is a page for Landquake who turns into a tank. The article mentions the particular tank model (specifically a Flugabwehrkanonenpanzer Gepard, yes, that's a real name!) I even have sources cited saying it's that model tank. There is a user who keeps editing the page to say simply it's a "tank" and removing any reference to the model. His arguement is that the model of tank is irrelevant. While it's certainly not very important, it's consistrant with the example of given on the Transformers project main page for G1 Optimus Prime, saying he turns into a "Late 1970s Freightliner 18-wheeled tractor-trailer." Going by the standard of this user we could justs say Optimus is a "truck" and move on. I wanted other users opinions on this. Should alt mode descriptions be specific where possible, or should we keep them general? Mathewignash (talk) 17:40, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
 * WRONG. MI, stopping lying. All it says it that it LOOKS like a Gepard. If we said Optimus turns into what looks like a 'Late 1970s Freightliner 18-wheeled tractor-trailer', by my estimate, would we allow that? --Bold Clone (talk) 17:48, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Fine, we can remove "looks like". Happy? Except for the Transformers that say they are liscensed models of Vipers and such, we don't know for sure what any of them really are. How do we know G1 Bumblebee is a VW Bug? It doesn't SAY it on the package does it? We just know by looking at it and looking at a VW bug. Mathewignash (talk) 17:59, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
 * So you think he turns into a Gepard, but you put 'looks similar to' simply 'cause of the color changes? --Bold Clone (talk) 18:00, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

GA reassessment of The Transformers (IDW Publishing)
I have conducted a reassessment of the article as part of the GA sweeps process. I have found some issues with the referencing which need to be addressed if the article is to maintain its GA status. They can be found at Talk:The Transformers (IDW Publishing)/GA1. Thanks. Jezhotwells (talk) 16:05, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Table of contents
Pages such as Optimus Prime and Bumblebee (Transformers) have very long tables of content. However, when is inserted, it doesn't necessarily look quite right either, due to the text being squished by the TOC. What do you guys think? I hate to see all of that dead space at the top of articles because of the TOC.--Flash176 (talk) 04:48, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm happier with what they are now, but if you think there are other ways to improve it, please suggest them. Always looking to improve. Mathewignash (talk) 12:03, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Dauros deletion talk
There is currently talk as to whether to delete the page for the Transformers character Dauros from the series Masterforce. Feel free to chime in to save page, or add material to it so it's more complete. Thanks! Mathewignash (talk) 23:19, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Other projects have a deletion page for things currently at the AFD
Should there be a page called http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Transformers ? Other WikiProjects have them. Currently Transformers up for deletion are listed in the Anime and Manga page for deletions, as well as the fictional element's page. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Anime_and_manga Drag Strip and Dauros are currently at the top of that list. Since one participate has already stated their opinion that "just about every single Transformers article should be deleted", I doubt these will be the only pages up for nomination in the future.  D r e a m Focus  19:09, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The same guy who is trying to delete this page tried to delete Motormaster a while back, and it didn't get deleted, but it was close. Currently the page Tailgate (Transformers) is also being nominated for deletion. I need to add more into to it to make it a bit more defendable. It's very basic. Mathewignash (talk) 01:35, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I went ahead and created [a page listing all Transformer articles up for deletion] yesterday. There are currently five that I noticed and added to the list.  Should a link to it be on the main project article page somewhere?   D r e a m Focus  16:05, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

My thoughts on this project
I think the members need to focus on important Transformers more than the lesser ones. Wikipedia will never be a guide to every Transformer. It's not logical or realistic to have articles for every character. Every character isn't instantly notable just because Transformers is. Other popular series (such as Harry Potter and Pokemon) don't have character articles for everyone, Transformers is no exception. I would gladly help out in merge discussions when I can. Lesser characters are usually fine in lists, so I think a merge would be a better route in many cases (compared to a drawn out AFD where people say "it's notable", "no it's not" and so on). I also suggest someone mentor Mathewignash on policies (sourcing for one thing, and for another: arguments to avoid in deletion discussions), because many of his AFD comments have just leaned towards "I like it" and other things that should be avoided. RobJ1981 (talk) 21:25, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Also I want to point out, I've requested help from the Comic Project here: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Comics, as many Transformers comics have existed over the years. RobJ1981 (talk) 04:01, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not paper. There is no limit in space, so no reason not to have articles for everything.  The mass destruction of character articles across many series never ceases, even those which have been around for years.  You gain nothing by such mindless destruction.   D r e a m Focus  00:23, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The problem I have is people deleting works in progress and stubs based on them not having enough info to justify their existance. They are WORKS IN PROGRESS. How will people ever complete them if people just keep deleting them before they are done? Mathewignash (talk) 13:26, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Works in progess can't be magically improved by sources that don't exist. Just because it's a stub doesn't mean it must be saved because it's "not complete" or it's "too small". Sourcing is still my main issue here. This isn't just mindless destruction, so don't make rude accustations like that. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a guide to everything you think it is. Notability and sourcing policies should be followed, not ignored. RobJ1981 (talk) 23:57, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Chiming in because of a comment left at the comics project talk page. Some day, and possibly some day soon, the majority of the transformers character articles will stop being stand alone articles.  There are a couple of options.  Do nothing, and maybe another fan will come along and make wonderful lists of characters.  Or, someone else will come along and do it with less love.  Or, you can do it yourself.  Then when someone wants to force a cleanup, or nominates an article for AfD, you can say "we're working on it, it's a big job, give us time."  And  most likely you, will be given  time.  It's also helpful to create a good article every so often to show that's the direction the project is going in.  I work a lot over at WikiProject Dungeons & Dragons.  The project went the less love direction, and although we fought the deletionists (or whatever) to a standstill, it destroyed the project and it went inactive for about a year.  So, about 1750 poorly written (as far as wikipedia's rules go) articles just sat.  Now we try and create a Good Article every couple months, and try and merge a few articles to a list each month.  You do that, and you'll be left alone.  I don't know who works on Transformers articles, but this may or may not work for you.  Out of maybe 100 DnD editors, it turns out only about 4 were interested in doing this kind of thing, although we've grown to maybe 8 since then.  I do not say this to be a jerk, just saying what I've seen (at other projects as well: Pokemon, TV, Anime n Manga, etc.)  If I see a Transformers article at AfD, you can be sure I'll vote keep. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 03:06, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Peregrine, you make some good points. However just voting keep in AFDs isn't the correct way to go. Things need sourcing and need to be notable. Every Transformer isn't automatically notable just because the series is. As I said above: popular subjects such as Harry Potter and Pokemon don't have stand alone articles for everyone, which is the correct way to deal with Transformers as well. People can claim all stubs are "not complete", but that seems more like an excuse than a reason. No articles are ever complete on Wikipedia, otherwise admins would lock the article from edits and say "No more edits, it's complete!" and so on. "Give me more time" is usually an excuse as well, because people get plenty of time and articles still don't get improved. Then they get sent to AFD or merged anyway, which has happened a lot on Wikipedia. While there is no time limit on edit articles, that doesn't mean people should never nominate articles for deletion or merge things. RobJ1981 (talk) 04:15, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * You may be the man to do it, I don't know. I just prefer the collaborative way we try to do it at the DnD wikiproject.  I've created a bunch of DnD GAs and FAs, voted keep on a bunch of DnD AfDs, and after doing all that, I feel I have the respect of other DnD editors, and knowledge of available sources, to then merge some articles.  Just my feelings, and I'm lucky to a part of a project that works this way.  You may be a pure clean-up type of guy, which is commons, and my preferred way won't work for you. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 04:36, 18 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Most people are fine with the Transformer articles as they are. Improve them if you want, but don't delete them.  Its just a very small number of people who nominate thousands of character articles for deletion every year, that hate all character articles, and want to eliminate them from Wikipedia any chance they get.  What we need to do is go to the Notability guideline page, and change it so that is not used as an excuse to delete something simply because the elitists consider it fancruft, or are concerned Wikipedia won't be taken seriously by other snobs if has too many articles that us lowly common people like.  There has never been a general vote on rules.  Its all just whoever camps out on those pages the longest, reverting others and adding in whatever they want, and arguing until the other side gives up in frustration.   D r e a m Focus  01:55, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Clarification of Bonecrusher in Revenge of the Fallen
As you may know, everyone who saw Revenge of the Fallen a couple of times could swear they saw Bonecrusher in the battle in Egypt, in both robot and vehicle modes. Seeing this, and to provide clarification on whether the character is featured in the movie, I made this addition to Bonecrusher's article. Note that the edit does NOT imply the robot as being Bonecrusher himself, but limits itself to mentioning the appearance of a lookalike of his. Besides the informative one, this serves a double purpose, avoiding potential editors who may think the article is just missing the information and in good faith add it as it in fact being Bonecrusher. Also, there's a neutral mention of his toy bio posing the possibility of him being alive. This said, my changes keep getting reverted by a single user who considers the mention not worthy plainly on the grounds that we don't know it's Bonecrusher. Anyone care to participate in this discussion will be welcome. --uKER (talk) 00:07, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The look-alike is mentioned on the page. His appearance in the film, however, is very insignificant and therefore does not merit its own section.  He is described as such: a look-alike because we do not officially know if the character is Bonecrusher or not; the Jungle Bonecrusher figure bio is does not offer any evidence to support that the look-alike in RotF is Bonecrusher.  There are several look-alike characters in RotF, including Grindor (who looks like Blackout), and all of the other proto-Decepticons who all look alike.  We do not have the evidence to support this character's being Bonecrusher.  Again, he is mentioned on the page and is specified to be a character resembling Bonecrusher.  Until we have further information on the character (possibly mentioned in a comentary or some feature of the DVD), there is no evidence to support that they are one-in-the-same.--TriPredRavage (talk) 00:20, 17 September 2009 (UTC)


 * It can be Megatron with a costume for all I care. It's just not right that people see what they swear is Bonecrusher in the movie, and when they look through the article they don't even find a RotF section that provides the corresponding clarification. And again, Grindor is THE ONLY lookalike of a characterized robot to ever be featured in RotF. --uKER (talk) 14:35, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
 * That doesn't provide a solution or anything. Like I've said.  The page does mention the look-alike in the '07 Film section.  Just because it doesn't have a RotF section is pointless as the character's minor and insignifican't appearance doesn't merit one.  It is worth mentioning, and is mentioned on the page.  It needs to be corrected once the lock is removed, but it is there.
 * Also, we have no official evidence to support that Grindor is the only look-alike. Pretty much every 'Con that lands is a look-alike to one another. We have no evidence to support that this character is not a look-alike to Bonecrusher itself.
 * As this argument goes on, I'm beginning to lose sight of what your point is. Is it that the look-alike doesn't have his own section?  Or is it that we aren't clarifying that the look-alike is Bonecrusher?
 * In any case, again, we officially do not know if it is Bonecrusher, and he is mentioned on the page. Sure not under his own section, but his appearance is so insignificant it doesn't need one.  Also, seeing as we don't know that it isn't a seperate character, it further doesn't merit its own section, as it's pretty much akin to a cameo.  Unlike the dog, which is a seperate TFMovie-Universe character.  Much like  Rad, where there is both a robot and a human character by the name, the dog is a seperate character and merits its own section on the page.--TriPredRavage (talk) 20:34, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
 * YOU ARE WRONG. All the unidentified robots that land are dummies with no earth modes. Again, if you say there's more clones of characterized (ie with earth modes) robots besides Grindor then spot one. --uKER (talk) 22:41, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay, another look-alike? I'll give you several: the majority of the Constructicons.  There were multiples of Rampage, Long Haul, Mixmaster, etc...  Is that enough?  Grindor and Blackout were identical, but they were different characters.  Scavenger and Demolishor were identical and were different characters.
 * And, I'm not quite sure what you mean by the protoform Decepticons being dummies. But it still stands that they were identical.  Given these examples, it stands to reason that the character who appears in RotF may not be Bonecrusher.  We have no evidence to support that it is and not somebody else sharing his alt mode as so many other 'Cons do in RotF.
 * So, as I've said, the look-alike merits being mentioned, and is, but does not deserve his own section as he has an insignificant role in the film and we do not actually know if it is in fact Bonecrusher.--TriPredRavage (talk) 23:01, 17 September 2009 (UTC)


 * LOL. Duplicate constructicons? That's just the fanboy inside you wanting to convince itself that Devastator's components could turn into robots. Moreover, there is no signs of such thing as Scavenger in the RotF movie. Now what movie did you see? --uKER (talk) 23:55, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
 * You're kidding, right? The evidence is the name of the individual components, which we do know because of their RotF figures.  I can't belive you are still arguing this.  In any case, you can read about the RotF Constructicons, and see there names, and read about there duplicates here--TriPredRavage (talk) 00:04, 18 September 2009 (UTC)