Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Transformers/Archive 4

WTFork
I'm astonished to see that so much trivia, plot summary and general cruft (yeah, I said it) has seeped into character/toy articles that there are entire content forks for "other incarnations". Can someone tell me what the cutoff was for the 22 versions at Megatron that the 7 sitting at Megatron (other incarnations) didn't meet? Folks, the character articles need substantial trimming, not expansion. This wikiproject's walled garden really needs trimming. I'll probably set to work on it in the near future. Hope there are other able and willing volunteers. --EEMIV (talk) 02:34, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Though I'm no expert, the plot summaries, as well as the toy sections (see below), seem to be a bit too long, detailed and in-universe for Wikipedia, and are probably a primary reason why we have the "other incarnations" pages in the first place. I'm guessing that User:Mathewignash seems to be doing most of this kind of editing, at least on the Megatron page, from what I've seen on its edit history. Anyone want to prune down the articles so we don't need the "other incarnations" pages anymore for the 7 or so characters that have them?--Eh! Steve (talk) 21:48, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Toy sections
I somehow feel that the toy sections on Transformers character pages aren't really appropriate for Wikipedia since they're too detailed and hardly consist of encyclopedic content. Who thinks that we should just get rid of the toy sections, or at least modify them to give a brief history of the character's appearance in the Transformers toy line instead of a detailed description of every single toy?--Eh! Steve (talk) 21:48, 15 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I do. The only toys worth mentioning are the original Diaclone and Microman figures within the character development section. Others like the Masterpiece and Classics are only worth an honorable mention as they are in commemoration or anniversary. The inclusion of the rest is purely fancruft. Sarujo (talk) 23:43, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

My cleanup suggestions
I have a few suggestions for cleaning up the Transformers pages. Anyone want to help?


 * The articles for lesser Transformers should be deleted; other WikiProjects just put all their lesser characters in lists. I mean, why do the Pokémon Lucario and the Star Wars character Cad Bane not have their own articles while the Transformer Poison Bite does, despite being a poorly-known toy-only character?


 * All pages, including the main Transformers character pages such as Megatron, need to be cleaned of trivia, toy sections, in-universe biographies and other nonsense. The only information on the template should be the character's faction, the character's main alternate modes, and the character's voice actors. Look at other fictional character pages, such as Wario and Gravemind, and you'll see that they're a lot better! There's a very noticeable difference in quality here; if we just worked together to fix up the Transformer pages, they could become just as good.


 * In addition, I think that the 7 or so "other incarnations" pages, such as Megatron (other incarnations), should be merged back into the main article pages once everything is condensed, and the templates should treat all incarnations as one character. Such pages seem to cause notability and bias issues in my view, and will be a lot easier won't really be necessary once the pages and templates are cleaned, as detailed above.


 * On the other hand, characters completely unrelated or clearly distinct from the G1 (or original/most prominent) version of a character shouldn't be on the same page. For example, Beast Wars Soundwave is unrelated to all other Soundwave's, which consist of the famous G1 version and several characters based on this incarnation. IMO, BW Soundwave (and similar "in-name-only") characters should be moved to their own pages or article lists, and it would be good if we found some way to determine how much of an "alternate version" of the original character a Transformers character is.

Anyone with me? - Eh! Steve (talk) 14:45, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

I just about completely disagree with everything you say. Mathewignash (talk) 16:21, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Not saying you're wrong or anything, but in my opinion, all the stuff "affecting" the Transformers articles right now is much better suited for TFWiki and "in-universe" encyclopedias like that. For that reason, I actually prefer TFWiki for Transformers info.--Eh! Steve (talk) 23:03, 26 October 2009 (UTC)


 * These all looks like very reasonable suggestions. If I knew more about Transformers beyond G1, I might have more of my own. But, right now the Transformers articles are a wash of WP:NFCC and WP:IINFO (esp. the "catalog" piece) violations. --EEMIV (talk) 17:30, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
 * For now, when I have time, I'll edit those pages to better match the pages for other fictional characters, like Batman - i.e. they'll be primarily about the G1 incarnations, but more about the character in general, with some information on other incarnations. The forking just seems like an excuse for the rabid "Ruined FOREVER" subset of G1 fans to tip bias, facts and undisambiguated article names in their favor - rather than to provide actual encyclopedic content about Transformers. I know the forking was due to length, but the unreasonable length of the pages was probably due to that very thing. I mean, no offense to G1 and its fans (I know most of them aren't like that regardless of their opinion), as I myself am a new fan of G1...
 * Also, maybe we should hold a vote to see who wants to get rid of the toy sections. The G.I. Joe pages don't even have them!--Eh! Steve (talk) 23:03, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I would say that if you know little knowledge of a series it wouldn't make much sense fro you to be the one deciding which characters are important enough to keep and which are unimportant. What you might call "trivia" for removal, I would argue is often times important proof of a character being important outside the fiction itself - things like the fact that the Autobot Landmine is on display in the Disney Pop Century hotel in their display of pop culture of the 80s make the characters noteable outside his appearance in a Marvel Comic book or Sears toy catalog. It should also be noted that many of the characters sharing the name Megatron are not even Megatrons in their original fiction. The Megatron of Robots in Disguise is actually a translation of the Japanese Anime Car Robots character Gigatron, who is NOT related to Megatron in any way. Trying to merge the articles on them just because Hasbro decided to reuse a legacy name is silly at best. To take it to an extreme.., it would be like merging articles on the "Six Million Sollar man" with a "Stone Cold" wrestler because they are both named Steve Austin. My personal rants aside, if you want to truely improve (not RAZE) the articles by cutting fluff, I'll be willing to help as much as I can and I won't just arbatrarely try revert the work, but make suggestions if I seem something that could be done better. I'm sorta glad someone is taking interest in the project, at least. I might suggest instead deleting info right off, add tags looking for cititations, or suggestion articles be condensed first. I admit, I wrote some long winded plot synopsises. Mathewignash (talk) 23:40, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Stuff like Landmine toys in museums is important, and I agree. Rather, the trivia I'm talking about is useless stuff, such as "Ultra Magnus is so-and-so tall. He weighs so-and-so tons, has so-and-so primary weapon, and so-and-so secondary weapon. This Ultra Magnus toy is at so-and-so scale because it is so-and-so long, while this other Ultra Magnus toy is at so-and-so scale", and so on - as well as the entire toy sections. That's why I think the toy sections should be taken out entirely, or at least condensed to give a history of the character's appearance in the toyline.
 * As for merging, taking your ideas into consideration... RID Megatron already shares a page with other Megatrons that are clearly re-imaginings of G1 Megs, like the Bayformer version. I already addressed a similar problem when I mentioned how BW Soundwave is absolutely not another incarnation of G1 Soundwave. Such characters should be moved to their own page, or to lists if they aren't major players of any sort; this will be a lot easier if people stop deciding to give every single character their own full entry. My "specific merging" idea will probably be too difficult to work out. Just in case, I think that, were all the Megs pages to get re-merged, the main Megatron article should be about the G1 version and characters that are clearly based on this incarnation, which include Unicron Trilogy, Movie, Animated, etc. BW Megs (being a separate character) and RID Megs (not originally being a Megatron) should be the ones to not share a page with the original.
 * I too admit that my plans probably have some flaws in them, and I'd be more than happy to have people point them out.--Eh! Steve (talk) 00:09, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The reason the Megatron have the pages they are on is simple evolution taking over a page instead of pre-planning. They all started on one page, the as the Beast Wars and Unicron Trilogy were moved to seperate pages based on their size as well as being different from the G1 character. When the original page kept increasing in size all the non-G1 Megatrons who were left got their own page as "other incarnations". So now we have 4 Megatron pages. Most likely the best way I could think of doing it would simply make the main Megatron a simple disambig page, then put every Megatron who is worth a full page his own page, then put the rest together on an "others" page. The height and weight info is pretty common on many character pages and probably belongs in the description. Of course it could be worded in a more consistant and short fashion than making a big long explanation of scales and such. It could simply says "This XXX turns into a 1:64 scale M1-A1 tank." One line of explanation. Mathewignash (talk) 00:35, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

One thing I've been trying to do new lately is to get books from the library on anime and toy collecting, finding Transformers shows or toys mentioned in them, and citing those as sources for info on Wikipedia. A character like Metalhawk may be trivial to Mainstream American, but he was one of the heroes of a popular Japanese anime spinoff of the Transformers called Masterforce. If I find a book about him and cite it, it makes the article more noteable. Some help I could use is if someone could walk me though citing these books properly. Right now most Tf articles just cite fan web pages, which are easily challanged unreliable sources. Mathewignash (talk) 00:47, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I can probably help, since I've been taking courses where I learned to cite using the APA and MLA styles, but I'm not sure which is appropriate for Wikipedia. Also, as for the page move idea, sure, why not? This will solve the "G1 bias" issue that I sloppily tried to correct the other day using infodump (which I should have noticed); however, there's still the bigger problem of the page content itself and notability - once again, including the toy sections. Nevertheless, if this idea goes through, what would a good disambiguator be? I suggested "Optimus Prime (G1)" before (using TFWiki's naming system) but it turned out to not be very good, as things like G2 and IDW are not explicitly labeled as "Generation 1"; maybe "Optimus Prime (The Transformers)" would be a better catch-all term, since most of the G1 continuity family is labeled as such (with the "The"), or possibly "Optimus Prime (original)"? Also, if the pages ever become short enough to just be merged back into one page again, then I think that should be done, regardless of whether the aforementioned disambiguation idea is used or not.--Eh! Steve (talk) 19:47, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * For Megatron it seems there are things outside Transformers called Megatron, so the Megatron page maybe could be a disambig page. Then again the non-Transformers Megatron things might be so minor that they don't really deserve a disambig page, in which case I'd start the article with the disambig (including links to the other Megatron pages), then put the G1 stuff underneith it. While I wouldn't delete the toys pages, I would trim them up a bit. I worked on trimming the main Megatron page last ngiht and removed 4000 characters from it with no real loss in important information. I will continue to do so, and take a crack at Optimus Prime. Mathewignash (talk) 20:47, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks, the article's a lot better now! Although there's still other problems like unsourced information and notability issues (Poison Bite's page is still up...), there's a big difference in quality between the page now and how it was a month ago. As for the disambig, Megatron (disambiguation) already exists, so maybe that could be moved to the page just named "Megatron", since lots of disambig pages don't have disambiguators themselves (take a look at pages like Chekhov). I don't see why the presence of other, minor non-Transformers "Megatron" pages would be a problem. If the main "Megatron" page stays the same though, I find that it should be made more like the Batman and Superman pages, which are mostly about the comic incarnations but contain information on their other appearances, and are therfore about the "Batman" and "Superman" characters as a whole. If the Megatron/Prime/Ultra Magnus/Rodimus etc. pages did the same (mostly about G1 but the article, in general, is about all incarnations in general), then the "G1 bias" thing would be far less of a problem. --Eh! Steve (talk) 03:23, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
 * As for the "low-notability" character pages, maybe I should nominate them for deletion and see what other people think sometime... --Eh! Steve (talk) 03:26, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd prefer you didn't nominate articles for deletion, since you admittedly don't know Transformers that well. Many are works in progress. You can post to them that they need cleanup, additional sources, etc. In the mean time they don't hurt anything to simply exist. Mathewignash (talk) 12:28, 29 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Oh look, someone above's posted a list of things to do to improve the articles some time ago! Maybe I should repost it here:
 * "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." --Eh! Steve (talk) 04:02, 29 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I guess I'll go move the pages now, if anyone thinks it isn't a good idea (for example, if the disambiguator isn't good or if, for some reason, someone still thinks that the G1 character deserves a page all to themselves), then post here.--Eh! Steve (talk) 13:10, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Your move has a problem, all Transformers articles are in NAME (Transformers) not NAME (The Transformers). Please fix it. Mathewignash (talk) 13:25, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I made a move request at Talk:Optimus Prime (disambiguation). The reason why I chose (The Transformers) as a possible disambiguator is because almost all G1-related material carries that title (with the "The"), and material from other Transformers universes doesn't. I also suggested (original) as a possible alternative.--Eh! Steve (talk) 14:02, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

I moved the four articles to name (Transformers) where they belonged, fixed the disambig links, and fixed all the broken links you left on the image fair use rationals. Mathewignash (talk) 15:13, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

WP 1.0 bot announcement
This message is being sent to each WikiProject that participates in the WP 1.0 assessment system. On Saturday, January 23, 2010, the WP 1.0 bot will be upgraded. Your project does not need to take any action, but the appearance of your project's summary table will change. The upgrade will make many new, optional features available to all WikiProjects. Additional information is available at the WP 1.0 project homepage. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 04:05, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Is this project alive?
I see essentially no activity on this talk page since October 2009, half a year ago.

I came here because I did an analysis of Soundwave (Transformers) references at Wikipedia_talk:Non-free_content, and found some rather upsetting results. Is anyone watching here? --Hammersoft (talk) 20:49, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Echo? --Hammersoft (talk) 16:31, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I check in every once in a while. This project still has a pulse but not a very strong one.-- Will C  04:36, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Just ran into a familiar name and trailed my way back here. It appears the most active contributors to Transformers-related content are overloading articles with cruft, product-directory trivia, and other unencyclopedic content. *sigh* I honestly don't know where to begin. --EEMIV (talk) 23:09, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Trying to actually help and not randomly deleting things is a good start. I find many editors who claimed to trying to make wiki encyclopedic, but in reality are just looking for excuses to delete pages and harass actual contributors. I add what I can from time to time, but there are so few people willing to help. (76.19.251.152 (talk) 00:57, 18 August 2010 (UTC))
 * Can I help you? Mathewignash (talk) 00:51, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

BWTF
Can someone active in this wikiproject off an assessment of whether bwtf.com can be considered a WP:RS -- or, rather, a worthwhile source -- for the purposes of a product review? Is there significant editorial oversight, or is this really just one amateur guy's incredibly intricate blog and web site? I'm trying to ascertain whether it is appropriate to cite this review in an article. --EEMIV (talk) 01:44, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, it is a worthwhile source. Mathewignash (talk) 01:58, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Articles for deletion
The following articles have been nominated for deletion: People are welcomed to properly discuss. NotARealWord (talk) 01:56, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Shokaract
 * Primon
 * Thunderblast
 * Oil Slick (Transformers)

The AFD for all the Transformer planet articles just ended, with all set to merge to a list article. Now they are making their rounds to other Transformer articles, and are unlikely to stop until most articles have been nominated and eliminated. Same thing has happened to other series, so be prepared. All ship articles have been nominated. Not sure what else is out there.  D r e a m Focus  10:06, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Ark (Transformers)
 * Steelhaven
 * Nemesis (Transformers)
 * Dark Side (Transformers)

Recently nominated for deletion: Help save them! Mathewignash (talk) 12:18, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Poison Bite
 * Scattor
 * Bad Boy (Gobots)
 * Coby Hansen
 * Dirt Rocket
 * You should not put "Help save them!". That's unhelpful behaviour. NotARealWord (talk) 13:17, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Improving Transformers articles is what this project is all about. Mathewignash (talk) 13:35, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Improving them, not indiscriminately making articles for stuff that does not meet Notability requirements. If you really love articles about Transformers, I suggest joining a Transformers-centric wiki. NotARealWord (talk) 13:49, 29 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I can't see the reason for deletion of those page. For Thunderblast, the content is, um, rich. As for Primon, it should be tagged as a stub instead of being nominating for deletion just because it is a short page. Also, being not notability is not a suitable reason. Take Ark or Nemesis for example, each of them is involved with the plot in the story, how can it be not notable? -- TX55   TALK  16:30, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Um, TX55, by notable, I meant Notability requirements. Primon is really obscure and little information at all exists. I don't know whether or not the Ark and Nemesis articles deserve removal and as for Thunderblast, "well written article" does not automatically make it worth keeping. See also: Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. NotARealWord (talk) 16:40, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The information was fine for years. No one ever voted to change the rules, most not even knowing what they are.  A small group bullies others into getting their way on the guideline pages.  They didn't like certain articles, so passed new rules to allow them to mass destroy them, having successfully done so one batch after another.  If enough people are around to notice and participate in an AFD, the article is sometimes saved, although always renominated later on, usually by the same group of people. WP:IAR Ignore all rules, and just do what you believe is best for the Wikipedia, which is of course having articles on it people will actually want to read, and those who don't want to see them will never notice them at all.   D r e a m Focus  18:13, 29 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Buzzsaw (Transformers) has now been nominated as well. Countless other articles have been replaced by a redirects by the same editor who seems to be nominating a lot of these.  More nominations are sure to follow.   D r e a m Focus  23:38, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Alice (Transformers) is up for deletion too. Mathewignash (talk) 23:56, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Oops, didn't see this section... See post at . Very important. — Code  Hydro  13:52, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Non-notable stuff
As mentioned earlier on this talk page, a lot of obscure Transformers characters get their own articles. Now, more have been nominated for deletion (see above). The time and effort spent to putting up information on non-notable Transformers-related topics here on Wikipedia would better be spent putting up that info on a Transformers-specific wiki. NotARealWord (talk) 13:33, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Updates to TV#MOS
I'm not sure how many people monitor WP:MOSTV or even WP:TV (the basic WikiProject for all of us), but we've been trying to get some feedback on additions to the TV Manual of Style. It largely has to do with the inclusion of "Overview" tables at the start of the page, the order in which season lists are presented (currently, there is no concrete order), and what is considered too much info for DVDs (i.e. should we be placing every detail about the box set in the article, from each interview to the aspect ratio, or should be keep it more generalized). Please see discussion at WT:MOSTV. Thank you.  BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  22:14, 29 August 2010 (UTC)